§ As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.
The trade or business of pension agent who offers to obtain or to, try and obtain pensions for other persons for payment or reward shall be illegal, and such agents shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not exceeding £50, or to imprisonment for not exceeding six months."—(Mr. Fell.)
§ Brought up, and read a first time.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)
in moving the Second Reading of the clause said the Bill contained no provision whatever in regard to pension agents. It had been found in practice in other countries that an undesirable class of persons had sprung up who followed a kind of profession or business as pension agents. They offered their services in helping people to obtain pensions in consideration of receiving reward or payment of some kind, or a share of the pensions obtained, or it might be the first year's pension. He did not wish to suggest that Clause 6 (old-age pensions to be inalienable) would not provide a certain amount of remedy against cases of that kind. But the provisions of that clause would not prevent the friends of people who might be likely to get pensions from offering to an agent £5, or some other sum, to get a pension for this or that person. He would suppose a case which would happen very frequently. In the case of an old woman, not strong-minded, an agent might go to her and ask her age. She might say, perfectly honestly, that she did not know her age. In reply to further questions by the agent the old woman might state that she was nearly seventy, and that she was born say, in London. The agent would then proceed to obtain a certificate of the woman's birth at Somerset House. He would produce it to the old woman as a certificate of her birth, and upon that he would take steps for obtaining a pension for her. He believed that that was the kind of case which arose in other countries where pensions were given. It was notorious that in the United States the business of pension agents had assumed large dimen- 1490 sions. It was really a scandal there, and in numerous cases the agents were paid the first year's pension for their services in obtaning the pension. That was a class of business which he was sure the Treasury would not wish to encourage in this country, but if it was once established, it would be very difficult indeed to stop it. Unless they passed some such clause as that which he proposed, it would not be possible for the Treasury to make regulations to prevent the evil which was certain to grow up.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was not so apprehensive of the danger referred to as the hon. Member seemed to be. The conditions in America were different. There an applicant had to put in some form of declaration that he was a veteran who had passed through the Civil War. It was a difficult and a complicated business which required a good deal of ingenuity, and he could quite understand that a business had grown up. But he did not think the business of pension agent had been set up in Germany, Denmark, the Colonies, or in any other country where there were old-age pension schemes. If the hon. Member had been able to quote cases from these countries, they would have been much more germane to the particular clause which he had proposed. If these pension agents were established in this country with a view, not of helping the population, but rather of circumventing the law, he thought it would be the duty of the Government to consider at an early stage whether something like what the hon. Member proposed should not be done, but he did not think that they should anticipate results such as those which had occurred in America. He thought the new clause they were now considering would affect people who were perfectly innocent. It would prevent applicants from getting the assistance of members of friendly societies with 1491 which they were connected. If they accepted this clause there was just a little danger of that kind of help being withheld. With all submission he did not think it would be wise to introduce such a clause into the Bill. There would be the very severe punishment for a crime which he did not think the hon. Member would find would really be committed in this country. And he did not think it was well to invent a new crime. For that and other reasons he thought that on the whole it was not desirable to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)
said he opposed the principle of this Amendment altogether. To accept it would be going back to ancient times. There were laws on the Statute-book which were obsolete, and much mischief might be done by their being brought into operation. He would point out. as an analogy, that Parliament passed a Workmen's Compensation Act in 1906 which was a continuation of the Act of 1897. They might as well not have passed that law so far as several hundred thousands of workmen were concerned, because they had not the assistance of trade unions or friendly societies to give them an opportunity of using the laws which Parliament had put on the Statute-book, and which had, therefore, become utterly inoperative to those who had not a society behind them. There had grown up a number of legal-aid societies, legitimately established for the purpose of assisting the vast number of men who were not members of trade unions or other friendly societies. What mischief had been done by those legal-aid societies? None. The societies were paid by results; the County Court Judges knew of their existence and saw no harm in them. If a poor widow, so graphically pictured by the hon. Member, did get a pension by the aid of a pension agent, what harm would be done? She would not get the pension if she had not some right to it, and if she was aided in getting the pension by a pension agent that pension agent was doing good work both for her and the country, for she would not have been able to establish her title to the pension by her own unaided resources. The Amendment 1492 would revert to an obsolete principle, and he opposed its incorporation into the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said that the clause which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth proposed would in no way prevent a trade union or friendly society from rendering legal assistance in establishing a claim to a pension. The clause was only directed against offers to obtain a pension for reward or pecuniary recompense. The hon. Member for Kildare had drawn attention to the fact that under the Workmen's Compensation Acts a large number of people came forward to urge the claims of workmen who had been injured which they thought ought to come under those Acts. He had had some experience of the working of those Acts and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him when he said that there were a certain number of solicitors who made it a business to go to men who were injured and prevent them accepting legitimate compensation from their employers because they said that if they took the case up and went into Court they would get higher compensation. The result was that these injured men frequently lost what they might have gained but for the intervention of the solicitor, while in other cases men got compensation to which they were not entitled. There were solicitors who induced people to make exaggerated claims under the Acts, and those who suffered were the great employers. In the case of pensions, however, it would be the Treasury and hence the taxpayers who would suffer, because there would be more chance of sympathy being shown to a person who was anxious to obtain a pension illegally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a most extraordinary reason for opposing the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in other countries, and he instanced Germany, there were no such regulation as that proposed in the Amendment. But in Germany there was a contributory pension system, and the man had a right to his pension. Here they had no right to a pension, and it was, therefore, necessary that something of the sort embodied in the Amendment should be passed. The 1493 Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the case of America where people obtained pensions to which they had no right. There was not the slightest doubt that the same thing would occur here unless they had a clause of this sort in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Preston had said, under this Bill the biggest liar would get the biggest pension; and it was to prevent that that his hon. friend had brought forward this clause He was inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on further consideration, would withdraw his objection to the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had not brought forward a single fact to show that the clause would not be operative. Indeed, he had admitted that in his opinion it might be necessary to introduce such a clause, but that it would not be desirable to do so now because it might give what he called a statutory hint to people to start this business. That would not be necessary, because in these bad times when it was very difficult to get a livelihood of any description at all, there would be any number of people on the look out for such business. Besides, the hint would already have been given through the Press describing the clause moved by his hon. friend. He believed that in the interests of economy it would be necessary to have some clause in the Bill to this effect; and at any rate it could not do any harm to anybody. It had been said that it would prevent any friendly society or any person actuated by benevolent motives or any person having an interest in the claim for a pension acting legitimately for reward; but all that his hon. friend wanted was to prevent a business being set up by persons who would enter into a stipulation with a claimant that he could get him a pension of £13 if he would give him so much a year out of it for doing so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that in America a claimant for a pension had to prove that he was descended from one who had been in the war; but here the case was that the claimant had to prove his or her age. In Ireland there was no compulsory registration, until 1860, so that there was at once an immense opportunity for fraud. Then a man had to prove that he had worked according to his 1494 opportunities and needs. There was nothing to prevent a man coming forward and saying that he would prove it if the claimant shared with him his old-age pension. Of course, that man could not legally recover the money promised by the recipient of the pension, but there might be any number of occasions whereby an extremely clever man might throw dust in the eyes of the Imperial officer who was to be the sole arbitrator in the case for the President of the Local Government Board. For it must be remembered that the President of the Local Government Board had a large amount of business to transact, his mind was occupied in other directions, and, therefore, he could not give the necessary attention to circumvent applications of that sort. He earnestly hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a little more consideration to this clause and allow it at any rate to have a Second Reading so that, if necessary, they might amend the clause in Committee and make it palatable to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)
hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider his decision. This was a practical difficulty that had to be met, not an imaginary one. The right hon. Gentleman did not speak very definitely when rejecting the clause; he put his reasons upon grounds that could not be influenced by the phraseology. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the clause would interfere with the operations of friendly societies, who would be unable to get pensions for their clients. But the case met by the new clause was where a fee or reward was given for the express services rendered. That would not be the case with friendly societies, who would offer to do the work or their members gratuitously. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said hat the penalties sought to be imposed were very heavy, but he might point out that the fine was not to exceed £50 and that the imprisonment was not to be for more than six months. That left it open to impose a small fine or imprisonment for a short time. The reasons given by the 1495 Chancellor of the Exchequer for rejecting the clause were not conclusive. He did not know what information had reached the right hon. Gentleman; but he had heard of many cases where people were going about to friends in their locality urging that they should engage those who had better education and better means of interpreting Acts of Parliament to help them in getting over the difficulties in obtaining a pension. The hon. Member for Kildare had opposed the Amendment on grounds quite different from those put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He apparently wanted people to take up these questions and get the pension for people who would not otherwise get it because of the difficulties of stating their case. But they would take up bad cases in order to obtain a fee or reward. These pensions were to be the solatium of the aged deserving poor, and it was not intended that the fees for obtaining the pension should be paid out of the pension grant. There was no need for any such business under the German system. There it was only necessary for the applicants to prove that they had lived a certain time under certain conditions; the pension being a contributory one they simply produced the papers on which were records of their lives. The moment an Act of Parliament like this, which required a great deal of interpretation, was passed, an Act which exposed many applicants to a great deal of difficulty in making their application good, they were bound to have a certain class of persons rising into existence who would say to them: "If you will entrust your case to me, for a certain sum I will get you a pension which you would not otherwise obtain." That was not the purpose for which the pensions were to be granted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that that state of things might arise, but said let them wait until it did arise and then deal with it. That seemed to him rather like waiting until the steed was stolen before locking the stable. They believed rather that prevention was better than cure and that if this evil was likely to grow up provision should be made against it.
§ MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
quite agreed that difficulties might 1496 arise if gentlemen were allowed to make exorbitant charges for the services they rendered to persons applying for pensions. But there was the other side of the question to be looked at; applicants might meet with great difficulty in making their applications. There was the difficulty of tracing the place and entry of birth and the greater difficulty of identifying a person over sixty-five years of age. In the practice of his profession he had often found the greatest difficulty in proving that the person referred to in a certificate of birth was the person who was making a claim. Under those circumstances it was of ten necessary to get a declaration of identity—to prove the identity of the applicant with the person mentioned in the certificate, and this assistance could not be obtained save on payment. If, however, the operations of pension agents were not going to be prohibited they ought in his opinion to be carefully limited. To make the trade of pension agents a criminal offence was going too far; on the other hand it would be unwise to allow pension agents to make exorbitant charges, and the purpose which the mover of the Amendment had in view would be met if the costs were made irrecoverable, as they were under the Workmen's Compensation Act, unless certified as reasonable by the registrar of the County Court.
§ MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)
pointed out that there would also be extraordinary difficulty in many cases in calculating the means of applicants for pensions as required by Clause 4, and unless other people were allowed to do it for them he was afraid many poor persons would find the difficulties of Clause 4 insuperable. Many of them knew how difficult it was to do this for the purposes of the income-tax. If those calculations were not done carefully that might be the cause of pensions being refused which in other cases would be granted. The person, therefore, who carried through the application for a pension surely deserved something. It would be most difficult if the claim was successful to find out whether the assistance was given for a fee or reward, because if the payment was delayed for some months after the 1497 application was made and the pension was given it would be impossible to prove it. Personally he thought there was a very strong objection to the Amendment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept it.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
said that undoubtedly there were very difficult and complicated questions which would have to be determined before a pension could be secured. The questions were in some cases not only intrinsically difficult in themselves, but would be also difficult owing to the difficulty of tracing the relevant facts—where, for instance, persons were uncertain as to the place of their birth. It would be quite impossible for many of the poor people who ought to receive the benefits of the Bill to prepare unhelped whatever papers would be necessary. They would probably not understand the questions addressed to them on the Government form. They must have assistance, and the question was, how was that assistance to be given with the greatest advantage to the pensioner. There would always be a great deal of voluntary assistance where people went to seek it. He wished the Government would instruct the pension officer that it was part of his business to facilitate as much as he could the making of claims by bona fide applicants. The claim would be tested by him, but it should also be part of his duty to assist the applicant to set down the relevant facts. What he, was afraid of was the people who might make it their business to tout for this work, because, although they might only make good claims, it was very questionable whether a great many bad claims would not be dressed up to pass muster. He was afraid that these touts, in the case of a good claim which, with a little voluntary assistance and a little application, would carry the pension, would tell the applicant: "You will not get your pension unless you put your claim in legal language." These persons were prone to believe these things when told by such people, and that would be unfortunate. If that were so, and if the clause went further than was intended, still there were very many interesting suggestions, a valuable one being that of the hon. Member below the gangway opposite. 1498 They had not heard the Government on that subject, but he thought it was well worthy of their attention, and he would like to know what their views were. He understood that the hon. Member would leave it to the Committee; he did not quite know what the hon. Member's suggestion was.
§ MR. ELLIS DAVIES
said his suggestion was that no payment for work done in assisting an old person to obtain a pension was to be made, unless the registrar of the County Court certified the amount as reasonable.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that in this case there was no reference to the County Court. The Government had done their best to eliminate recourse to the law under the Bill, and had deliberately refused to grant any appeal to a Court of law for reasons which they had themselves set forth. Whether the registrar of the County Court would be the best authority to whom to go, he did not know; he did not profess to have knowledge enough to speak definitely on that subject. At any rate, if people were to be allowed to make a business of procuring pensions for old people, he suggested that their charges should be subject to disallowance, or, indeed, not recoverable unless allowed by some independent authority, whether the pension officer or the registrar of the County Court. He thought the point was worthy of consideration, and it might get them out of a difficulty which otherwise might lead to a great deal of hardship among poor people.
§ MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)
thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were splitting straws on this question. This clause was entirely unnecessary, and might afford an opportunity for blackmailing if it were adopted. A poor person, who wanted his claim made out, might go to a recognised solicitor to get it prepared for him. After the solicitor had done the work, the poor person might repudiate his claim for payment, saying that the solicitor had touted for the business, and the unfortunate solicitor who had done the work might very likely be heavily fined, or possibly even sent to gaol. 1499 Such a clause as that now proposed would really tend to blackmailing, and he was sure would have a very bad effect in the country at large. Hon. Members seemed to forget that it was a part of the Government scheme that there should be a pension committee and a pension officer, and he was sure that they might rest satisfied to leave the matter in their hands, and not endeavour to pass a clause of this sort which could only lead to complications and troubles in the future.
§ MR. GEORGE D. FABER (York)
said he could not but feel that a great difficulty surrounded this question when one put oneself into the position of a poor person who applied for the pension. The House must not forget that in regard to these pensions they were dealing largely with an uneducated class. That class would find itself surrounded at the very beginning by what an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House had pictorially described as "wire-entanglements." At every point, practically, there was a difficulty under the Bill. The first step was the production of the birth certificate. As had been pointed out, that was by no means an easy matter. It was no easy matter for an applicant in a low condition of life to prove where he was born. He was not referring to the case of an applicant in a country village, where people of position knew him. He was thinking, rather, of the applicant who lived in a slum of one of our great towns. Such an applicant often had not the remotest idea where he was born. He did not know what steps to take, not being a highly-educated man, and he could not make the application on his own initiative. On the point as to the birth certificate alone, he was content to rest his argument. The applicant, unable to take steps himself, must call in skilled advice, and unless he was careful he would fall into the pit. Suppose a professional tout took up his case. He would go to the poor man in the slums, and say, "You are over seventy years of age; I will prove it for you and get you a pension of 5s. a week, but you must give me some of it." The applicant would be at the mercy of the tout. If he did not employ him he would get nothing at all, and he was not 1500 able to protect himself. Therefore, they wanted to guard against his being at the mercy of the tout, and he understood that was the object of his hon. friend's clause. At the same time, he must frankly say that he did not think the clause as it stood met the case, because, although it sought to discountenance the professional tout, yet they all desired that the applicant should have the benefit of the Act. He would like to hear that a solicitor could be called in. But solicitors were only human, and they would require to be paid for their work. The solicitor might be the most honourable man in the world—as solicitors were in the great majority of cases—but he would expect to be paid for his work, and would of course be entitled to his remuneration. But there, again, they must be careful of the risk of overburdening the pension with legal expenses. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway opposite, a Member from one of the Welsh constituencies, had made a suggestion following on the lines of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that no costs for work done in assisting an applicant should be recoverable unless the registrar or Judge of the County Court certified that they were proper costs to be recovered. But under this Bill they were not concerned with the County Court. It was one of the anomalies of this measure that they had a dual authority, but neither part of it really judicial. First of all they had an officer who was called on the one hand a high Imperial officer, and on the other hand an Excise officer. As he had pointed out the other day when the Bill was in Committee, his function ceased when he had collected information about the applicant, and the pension committee were the judges, subject to the Local Government Board. Although he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member an admirable one, he did not see how it was going to be put in a Bill of this sort, unless they left the pension committee to decide whether the costs incurred were properly recoverable. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the clause to be read a second time, and then they could remedy its imperfections. He agreed that it would not do as it stood. But if they went forward and turned the Bill 1501 into an Act without doing anything at all to protect these poor applicants against the rapacity of a class that was certain to arise to take advantage of their weakness, he thought before long that they would find they had made a very grievous mistake.
§ MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)
said that, having heard the arguments in support of this clause, he had come to the conclusion that he should be justified in opposing it and voting against it. He did not think that it had any real bearing on the question. As he understood it the reference was to services rendered for payment or reward. But they knew that these people would be assisted by trade union and other officials to get the pension, and there would be no question of payment or reward at all. As under the Workmen's Compensation Act, where they assisted applicants to get their claims put through without any thought of reward, so it would be under this Act. The Act might be left to be tried, and if it needed something of this sort, it might be drafted later on. As a matter of fact, most of the poor persons who applied for the pension would be on the Poor Law; probably 50 per cent. Of those of seventy years of age would be on the Poor Law. The Poor Law guardians would in their own interest seek to keep old people off the Poor Law and get them on to the pension list. Then these pensions would very soon become known amongst the people, and he assumed the Treasury or someone else would make the necessary simple arrangements whereby the poor people might get assisted in making their claim. They would get a form at the Post Office which would be of the simplest possible description and instructions as to where the pension officer was located so that he would be available and probably readily accessible, and would instruct them how to get their pensions. There might, however, be some cases in which it would be necessary to get outside advice, and he would like to ask hon. Members above the gangway why not. He was not in favour of touting agents. He remembered when on the Departmental Committee inquiry into the Compensation Act a good deal of abuse was revealed, especially in the large industrial centres, where a certain 1502 kind of lawyer went about touting for cases. He wanted to avoid that and not encourage it, but why should they prevent trade unions or friendly societies of these old people if they thought proper from paying a man whose professional advice might be necessary and who might get them £13 per year? At all events it did not seem to be such a great danger, even if it were the case that in a few instances £3 might be exacted for the £13 per year. He was not disposed at that juncture to burden the Act and make it more complicated than it was by inserting the proposed clause. He would rather leave it to take its chance in the meantime, and then if these dangers were revealed he would be prepared to vote for such a clause.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said that all the difficulties on this matter really arose because the Government had not told them what machinery they intended to provide for getting pensions for these old people. The hon. Member who had just sat down had imagined a series of regulations which he thought the Government were going to put into force. The hon. Member might have seen those regulations which had been kept from the rest of the House, and in the absence of which it was quite impossible to estimate the machinery of the Bill. It might be a workable or an unworkable Bill. It entirely depended on the machinery. He found it very difficult to know how these people were going to succeed if they had no means of going to the supposed place of their birth, not accurately known to them. He was left in absolute perplexity as to whether they were doing the best thing for these old pensioners in having this clause or not. They were clearly doing the best for them in having such a clause in if some machinery was provided by the Government which would enable the investigation to be carried out. But they had not suggested that they were going to provide any machinery at all. He was not sure that his hon. friend's plan, however it might stop an acknowledged and admitted abuse, might not cause in some cases gross hardship and injustice to persons who could not prove their age without assistance, which they were not told as yet was going to be provided.
§ Question put.1504
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 82 Noes, 320. (Division List No.174.)1505
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fardell, Sir T. George||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gardner, Ernest||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Gordon, J.||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Ashley, W. W.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Percy, Earl|
|Balcarres, Lord||Haddock, George B.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond)||Hamilton, Marquess of||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester||Heaton, John Henniker||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Helmsley, Viscount||Sheffield, SirBerkeley George D.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hill, Sir Clement||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hills, J. W.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hunt, Rowland||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Joynson-Hicks, William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H||Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kerry, Earl of||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, R. Lord (Marylebone, E.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lockwood, Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Younger, George|
|Cross, Alexander||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||M'Arthur, Charles||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Doughty, Sir George||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Mr. Fell and Mr. George|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Faber.|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brunner, RtHn SirJ. T(Cheshire||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness|
|Agnew, George William||Bryce, J. Annan||Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall|
|Alden, Percy||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Erskine, David C.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Essex, R. W.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Byles, William Pollard||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Evans, Sir Samuel T.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Faber, G. H. (Boston)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Fenwick, Charles|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cleland, J. W.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Clough, William||Ffrench, Peter|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Clynes, J. R.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Beale, W. P.||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Findlay, Alexander|
|Beauchamp, E.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo)||Cooper, G. J.||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Bethell, Sir JH.(Essex, Romf'rd||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cox, Harold||Gill, A. H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew,W.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Crean, Eugene||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Boland, John||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Glover, Thomas|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Crossley, William J.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Cullinan, J.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Curran, Peter Francis||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Branch, James||Davies, Ellis Willam (Eifion)||Gulland, John W.|
|Brigg, John||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W.Brampton|
|Bright, J. A.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancras, N||Hall, Frederick|
|Brodie, H. C.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Halpin, J.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Dillon, John||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale|
|Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||Massie, J.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Masterman, C. F. G.||Shackleton, David James|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Meagher, Michael||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Menzies, Walter||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Harwood, George||Mond, A.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hazleton, Richard||Morrell, Philip||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Murnaghan, George||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Snowden, P.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Myer, Horatio||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)||Nicholls, George||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nolan, Joseph||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Hodge, John||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Hogan, Michael||Nuttall, Harry||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Summerbell, T.|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Doherty, Philip||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Dowd, John||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Idris, T. H. W.||O'Malley, William||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Partington, Oswald||Tomkinson, James|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Toulmin, George|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Philips, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Ure, Alexander|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Vivian, Henry|
|Jowett, F. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Joyce, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Kettle, Thomas Michael||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pullar, Sir Robert||Waring, Walter|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Radford, G. H.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Rainy, A. Rolland||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)|
|Lamont, Norman||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Watt, Henry A.|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Reddy, M.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Rees, J. D.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Rendall, Athelstan||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Richardson, A.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Lupton, Arnold||Ridsdale, E. A.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir ThomasP|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lynch, H. B.||Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Maclean, Donald||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Williamson, A.|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Robinson, S.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|M'Callum, John M.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras. S.)|
|M'Crae, Sir George||Rowlands, J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Winfrey, R.|
|Maddison, Frederick||Russell, T. W.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)||Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Marnham, F. J.||Sears, J. E.||Elibank.|
§ MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)
moved to amend Clause 1 (right to receive old-age pension) by substituting 5s. a week as the amount of the pension in place of the sums set forth in the schedule. This Amendment, he said, was to form the basis of a subsequent Amendment he had on the Paper, and it would have the effect of introducing what he thought was a better test for the assignment of pensions than that contained in the Bill. At the top of page 18 of the Amendment Paper he had put down another Amendment which contained a true industrial test, on the lines of the German industrial test, but a little more humane. It required that a person should prove that during the three years preceding the day on which he completed the age of seventy, he was engaged in useful work for not less than 126 weeks, and that his earnings had not exceeded 20s. a week. He had placed the earnings as low as possible because he desired to keep well within the amount of money involved in this Bill, but he had no objection to a higher figure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that nobody would help him to reduce the expenditure, but this Amendment would save him at least £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, a year. At the same time the Amendment would establish a definite logical reason for giving pensions, and also clear away all the absurdities and anomalies in the schedule, which made the scheme difficult and would make it very unpopular. When the Government first introduced their scheme they put in it a fixed sum of 5s. a week. At that time the Prime Minister told them that after careful consideration the Government had come to the conclusion that a fixed sum of 5s. a week was the best. No reason had been given by the Government for abandoning that position. Under the proposed Amendment a man would receive a pension for the work he did, and not as a matter of charity. If that were done they would have no need to make inquiries as to character or income. If they proceeded not on the industry but on the charity test they must have all the anomalies in the schedule. In assessing the income the pension committee would have to take into account not only the actual cash but also hypothetical sources of income. Furniture 1508 was personal property, and under this scheme it would be necessary for the Excise man to visit the applicant's house to find out what furniture he possessed, and then make an estimate of the annual value of it. All that would be got rid of by fixing the sum at 5s. Take the case of the old man who helped his daughter to do the washing in return for a meal. That would have to be taken into account under this Bill and an estimate taken of its value. These were questions which would involve frightful heartburning. One man might say he had not been treated by the committee quite fairly, and another might say that the Exciseman had been bribed by his neighbour, and would not give him a pension because he had refused to bribe him. Clause 3 which dealt with character was unlimited as to time, whereas the Amendment was limited to three years. There was an enormous difference between going back upon the whole of a man's past history, and going back for only three years. According to the words of the Bill, before a man became entitled to a pension he must prove that he had not failed to work according to his opportunity or ability, during the whole of his life. All these absurdities and cruelties resulted from starting on a false basis and mixing up two distinct things. The advocates of the Bill talked about giving pensions to the veterans of industry, but the Bill itself said: "Give people pensions because they are poor," and the result was that they had to introduce all kinds of artificial stipulations. He proposed to limit the inquiries to three years. He might inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his Amendment would exclude a considerable number of people who did not deserve pensions but who would get them under the Bill. His proposal also had the advantage that it would not involve any inquiry into past character. The House had got to make up its mind whether it was going to give pensions as a reward for industry or as a subsidy to poverty. They did not at present reward poverty or misfortune. Poverty was not a crime; it was an inconvenience, an inability to satisfy one's wants, and that was itself its own punishment. If they treated poverty as a merit, as used to be done in the Middle Ages, they 1509 should not reward it, because if they set up a reward for poverty they deprived the poor man of his merit by giving him a reward. Honest poverty could only be dealt with by charity or the Poor Law. The Government professed that their whole object was to separate their scheme from the Poor Law. If so, why not adopt a pure industrial test, and give pensions as a reward for industry? The test he was proposing to apply would deal with the great difficulty raised by hon. Members opposite, namely, the refusal of a pension to a man because he happened to be in receipt of Poor Law relief after 1st January this year. Under his proposal nobody would be asked if they had received Poor Law relief. They would simply be asked if they had worked the requisite number of weeks. A man who had been working hard up to 1st January was, through temporary misfortune, obliged to accept Poor Law relief, and he was, therefore, to become disqualified for a pension. That was a very great hardship which would be got rid of entirely by the scheme he proposed. They should bear in mind that there was a distinction between Poor Law relief and pensions. They rewarded industry, they relieved poverty, the motives being different. They knew that without industry the world would come to an end, and in selfish interest they rewarded industry. They relieved poverty out of humanitarian feeling, but to relieve was not to reward. The Government Bill showed a hopeless confusion of ideas, and it actually contained a provision for rewarding idleness. [Cries of "No."] Yes, according to subsection (b), of Clause 3, a man was to work "according to his ability, opportunity, and need." What did the last word mean? If a man was in possession of an income that relieved him from the necessity to work, and that possession came to an end, he was to receive a pension. Why? If he had not done any work he was not entitled to a pension at the expense of his fellow citizens. Hon. Members might say that that did not often happen, but they forgot there were a number of people who, inheriting a small income, were content to fritter away their lives doing no work at all. Such a man he knew, who, instead of following the profession to which he had been 1510 trained, lived in a small room in a workmen's dwelling and did no work of any kind. That man invited himself and a friend to dine with him. He did his own cooking, cleaning, and everything. During the repast he told them the cost of every single article. He said he bought butter at 10d. per lb. He himself and his fellow guest said they wanted no butter. He contended that it was not the duty of the House to encourage such a man in leading an idle life. It was the duty of every man to work. But the Labour Party had voted in a mass for this clause which would give a man a pension simply because his income came to an end. A man who received from the community and made no return was a parasite on the community. It was curious that the Socialist Party while declaring their anxiety to get pensions for the veterans of industry, voted for pensions for parasites. Hon. Members opposite must painfully feel the contrast in their attitudes inside and outside the House. Outside on a hundred platforms they spent their energies in denouncing the Liberal Party and all its works, proclaiming that they alone possessed the key to social salvation. But in the House they sat cooing like doves in spring time, sitting in patient expectancy ready to eat out of the hand of the Government and to take all that was in it.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
seconded the Amendment. He was not sure that he agreed with the first part of it, because, if it were adopted, he thought it would be necessary to abolish the sliding scale. But the hon. Member's argument in regard to the rest of the Amendment was so good that the House could not allow it to go by without some attention. It was exceedingly unfortunate when they were discussing these questions that they had not the advantage of the attendance of the Members of the Labour Party. He understood that they were attending a garden party yesterday when the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill was being discussed. It was a pity that they could not give attendance when serious business was being transacted in the House. The test of work to which his hon. friend had alluded was the best test which could possibly be 1511 imposed. It would be difficult in many cases, especially in towns, to find out whether the statements of a person applying for a pension were true, but it would be comparatively easy to find out whether a person had been working for a certain number of years. He would like to know why the Government had not brought forward some provision of that sort. They must not forget that the original idea of the Government was that the pension should be 5s. a week, irrespective of the pension scale, and he did not know that the House had heard any very serious or satisfactory reason from the Government for abandoning that idea. He hoped his hon. friend would not press the first part of the Amendment to a division.
In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'set forth in Part I. of the schedule to this Act,' and to insert the words 'of 5s. a week.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
§ (Question proposed, "That the words 'set forth in' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the hon. Baronet had seconded an Amendment of which he had repeatedly told the House he disapproved. The only point now before the House was the abolition of the sliding scale and a return to a fixed limit. The Amendment asked the House to set up an alternative scheme totally distinct from that of the Government, and he questioned whether it was in order.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The Amendment now on the Paper is clearly in order because it proposes to give a pension of 5s. a week. It would not, therefore, impose any extra charge, but it would diminish the charge. When we get to the Amendments to other parts of the clause, I shall have some further statement to make.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said his difficulty was this. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Preston was devoted to an Amendment which clearly seemed to be out of order. If he had argued in favour of the restoration of 1512 the rigid limit of 5s. a week and the elimination of the sliding scale, he could have understood him, but he had not done that. He had set up an alternative scheme which was certainly out of order at that stage.
§ MR. SPEAKER
I really do not know whether the alternative scheme would mean an increased charge or not, and I have no figures at my disposal, and I have no means of arriving at any figures which would indicate to me whether that would be so or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only man in this House who really has the figures at his disposal, and if the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Preston will, in his judgment, increase the charge, I should be bound to accept that statement. If he makes that statement, I shall then be prepared to rule out the alternative suggestion.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was not prepared to say it would increase the charge; he thought that, on the whole, it would diminish the cost. He assumed, therefore, the Amendment was in order. The hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to follow him at the present moment into the various criticisms which he had placed before the House. As to the scheme on its merits, the hon. Gentleman wanted to confine the benefits of the Bill to persons who earned 20s. a week for three years immediately preceding the day on which he completed the age of seventy—that was preceding his application for a pension. He took issue on that; it would practically exclude all labourers in towns. On the previous night the scheme had boon severely condemned because it was a purely country scheme, and that the town labourer would not benefit by it. Of course, it was said that a very small proportion of town labourers attained the age of seventy. The rate of wages of a town labourer at that age would not reach the rate fixed by his hon. friend's Amendment, and therefore the town labourer would be swept away. But there was another reason why he could not accept his hon. friend's scheme. The hon. Member had said that the workman before applying for a pension must have worked for forty-two 1513 weeks in each of the preceding three years. There was no allowance for sickness, no allowance for the effects of old age, no allowance for accidents. The applicant must prove that he had worked 126 weeks between the age of sixty-seven and seventy; that he had worked regularly for forty-two weeks in each year and had earned 20s. a week. Was that a reasonable demand to make upon an old man? He was surprised that his hon. friend had put forward such a scheme. He could understand the hon. Gentleman opposing the whole scheme, but he could not understand his saying that he wished to provide for a certain number of old people getting a pension, while submitting a scheme which ruled out the town labourer and if applied to the country labourer would be harsh and cruel. For that reason alone he would rule the Amendment out of court. His hon. friend had talked a great deal about thrift, and in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill he proposed an Amendment based on thrift. But what was to happen to a thrifty person in a case of this kind? Let them suppose he had not saved enough to carry him on till he was seventy years of age, but that by doing a little work during harvest, or by planting his potatoes, or by looking after his own little allotment, he kept off the Poor Law: his hon. friend said that not a 1d. of a pension was that old man to get. And why? Because he had not worked forty-two weeks in each of the preceding years before he was seventy, and had not earned 20s. a week. And then in the case of a thrifty town labourer, if he broke down at the age of sixty-eight, he was to be ruled out also. He really could not accept the Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
said that if the right hon. Gentleman had devoted the same talent to his own tests that he had devoted to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, he would have torn them to pieces. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and could not support the test proposed by the hon. Member for Preston; but when they came to examine every test proposed in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman they were exposed to the 1514 same style of criticism. Those who had given attention to the Bill agreed with the hon. Member for Preston while he was explaining to the House how utterly unjust were the proposals of the Government; but when the hon. Member set up a scheme of his own, he confessed that the hon. Member failed to convince him. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman had said that the claimant for a pension must prove that he had been "engaged in useful work." That meant that they were to entrust the Imperial officer or the pension committee with the task of deciding whether the claimant's work had been useful or not. They would decide the matter in precisely the same way as the board of guardians decided whether Poor Law relief was to be given. That was the reason why he was opposed to all those tests. There was no alternative between a contributory scheme and a universal scheme; and he was sure that all who supported the scheme of the Bill would suffer for it very severely in the estimation of their fellow-countrymen.
§ Amendment negatived.
In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'Part I. of.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question, "That the words 'Part I. of' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ LORD R. CECIL,
on Clause 2, moved to insert words requiring the claimant to "prove that he has" attained the pensionable age. His object was to learn from the Government by what machinery they proposed to secure that only those who had actually attained the age of seventy should receive a pension. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they were all reckless and irresponsible persons and that their Amendments would throw additional cost on the Exchquer. He ventured to say that no one of them was as reckless and irresponsible as the Government, who had made their calculations as to cost on the theory that only those who were seventy years of age would receive pensions. It must be obvious that it would be exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether a man was 1515 seventy years of age or not. He did not know how it was to be done. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Bill would only affect the country, but that was not the case. And how would it affect the towns? It was the commonest thing for an old labourer not to live for a considerable time in the neighbourhood in which he was born, and how was he going to prove his age? The English Registration Act only came into force in 1836, and if they looked into the figures of registration of births it would be found that in the early years an exceedingly small proportion of births were registered. Even now quite a considerable number of the population—something like 20 or 30 per cent—were never registered; and the percentage registered must have been much smaller seventy years ago. How were they going to prove a claimant's age? Were they going to take the old man's word for it? Even supposing the men were perfectly honest a large number of them had an exceedingly vague notion of how old they really were. Was it all to be left to regulations? He thought the House was entitled to know the nature of the evidence which the Government contemplated requiring before admitting a claim. Was the Imperial officer to prove negatively as well as positively whether a man was seventy? If so, he would have all his work cut out. He would have to ascertain the date of birth, and send for the register, and if the man's name was not in it he would have to get up evidence the same as in a pedigree case. Everybody must see the difficulty. The result would be that anybody who looked about seventy years of age would get his pension, although he might be only sixty or sixty-five. He thought they were in for a very much larger expenditure under this scheme than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had allowed for. He begged to move.
In page 1, line 21, to leave out the word 'have,' and insert the words 'prove that he has.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'have' stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said that the noble Lord had answered his own case for his own Amendment. He had pointed out with great force and justice that there were many cases in which it was impossible for a claimant to prove his birth. No doubt there were many people in the United Kingdom whose birth was not registered. The Registration Act of 1836 did not come into force all at once, but at different times. He believed that it came into force in Scotland and Ireland at a later date. He had not the exact figures in his mind as to when the registration of births began, but there must be many cases in which it would be impossible to produce a' certificate of birth. The noble Lord would surely not wish to make it a statutory enactment that no man, however old he might be, was to be unable to receive a pension unless he could produce a certificate of birth. Yet under this Amendment the applicant would either have to produce a certificate or call his parents, who ex hypothesi would not be available for the purpose. In truth when the Bill came into operation there would be many cases in which no sort of proof would be required, because the pension committee in the neighbourhood would know that the applicant was very old. It was left entirely to them, but not without some guidance from the central authority, because the noble Lord would observe that Section 10 provided that rules might be made as to the evidence that would be required. It would be undesirable to indicate in the Bill what the regulations should be, but the rules would no doubt require to be very carefully considered as to the kind of evidence the pension committee should be required to accept in the absence of a birth certificate. It would be undesirable that he should indicate now what line those rules would take, but obviously it would be most undesirable to put every applicant to the strict proof. It was much better to leave the matter somewhat wide. No doubt the absence of proof would necessitate the giving of pensions to men who were not 1517 seventy, but in such cases it would be given to persons who looked and appeared to be seventy, and the injustice done in those cases would be very rare.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
quite agreed with the Attorney-General that all applicants could not be expected to give such proof as would be required in a Court of law as to their age. The Amendment of the noble Lord, however, was directed to ascertaining from the Government what they had in their mind as to the character of the proof the pension officer and the pension committee might properly exact. He agreed that it would be undesirable to give in a clause of the Bill the exact regulations which these different authorities should follow, but he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said it was not desirable to indicate to the House what those regulations would be. It was most desirable that somebody on behalf of the Government should indicate what evidence should be received. The effect of leaving the matter to the pension committee and the pension officer would be that anybody who did not clearly appear on evidence not to be seventy would be treated as seventy. That would be the result if there were no special regulations. He did not believe the Government had considered any one of the regulations they had to frame under the Bill, and the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was not expedient to give the regulations was because he did not know—because he had not the slightest idea of what they were. There had never been such a Bill in which greater power had been given to departmental authorities to use regulations under it or which gave them so much authority as this. They could exclude or include whoever they liked. This was one of many discussions which illustrated the difficulties of the scheme the Government were laying before the House. Anybody would have thought that in a non-contributory scheme as in a contributory one, they would have arrived at some simple plan by which it could be ascertained whether a man was entitled to a pension or not, but that idea was dispelled by the debates that had taken place. The clauses of the Bill 1518 were full of ambiguities and doubt. In this case the test was one most difficult and in many cases impossible of proof as proof was regarded in a Court of law. They had to trust to the local authority, and for that reason the Government had to issue regulations which, when they came to draw them up, they would find would have to be loose and vague. That meant that practically the pension committee would have an absolute discretion in individual cases as to whom they would admit and whom not. That being the case the public interest in the discussion, from his point of view, centred in its bearing on the expense to which the country would be put under the scheme. The estimates the Government had made were mere guess-work by Government officials instructed to look at a particular proposal and say what would be its cost. How were those officials set to work; what data had they before them? Surely those were matters the House ought to know something about. As he understood, they had found out from certain data that there were so many people of a certain age in this country. They had taken a census of particular places in order to ascertain how many of these old people would come within the scope of the scheme, and they assumed for the purposes of their calculations that the number of people of seventy would remain about the same and that the incomes of those people would continue the same. If he were right and those were the underlying assumptions of all the estimates put forward, the estimates were not worth having. Until the Bill came into operation it was not worth anybody's while to make himself out to be other than he really was. It had been to the man's interest to make himself out to be younger. It was now to the interest of these people in a doubtful case to make out that they were seventy. There was no desire to deprive these old people of the income they received, but there would be no incentive now to those who had contributed towards it to continue to do so. The financial basis on which the Bill was built would be destroyed, for the right hon. Gentleman, who had admitted in the City that he had a 1519 thumping deficit, would find that that deficit was far larger than he had anticipated.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had not carried them any further along the road of meeting this Amendment. One would assume that the amount of the cost had been calculated from the Census returns of the people of the age of seventy. He did not know how long the census papers were kept, but it certainly occurred to him that the knowledge that the census papers were in existence would deter people from making false statements as to their age. It was obvious that when the last census was compiled no man had any interest in making himself out to be older than he was. No man could foresee that the Government in a few years were going to bring in a scheme whereby he would get a pension, so that he had not that inducement to put forward his age a few years. Surely the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down betrayed an almost childish innocence in connection with Acts of Parliament if he imagined that they could put into a Bill a series of cleverly drafted regulations and elaborate tests by which to get proof of a man's age. The details must be left to the local committee and to the pension officer. According to the Amendment of the noble Lord the onus probandi was put upon the old man, who was to prove that he was seventy years of age. That was surely taking the matter very far indeed. The Attorney-General had referred to the fact that compulsory registration of births had not commenced in England until 1836, and in Ireland not until 1860; so that an old man of eighty or ninety in Ireland would not be able to prove from that source that he had reached the age of seventy. It would mean that in Ireland they practically excluded from the operation of the Act every old man or woman in the country, because they could bring forward no proof. The noble Lord's Amendment, if adopted, would practically exclude from this beneficial scheme people in Ireland of seventy, seventy-five, eighty, ninety years of age, and even centenarians, who could bring forward no legal proof 1520 of the kind required. But it was reasonable to suppose that the local committee, with such evidence as they would be able to get from other old people, from Ted, or Jack, or other aged persons, would be able to obtain fairly satisfactory proof if the applicant had reached the age of seventy. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)
said that if it had been the object of the hon. Member who had just sat down to make clear the point of his noble friend, he had singularly failed in his object. He had said in the first place that it would be an intolerable hardship to all old persons who applied for the pension that they should have to prove they were of the age of seventy. The Attorney General had also complained of the Amendment as imposing a hardship. It was a hardship imposed by the Bill.
§ MR. BOWLES
said that the Amendment had been moved with the desire of eliciting from the Government what they themselves understood to be the meaning and effect of their own Bill, and it was because they had no conception, at any rate which they could express to the House, of what was the effect of the first and main provision of their own Bill, that, for his part, he regarded the Amendment as serving a very useful purpose. The Attorney-General had said they might leave this matter to the regulations. Were those regulations under Clause 10 to prescribe the evidence to be required in order to fulfil the statutory conditions? But what evidence could there be of the age of a person except either the birth certificate or such overwhelming proof as would satisfy any reasonable person? Unless the Government had considered the point the Bill as it stood merely amounted to this, that any person who alleged he was seventy was to be entitled to the pension. It appeared to him that that was a matter which the Government was bound to have considered, and if they had not considered it they were sadly lacking in their duty to the House. The hon. Member below the gangway 1521 had made the suggestion, he imagined humourously, that it should be sufficient evidence if each applicant referred to the Census paper which he had filled up with regard to his age. But the hon. Member must know that such a declaration could not be held binding as to the applicant's age. The man might say: "It is quite true that it states I was sixty-two or sixty-three, but it was a clerical error; it was a mistake; I was under sixty, and the statement was filled up at a time when I had no contemplation of such a scheme as this." No man could be held to such a declaration under the present scheme. The House was confronted with a proposal by which vast sums of public money were to be given to a particular class of persons. The main condition on which a pension was to be given was that the recipient should have reached the age of seventy. The Government were asked what assurance there was that pensions would not be given outside that age, and to people who were merely lying in order to obtain the grant. The Government had not the slightest notion; they did not know in the least. They had not even considered how old age was to be proved; all they said was that at some time or other they would make regulations—regulations which must be nugatory and ridiculous unless they insisted upon getting evidence which would satisfy all reasonable men. If the regulations would do that the Government ought to tell them what they were. This matter was of essential and vital importance, and if the Government had not really a considered opinion upon it, then it was a striking comment on the condition of mind in which they had thrown this gigantic scheme on the Table of the House, and was a complete justification of the Amendment.
§ MR. BARNES
said it appeared to him that the whole thing was in a nutshell as regarded the Amendment. He was going to vote against it, for the very simple reason that it seemed to him to increase the difficulty of an old person's getting a pension. He had tried to realise what would be the thoughts of an intending applicant. He could conceive of an old person making a claim for a pension, and the flow of his thoughts 1522 would be in the direction of getting his age adequately ascertained. In the trade unions the members names and ages were registered. He was secretary to a body of men numbering 112,000, and the age of every one was recorded. Perhaps 1,000,000 men in the last twenty years had been registered in this way, and he had only to look back over the books to ascertain the name and age of a man. That was one means which might be open to a person for proving his age. He did not say that it would be considered satisfactory evidence by the committee or pension officer; it might be or might not be. Then there were friendly societies, who also registered the ages of their members, and they had the data which covered hundreds of thousands, he supposed millions, of the population of the country, among them men and women who would be making applications for pensions. The Bill was sufficiently open, it appeared to him, to admit of that being done. But if this Amendment were carried, the first statutory condition imposed by the Bill would be that a person applying for the pension must prove that he was of the age of seventy. The pension officer might say that was not a duty devolving upon him, or the committee, or anybody else, but upon the applicant, and until he proved he was seventy years of age, no other step could betaken in the way of getting the pension. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had himself answered his own case, because he had piled up difficulty upon difficulty, pointing out that there was no registration in this country until 1836, and none in Ireland until 1860. These were all proofs that the matter of proving whether a person was seventy years of age was one of some complication. From his own point of view, that seemed to destroy the Amendment. He wanted that difficulty to be got over, not by the poor person of seventy, eighty, or ninety years of age, but by the Government, who had all the means at their disposal, and who were, as he understood, by Clause 10, making provision for it. That clause provided that regulations should be drawn up with a view to providing what should be taken as proper evidence, and that would get over the point. For his part he would rather have seen the 1523 regulations. It might be that the Government were culpable, but he was not going to enter into that at all. They would all be very much better informed, of course, if they knew what those regulations were. But he was not going to make their not having them a reason for setting up another barrier to persons getting the pension. As it was, poor old men and women would get some help under the Bill in making their claims somehow or other, and he believed they would be provided for.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have inadvertently misinterpreted the speech of his noble friend in introducing the Amendment. His noble friend had explicitly stated that his object in moving the Amendment was to obtain from the Government some clear exposition of what their policy was in respect of the evidence on which they were to arrive at the conclusion that the applicants for pensions had reached the age of seventy years. That was a perfectly legitimate and proper Parliamentary procedure, and the only criticism he had to make upon it was that his noble friend had formed a far too sanguine estimate of the knowledge which the Government possessed of their own policy and their own Bill. When he put down his Amendment in order to obtain a clear exposition from the Government of what was intended, his noble friend, with all the experience which he should have obtained of their discussions in these days, must have known that he was undertaking what was pre-doomed to failure. That was the absolute and clear outcome of the attempt which his noble friend had made. He wanted to ask the House to compare the Attorney-General's estimate of the kind of evidence which would be taken from the man of seventy with the kind of statistics on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his calculation of what would be the cost of the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that the age ought to be below seventy, but said he could not afford it. But he was going to be obliged to afford it after the statement of the Attorney-General. It clearly appeared that there was no possible mechanism provided which would 1524 prevent people under the age of seventy asking for pensions. Therefore all the financial calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been upset by his own Attorney-General. He did not know that it could be avoided. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said the Government were going by regulation to say what the evidence was to be—those mysterious regulations which were to solve all the difficulties of the future which the Government were incapable of dealing with. But even Treasury regulations would not manufacture evidence if evidence did not exist. Let them make their regulations with all the care they pleased, when there was no evidence no evidence would be forthcoming, and it was therefore perfectly obvious that with regard to the age of seventy all their precautions were utterly illusory. There was also a great inequality in the way in which this would act. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them there would be clear prima facie evidence with regard to the age of every member of a trade union or a friendly society, Because persons joining them had to make some declaration in respect to their age. He supposed in the main the people who made these declarations made them quite honestly, but he took it that if they had a preference it was to make themselves out younger than they were. If that was so, evidently the members of friendly societies and trade unions would suffer if that was the only evidence forthcoming. They would really have reached the age of seventy in certain cases earlier than the declaration which they had made to the friendly society would seem to indicate. But let them take other classes of society—for instance the Irish population, where there was absolutely no evidence as to whether they were seventy or not, and no means of ascertaining except by a general estimate, such as whether they looked it or not. They would get the benefit of the doubt. A quite disproportionate stream of the national benevolence would flow into their pockets, compared with that which would flow into the pockets of members of trade unions and friendly societies. That was a very great injustice. The injustice would also be against the country and in favour of those classes in the towns which did not belong to 1525 trade unions and friendly societies, because in the country there was very likely evidence easily ascertainable as to what a person's age really was, and these persons would not be able to claim to be seventy before they were seventy. But take a person in town. It had been stated and never contradicted by the Government that in the case, not of the superior workman who belonged to a trade union or benefit society, but of the unorganised labourer and the poorer members of the working classes, evidence would not be forth-coming and, of course, the benefit of the doubt would always be given in favour of the claimant. If the country could afford it, he agreed entirely in favour of its being given, but they had been told all through that the country could not afford it, and that the age of seventy was the lowest possible limit which the resources of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit. They had great reason to complain that on this, which was the first opportunity which they had really had of trying to find out what the Government method was of dealing with this most complicated and difficult question, they found these two statements put forward and uncontradicted by the Government, he believed, incapable of contradiction, first that this want of principle would act greatly in favour of certain classes of the community as against others, and secondly that it would act against the Exchequer and throw upon those who were responsible for the finances of the country a burden which the present holder of that office said the country could not bear. In these circumstances the result of his noble friend's inquiry into the policy and motives of the Government had been singularly unsuccessful. But what he had succeeded in showing, and what was worth showing again, was that the Government had not thought out their Bill or the method in which it was going to work with regard to different classes of the community, and had not the smallest conception of what its operation was to be on the future of the national finances.
§ MR. FELL
said he wished to add a word on behalf of a class who were rarely mentioned in these debates. The bulk of the 1526 pensioners under the Bill would be old women. He believed the whole Bill had been founded on New Zealand precedent and practice. The magistrates in New Zealand had to ascertain the age of these would-be pensioners after hearing evidence—no doubt legal evidence, either birth certificates or secondary evidence by other parties who could prove the age of these people. There was no machinery for arriving at the age of applicants in this Bill in any way analogous to that which obtained in New Zealand, and which he believed was found to give satisfaction. If there was to be any machinery set up by the regulations, he hoped it would define a way of arriving at the ages of these old women who would find the greatest difficulty in proving their ages under the Bill.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he desired to withdraw the Amendment, and in doing so he hoped they would hear no more about irresponsibility from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. McARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
, in moving, said the object of the Amendment, to add at the end of Clause 2, "Provided that in the case of a British sailor residence in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to include service on board a vessel registered in the United Kingdom," was to adapt the concluding words of sub-clause (2) to the case of sailors. The subsection said that a person in order to have a pension must have been for twenty years a British subject living in the United Kingdom. That was all very well so far as workers on land were concerned; but how were they to deal with the case of a sailor? Residence for twenty years in the United Kingdom was clearly not applicable, to his case. The object of the Amendment was to provide that service on a ship registered in the United Kingdom should be considered as residence in the United Kingdom. That seemed a reasonable way out of the matter. If a sailor was a British subject, and worked on a British ship for twenty years, he was as much entitled to a pension as a miner or any other 1527 labourer. It would be a great hardship if he were cut out, because no man was more useful to the State than the British sailor, and no man was less able to provide for his old age, for often he found his only refuge, when too old to go to sea, in the workhouse. In the New Zealand Act this point was specially provided for by words similar to these, which provided that a sailor employed on a ship belonging to the Colony should be entitled to a pension. He would perhaps be told that this could be met by regulation under the Act, but that was not the case. Regulations under the Act could not go beyond the terms of the Act. They could not vary the terms of an Act by regulation. They might make exceptions as to residence, but they could not provide that a foreign country or foreign waters should be deemed to be the United Kingdom, or say that when a sailor was at sea he was in the United Kingdom. He could quite believe that the Government did not wish to exclude sailors, but he submitted that they could not draw regulations which would bring in sailors. Trinity House granted certain pensions, and there was an association in Liverpool which granted small pensions to sailors, but, of course, under the Bill those would be taken as income. He hoped the Government would deal with this point satisfactorily by making it perfectly clear that the case of the sailor was not to be excluded. He begged to move.
§ MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)
seconded. He said that knowing the sympathetic action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill, he was sure that it would not be his intention to exclude seamen from the benefits of a Pensions Bill. They were all agreed that the British sailor was one of our most valuable national assets, and they Ought not to do anything which would make him feel that he was placed at any disadvantage compared with any other inhabitants in reference to the advantages he was entitled to derive from the finances of the country. If they differentiated with regard to services abroad, they would at once place a disadvantage upon the manning of ships, and place the sailor in an invidious 1528 position, and just at the end of his life he would be placed at a decided disadvantage.
In page 1, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, 'provided that in the case of a British sailor residence in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to include service on board a vessel registered in the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. McArthur).
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he scarcely needed to assure hon. Members that the Government had every intention of including seamen within the scope of the Bill. Seamen, however, were only one of many classes who pursued their avocation abroad. There were soldiers as well as sailors, and workmen who were sent abroad to execute large contracts for docks and railways who occasionally had to remain abroad for seven years. Those cases would be sure to come up to be dealt with, and the most convenient course to adopt would be to give to the word "residence" a meaning which would include them all. It was quite within the power of those who formed the rules to provide that service on board a British ship on the part of a British subject should be brought within the Act under the term "residence." The Government would certainly take care that all those great classes should be included within the scope of the Bill.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
said he had an Amendment to include soldiers. He understood from the Attorney-General that soldiers would be included.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
Yes. For the Government to select one particular class for specific treatment would throw doubt upon their power to deal with these classes by regulation.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
said he understood that this Amendment would be accepted. He was glad of that, because it was about the only common sense Amendment the Opposition had proposed. The hon. Gentleman 1529 above the gangway said in his Amendment that "residence" should be taken to mean service on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom. There were a great many British subjects who served on ships not registered under the British flag at all, who did good service to this country. A good deal of British trade was done on ships which did not fly the British flag, although very often the crews were largely British subjects resident in this country. According to this Amendment those men in their deserving old age would be deprived of their pension simply because the ships they served on were not registered in this country. British sailors who served in ships registered abroad ought to be treated in the same way as other British sailors, and should not be debarred from receiving old-age pensions.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that this was one of those Amendments which produced agreement on all sides. He wanted to ask a further question. He had in his mind the case of men serving in the British mercantile marine. The Attorney-General said it would be possible to define "residence in the United Kingdom" so as to cover the case of a man who was domiciled here, but who was serving on a British ship or serving in the Army on a foreign station. But that did not cover all the cases. There were a number of sailors who were not domiciled here, and they would have to add an entirely novel definition of domicile to cover their case. When he was at the Admiralty there were many more Colonial dockyards than now and from time to time it was the practice to call for volunteers in the Home yards to proceed to a Colonial station, take up residence there, and work in His Majesty's dockyard abroad. In those cases the men closed their homes here altogether, and moved abroad. He thought those were cases which certainly ought to be covered, and there would be a number of them in the military service. He would like to know whether it would be within the power of the Government by means of regulations not only to define "residence" in the United Kingdom as including a man who was domiciled here, but also to include a man who had been 1530 forced to change his domicile in pursuance of public or private service.
§ MR. SUMMERBELL (Sunderland)
asked whether Members of the House would have an opportunity of seeing the regulations which were to be drawn up under the Act, and, if so, when they were likely to see them.
§ MR. H. C. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)
said he wished to ask the Solicitor-General one question affecting soldiers. If a man who had been discharged as a time-expired soldier in India, and who had gone to work on the railways, or in some other occupation, returned home at the age of sixty or sixty-five, having been absent for forty years, would he come within the scope of the rules and regulations proposed to be drawn up?
§ MR. BOWLES
said the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that this matter would be dealt with by regulations. He agreed with the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that it would be more convenient for all of them, although less for the Government, if the regulations were put before the House in order that they might find out what they were discussing. All they could do was to ask such questions as they thought important in order to find out on what principle the regulations would be framed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the case of the sailor could be met by regulations made under the Bill. He himself had some doubt about it. Regulations could not be made which would conflict with the directions of the Act. Suppose that a man over fifty who was serving as a merchant seaman gave up his home in this country, and had nothing which could be regarded as a home or domicile here, and that he went off for three or four years on a long cruise, under the Bill as it stood it would be perfectly impossible to make regulations, or, if made, to enforce them, which would enable such a man to get a pension at all. Whatever might be the sailor's qualifications in other respects he could not say, and no regulation could make it possible for him to say, that he had for twenty years had a residence in this 1531 country prior to the date when, in other circumstances, he would be entitled to a pension. That was a person the House would not desire to exclude, and they were entitled to some better assurance than had been given that the Government would do their best to deal with the case by regulations.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH) Fifeshire, E.
was understood to say that in the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire no change was contemplated.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertforshire, St. Albans)
urged the Government to make some alteration in the wording of the Bill. It was perfectly clear in the Bill as it stood that persons must have their residence in the country in order to be entitled to pensions. Local committees would have no power to go outside of the actual wording of the Bill. This was a matter which affected a large number of people who had peculiar claims on the country.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was sure the House would feel that they must ask the Government questions in regard to the meaning of these words, because they had not the regulations before them, and there appeared to be no prospect of obtaining them, or that the pious wishes of the hon. Member for Sunderland would receive early fulfilment. The representative of the Government nodded approval when the hon. Member for East Clare suggested that British sailors serving on foreign ships should have pensions just as if they were serving on British ships. He did not know whether that approving nod was intended to commit the Government to that proposition, and he would like an explicit answer. They must have a strong case, and he wished to know whether the Government did say so. Even more strong than the case of the man serving on a foreign ship was the case of the engine driver on an Indian railway. He was, after all, on British territory. He was not serving abroad. An English sailor on a foreign ship was really in foreign territory and earning his livelihood in foreign territory, and 1532 his case was really extremely doubtful, but they could not exclude such a case as he put, namely, the British engine driver serving on an Indian railway. The Government must have thought out all these matters, although they had not been able to give the House the regulations in which they had embodied the results of their reflections. He thought they should answer these questions.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)
thought that a British sailor serving on a British ship was in British territory.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the case put by the hon. Member for East Clare was that of a British sailor serving on a British ship.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said his point was that it was to the interest very often of this State that certain ships which were not registered in this country as British ships should be largely manned by British sailors. There were many cases where that was so. He submitted that in cases of that kind a British sailor should not, on returning home in his old age, be debarred from receiving a pension simply because he had not served on a British ship.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that was entirely a question of domicile. There were cases where a sailor was serving on board a foreign ship—and as a rule it was a foreign ship in the ownership of which there was a large British interest—and for all practical purposes it was a British-owned ship. In that case it was entirely a question of domicile—whether the sailor really had his home in this country or whether he had settled down altogether in another country, say, in the United States of America. If a British sailor serving on board an American ship had settled down in America and become an American citizen, he should not receive a pension in this country. But supposing he was serving on a Brazilian ship, a vessel which was really a British-owned ship, but which in order to conform to certain regulations flew the Brazilian flag. The real question was whether the sailor was still a British subject with a British 1533 domicile. That was largely a question of law. He wished the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, had seen the New Zealand regulations. They were very vague, because they were intended to leave a good deal of latitude for the many cases which must arise. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the Government had not thought out, not the two or three cases which he had suggested, but the thousand and one cases which might arise.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said there were not so many classes of cases. The big classes must be thought out. Besides the cases of the soldier and the sailor, there was the case of the man who went out to serve under a British contract. It might be for three or four years. It might be in South America, India, China, or Mexico. There were many cases of that kind where British subjects could be serving abroad. There were hundreds of decisions of the Courts dealing with matters of that kind. The Act of Parliament only provided for the making of regulations.
§ MR. GRETTON (Rutland)
said that the only answer the right hon. Gentleman had given was similar to that given by the Attorney-General in regard to one particular section of the Bill. In his view, power should only be taken to make regulations for cases which had not been foreseen. He thought it was unfortunate that the Government had not placed the New Zealand Act and regulations on the Table; that would have been a great convenience, as they had been so often referred to. He submitted that it would be wise to pass the Amendment, and he would support it if his hon. friend went to a division. There was a very common case which, it appeared to him, had not yet been considered by the Government. He referred to the case of the seaman, a single man, who spent practically the whole of his life at sea. His home had passed away; he had no family connections with whom he could usually stay when ashore. How could they define a domicile for a man of that description? And it 1534 would be very hard to deprive him of a pension when he reached the age which would entitle him to it, and when he might have much more need of it than many other men who received pensions.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that the right hon. Gentleman had referred them again to the New Zealand regulations. He did not want to see the New Zealand regulations. He was not going to get a pension under the New Zealand Act, nor was he going to pay towards pensions under that Act. What he did want to see were the regulations which were going to affect him as a taxpayer and his fellow countrymen as recipients of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman had told them about a ship owned by an English company but which sailed under the Brazilian flag. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the regulations could alter the law of the land? That ship was a Brazilian vessel, no matter who owned it. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the difficulty of a seaman on board such a ship, and said that the regulations would meet it. In his opinion the only way to meet the difficulty was to put something in the Bill. They should really know what they were doing before they passed the Bill. At the present moment they did not know in the least who was to frame the regulations based on some other regulations passed by another country. This was the great object lesson in passing legislation in an abortive manner, and he sincerely hoped they would never again have such a measure.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
pointed out that domicile was one thing and residence another. There were thousands of people domiciled in England who were resident abroad, and there were thousands who were resident in England but who were domiciled abroad. An hon. Member who spoke on the part of seamen seemed to think that a seaman who spent all his life abroad on a foreign ship could yet be resident in England. He was quite mistaken. All the regulations could do was to define residence; nobody could define residence so as to be synonymous with domicile. An Amendment of this kind was required in order to bring British seamen into the Bill.
§ MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)
thought the Amendment was of the utmost importance, and he pressed the Government to reconsider the decision arrived at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was perfectly confident that unless the Amendment was accepted great hardship would be inflicted on a vast number of English sailors. The Government did not seem to realise what the effect of their own Bill was going to be. Everyone who was connected with the shipping trade and had the interest of the English sailors at heart, should press the Government to say more clearly than they had done why it was that they would not accept the Amendment. The regulations of other countries had nothing to
§ do with the House; what they wanted to know was what the Government's regulations were going to be. He made a final appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the decision to which the Government had come in order to obviate what would be a great hardship to many seamen.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, that in his opinion if this Amendment were carried, it would greatly restrict the scope of the Bill and exclude a large number of persons from its operation.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 316. (Division List, No. 175.)1539
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Gordon, J.||Percy, Earl|
|Ashley, W. W.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gretton, John||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Walter Edward||Renton, Leslie|
|Balfour Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond)||Haddock, George B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George.||Hamilton, Marquess of||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Heaton, John Henniker||Stanier, Beville|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hill, Sir Clement||Starkey, John R.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, 'Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ|
|Cave, George||Joynson-Hicks, William||Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Lanark)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Winterton, Earl|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber George Denison (York)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morpeth, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Captain||M'Arthur and Mr. Harmood-Banner.|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brigg, John|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Barnes, G. N.||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Brodie, H. C.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Beale, W. P.||Brooke, Stopford|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beauchamp, E.||Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Berridge, T. H. D.||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Astbury, John Meir||Bertram, Julius||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bethell, Sir JH.(Essex, Romf'rd||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight||Black, Arthur W.||Byles, William Pollard|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Cameron, Robert|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Hobart, Sir Robert||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Morse, L. L.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hodge, John||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hogan, Michael||Murnaghan, George|
|Cleland, J. W.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Clough, William||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Myer, Horatio|
|Clynes, J. R,||Horniman, Emslie John||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nicholls, George|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Hudson, Walter||Nicholson, Charles N, (Doncast'r|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Nolan, Joseph|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hyde, Clarendon||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Crean, Eugene||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Crooks, William||Johnson, John (Nuneaton)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Crossley, William J.||Jowett, F. W.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Cullinan, J.||Joyce, Michael||O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||O'Dowd, John|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kekewich, Sir George||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Kilbride, Denis||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Devlin, Joseph||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Laidlaw, Robert||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Partington, Oswald|
|Dillon, John||Lamont, Norman||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lehmann, R. C.||Pollard, Dr.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central|
|Erskine, David C.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Essex, R, W.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lewis, John Herbert||Radford, G. H.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lundon, W.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lupton, Arnold||Reddy, M.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Richards, Thomas(W Monm'th|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Maclean, Donald||Richardson, A.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Gill, A. H.||Macpherson, J. T.||Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs|
|Glendinning, R. G.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)||Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Glover, Thomas||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Callum, John M.||Robinson, S.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Crae, Sir George||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Kean, John||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Grey Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Gulland, John W.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton||M'Micking, Major G.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Maddison, Frederick||Russell, T. W.|
|Hall, Frederick||Mallet, Charles E.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Halpin, J.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Ceveland)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Harcourt, Robert. V. (Montrose)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester).|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Marnham, F. J.||Sears, J. E.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Massie, J.||Seddon, J.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Seely, Colonel|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Meagher, Michael||Shackleton, David James|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Menzies, Walter||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.).|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Mond, A.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Torrance, Sir A. M.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Toulmin, George||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Snowden, P.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Verney, F. W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Spicer, Sir Albert||Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Vivian, Henry||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen|
|Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wadsworth, J.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Steadman, W. C.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Walsh, Stephen||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Waring, Walter||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Summerbell, T.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Sutherland J. E.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Winfrey, R.|
|Tayor, John W. (Durham)||Waterlow, D. S.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Watt, Henry A.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Weir, James Galloway||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Whitbread, Howard||Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Tillett, Louis John||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill,"—put, and agreed to.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he moved the Second Amendment standing in his name. He had put down two because he was not quite certain as to what would happen last night. The Committee having approved the schedule, he begged to move the Second Amendment.
In page 1, line 26, at end, to insert the words '(3) The means of the person as calculated under this Act must not exceed £31 10s.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple) moved an Amendment providing that a person shall be disqualified for receiving an old-age pension while he is in receipt of any poor relief (other than relief excepted under this provision) until "the 31st day of December, 1910, unless" Parliament otherwise determines if he has at any time since Januray 1st, 1908, received any such relief. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to accept the Amendment. The result of accepting the Amendment was that they would be giving a statutory undertaking which would appear in the Bill itself that no pauper should be excluded from the benefit of the Old-Age Pensions Act later than 31st December, 1910. They also had the further Parliamentary undertaking which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage. The Amendment was really only the fulfilment of the 1540 distinct pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Committee stage. Personally, and he believed he spoke for many others, they were sincerely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting them in the way in which he had. They recognised that under the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not yet received the Report of the Poor Law Commission, he had done everything that he possibly could. He would detain the House no longer but formally move.
In page 2, line 5, after the word 'until' to insert the words 'the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and ten, unless.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said before the Amendment was accepted by the House he would like to ask whether an Amendment which would admit all these paupers and greatly increase the cost of the measure was in order. His second point was that he did not approve of the date being put in in this way, because it might make it necessary to deal with the matter under the Expiring Laws 1541 Continuance Bill. He would have preferred that the old phrase should have been allowed to remain. The only reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have to accept this Amendment was his desire to put off the evil day. If the Amendment was carried a large increase in the pensions must occur at a considerable cost to the Exchequer. He did not think that was good legislation. No one knew how they were going to meet the liabilities which would fall due after next March, and if there was to be a large increase of liability accruing in 1911 the Parliament of that day should be left to deal with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who only the other day preached the necessity of economy, had now accepted an Amendment which would increase the cost enormously. The expenditure the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for he desired to restrict, but expenditure which would occur three years hence he cared nothing about. They were now legislating for 1911, two and a half years hence, and they did not know what might happen then. They did not know in the least how great the deficit, owing to falling revenue, would be. Under these circumstances, it was extremely rash of the Government to accept the Amendment. If it was passed, and the Government said in 1911 that they had not the money to do it, they would have to have a new amending Act. The House ought to pause, therefore, before accepting the Amendment.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
thought this Amendment certainly deserved more consideration than it had received. It was the first occasion on which such an Amendment in this form had ever been accepted. The Government had often, for the purpose of achieving the object they had in view, limited an Act for a certain time, with the result that when the time came the difficulty could always be got out of by putting the Act into the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It seemed to him that if the Amendment were inserted the hon. Member would be able to claim that he was the only private Member who had succeeded in getting an Amendment inserted which 1542 added materially to the expenses of the Bill; whereas with all others they had been told that they could not add to the cost of the Bill, and that it could only be done by the Government, and not left to a private Member. Further than that, they had been told that they could not deal with anything that added to the cost of the Bill, unless it were dealt with in Committee. What was to be the proposal of the Government? If this was to be their procedure it would form a precedent. What was it that the Government were doing? They, had been thanked by hon. Gentlemen for their generosity; but it seemed to those on his side of the House that they were being generous with other people's time as well as other people's money. Here were the Government entering into an obligation to do a certain thing at the distant period of eighteen months from now. Many things might happen in eighteen months; but suppose when the time came that the business of the country was in the same condition as it was in to-day, and when they had got through a portion of their work they were obliged to sit in the autumn, what were the Government going to do? Were they going to bring in an amending Bill simply altering this, or were they going to postpone it to another year? Were they going, when 1910 came, again to legislate and make it 1911, for which purpose they must have a separate Bill, to go through all its stages, to postpone the date? The proper course for the Government, if the proposals in the Bill were of an experimental kind and not permanent, was to give Parliament an opportunity of reconsidering whether the proper course would not be to follow precedent and have a fixed limit—say one or two years, or whatever they liked. The present course was entirely against precedent, and had nothing to recommend it except for the purpose of the Government's shunting its responsibility probably on to the shoulders of their successors. The year 1910 for the purposes of legislation practically meant two and a half years from the present year. It meant that the House was pledging Parliament to legislate in two and a half years from now. That was 1543 an extraordinary step for any Government to take, and he could not under stand why the Government had not adopted the simpler procedure, for which there were many precedents, of passing legislation limiting the time to two years for the operation of the Act Then at the end of two years they would have the right to introduce fresh legislation, or they would have the right to put the Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That would impose no liability on the Government's successors, would expose Parliament to no inconvenience, and was the orthodox and recognised practice. He protested against this new procedure, adopted as it was at the instance of a private Member, whose very few remarks were devoted entirely to showing that he thanked the Government for the great favour that they were giving to their followers.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
on the point of order asked whether an Amendment which seemed definitely to increase the cost of the Bill could be moved on the Report stage.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had risen to make some observations. The Amendment had been moved to carry out a pledge given by the Government in Committee. The point which he wished particularly to put was this: It was simply an Amendment which specifically pledged this Parliament to deal with the problem of the Poor Law disqualification before 31st December, 1910, the words being "until Parliament otherwise determines." He submitted that these were simply words of interpretation. The words "31st of December, 1910," were simply the interpretation given by the House to the words, "until Parliament otherwise determines." It was a specific mandate to the House to deal with the matter before 31st December, 1910. That was the sense in which the Government had accepted it; that was the sense in which the Government had interpreted it in Committee, and not as adding anything to the cost of the scheme. On the contrary, they thought that it should be considered by Parliament when the problem came to be dealt with later 1544 on. It had not been suggested in the course of the discussion in Committee, nor was it suggested now, that the whole cost should fall on the Exchequer. It was the Poor Law matter merely that was now under consideration, and it was suggested that Parliament should deal with it before 31st December, 1910, as the interpretation of the words "until Parliament otherwise determines."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked whether it was competent for the House to bind either itself or any future House of Commons, to legislate before a given date, and, if the House did not legislate before 1910, would not the result inevitably be a great increase of the public charge?
§ MR. SPEAKER
By the words "until Parliament otherwise determines" it may be said that the House has already committed itself to the expenditure, and his Amendment will only make certain what was previously left indefinite.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that, as he understood Mr. Speaker's ruling, it was that if Parliament was going to deal with the matter before the end of that fear it might not increase the charge. If Parliament did not do that, the charge would be increased. Until that was done, it might go on for an indefinite period but for those words. The Bill was framed on an economic basis which, under this Amendment, would stop sharp at the end of 1910, and then thereafter, unless Parliament legislated—it had not anything to compel it to legislate—the charge would be very much increased. That seemed to him to be very near the line.
§ MR. SPEAKER
I have nothing further to add to what I have said. Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to address the House on the Amendment?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that, if the right hon. Gentleman would permit him, there were one or two questions which he would first desire to answer. He thought the complaint was made that this was not the usual form; that they were not following precedent in inserting this provisional clause merely 1545 as a sub-clause of one clause of the Bill, and that what they really ought to do was to follow precedent by making the Bill provisional in its character as to time. The reason of the Government was that they did not desire to make the Bill provisional in its character. They wanted the Bill as a whole to be a permanent charge on the revenue of the country. But with regard to this provision as to the Poor Law, they intended that it should be temporary; they intended that it should be limited to the two years which they now sought to put into the Bill. That was the real reason why they were dealing with the temporary character of the Bill—the only part of it which was provisional.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inform the House what would be the cost, according to the actuarial experts, in which they would be involved. They had heard last night from the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to a large number of propositions, some sort of explanation as to how much money each might involve. The question now under discussion was obviously a most important one, and would have the effect of bringing into the purview of old-age pensions an immense body of people, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or some other member of the Government could tell them what this would mean in figures. He had no doubt after what the right hon. Gentleman had told them last night that he had had a special study made of the different Amendments in order to ascertain from the best actuarial expert opinion that could be brought to bear upon the subject what the proposal would mean to the Exchequer at the present moment; and he for one would very much like to know what would be the cost of an Amendment of this character and to what the country would really be committed. It was a very important point, and they were entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for those figures, because, although on every one of the Amendments they had been told that they could do nothing to increase the 1546 cost of the Bill, yet when, this important matter came under discussion they were told that the Amendment would be accepted.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he wanted to put the problem, as he understood it, in a precise form. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that if this disqualification were struck out of the Bill it would mean an addition of £3,500,000 to the annual cost of the scheme. But it had been pointed out that if it were left permanent it would go on diminishing; the difference between the cost of the scheme without it, and the cost of the scheme with it, would go on diminishing, because the guardians would gradually cease to give outdoor relief, and all the people who would otherwise receive outdoor relief would gradually become pensioners. The point raised by his hon. friend was this: How many outdoor relief people would have become pensioners in the estimation of the Government before 31st December, 1910? That, of course, must be taken from the £3,500,000. But supposing that something or other happened and nothing further was done, that the Bill was left to work itself out as it stood, and that this disqualification came to an end altogether on 31st December, 1910, what would be the net addition to the cost of the scheme to the country? He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell them that, but it was information which they would like to have.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool was what, in fact, would be the additional charge. As a matter of fact, in his judgment this would diminish the charge for the very reason pointed out by the noble Lord, because Parliament would be face to face with the problem of the Poor Law with a view to discrimination, and also with a view to allocating the charge between local and imperial finance. He was afraid he could not answer the noble Lord off-hand, but he would look into the matter and give him the answer. It involved very careful inquiry into figures.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought the whole procedure on which the Government had embarked in this connection was very astounding. Just let them consider how they stood in connection with the allied problems of reform of the Poor Law and of the old-age pension scheme. The Government did not in the least know what suggestions were going to be made by the Royal Commission nor where they were going to find the money for old-age pensions. With these two ignorances oppressing them, they mortgaged their future assets in point of money without in the least knowing what they were, and they were mortgaging the time of the House without in the least knowing what the time of the House was. Had the Government shown themselves, either in the matter of money or time, such excellent managers of their resources, so provident, so far-seenig, so capable of forecasting the real obligations which would fall on them as they gradually matured, that they should trust them in this matter? They were asking the House to sit about nine or ten months this year. They had all these enormous financial problems to deal with next year, and in the year after they had to consider the Report of the
§ Commission, which had not yet been presented, which certainly would not be unanimous, and which would deal with one of the most complicated social problems ever considered by any Commission. This Government, who certainly did not give themselves much leisure for thought or reflection, actually told them that under the penalty of having the taxpayer charged with £3,500,000 more than the existing charge of their pension scheme, they or their successors were to find the solution of the great problem of Poor Law reform before 31st December, 1910. He thought it was the most flagitious way of dealing with future obligations, whether of time or money of which they had any record in Parliamentary experience. In his opinion the precise date which the right hon. Gentleman had substituted for the vague Parliamentary phrase which occurred in the original Bill aggravated rather than diminished the evil which they had to fear, and he should certainly vote against him.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 292; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 76.)1551
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Bryce, J. Annan||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Devlin, Joseph|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Alden, Percy||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Byles, William Pollard||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cameron, Robert||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Beale, W. P.||Cleland, J. W.||Essex, R. W.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Clough, William||Evans, Sir Samuel T.|
|Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo)||Clynes, J. R.||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Bennett, E. N.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Ferens, T. R.|
|Bertram, Julius||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Black, Arthur W.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Findlay, Alexander|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Crean, Eugene||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Brigg, John||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Bright, J. A.||Crooks, William||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Crosfield, A. H.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Brooke, Stopford||Crossley, William J.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire||Dalziel, James Henry||Gill, A. H.|
|Glendinning, R. G.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Glover, Thomas||M'Callum, John M.||Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Crae, Sir George||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyn|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Kean, John||Sears, J. E.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Seddon, J.|
|Gulland, John W.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Seely, Colonel|
|Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton||Maddison, Frederick||Shackleton, David James|
|Hall, Frederick||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Halpin, J.||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||Marnham, F. J.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Masterman, C. F. G.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Meagher, Michael||Simon, John Allsebroo|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Menzies, Walter||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Snowden, P.|
|Harwood, George||Molteno, Percy Alport||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mond, A.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morse, L. L.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Murnaghan, George||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Henry, Charles S.||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Myer, Horatio||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nicholls, George||Summerbell, T.|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norman, Sir Henry||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Hodge, John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hogan, Michael||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nuttall, Harry||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||O'Doherty, Philip||Tillett, Louis John|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Donnel, John (Mayo, S.)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||O'Dowd, John||Toulmin, George|
|Hyde, Clarendon||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Idris, T. H. W.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Verney, F. W.|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Vivian, Henry|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Partington, Oswald||Walsh, Stephen|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Jowett, F. W.||Perks, Sir Robert William||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Joyce, Michael||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pollard, Dr.||Watt, Henry A.|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Lamont, Norman||Radford, G. H.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Raphael, Herbert H.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)||Reddy, M.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Rendall, Athelstan||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Richardson, A.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Lundon, W.||Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Robinson, S.||Winfrey, R.|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Maclean, Donald||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roe, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Russell, T. W.||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Elibank.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Fell, Arthur||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)||Gooch. Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, J.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Banner. John S. Harmood-||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry. N.)||Gretton, John||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive.||Hills, J. W.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cave, George||Joynson-Hicks, William||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S||Viscount Valentin and Mr.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Forster,|
Other Amendments made—
'In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word such.
In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'as,' and insert the words '(other than medical or surgical assistance or relief herein-before specifically excepted) which.
'In page 2, line 18, after the word 'is,' to insert the words 'expressly declared.'
In page 2, line 18, after the word 'not,' to insert the words 'to be.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
In page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words 'or a reason for depriving any person of any franchise, right, or privilege.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he was not quite certain as to the effect of this Amendment. His attention had been called to a case in which certain people who occupied almshouses had been disqualified from voting, and he presumed the reason was that they did not get the proper latchkey control.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that these words were necessary because some of the Vaccination Acts did not expressly refer to this disqualification.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that according to his reading of the subsection its effect was to make anything that was now a disqualification a bar to a pension. Would that also apply to future legislation? Supposing a Bill was brought in which removed some disqualification for some particular form of Poor Law relief, for example, by providing that 1552 henceforth the treatment of a patient in an infirmary should not disqualify him for voting. Would that, ipso facto, give that man a right to a pension? If so, it would be a Bill imposing a charge upon the taxpayer and no such Bill could be introduced without a preliminary Resolution in Committee. That would put it out of the power of any private Member to deal with the question. He would like to know from the Attorney-General what was the object of this subsection.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the point raised by the noble Lord depended entirely upon the wording to which he had referred, and the form in which it was passed. As to his point of order he was not able to express an opinion upon it. Ipso facto if a Bill of the sort indicated were passed the disqualifications dealt with would cease.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said that according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement the effect of some future law removing Poor Law disqualifications might be at one blow to alter the class of people who were entitled to receive a pension. He thought they were entitled to know there and then what those disqualifications were going to be. If it was made clear that what was meant was the present disqualifications attaching to pauperism there would be an end of the question; but if the question was left open as the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, and could be altered by any subsequent Registration Law, it was likely to be in a muddle, and very serious difficulties 1553 and complications with regard to other subjects would arise. That was a most objectionable way of dealing with the subject.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)
said there was a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Somerset which took away the disqualification for some forms of Poor Law relief such as medical relief. In future any party dealing with disqualifications for the franchise would at the same time be altering legislation in a different field of life, and they would be fundamentally altering the foundation upon which this Bill was based. That seemed a very undesirable way of proceeding; it was very unscientific and cumbersome, and it might be the means of permitting by a side wind a very large number of new pensioners to come under the scheme, which would vastly increase the cost. All through the debates the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been adamant as regarded any proposals to increase the cost of the scheme, and he had begged the House not to press him as he had no money with which to deal with the suggestions made. Notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman was quite reckless in accepting obligations which would mature in three years time, and he had made no attempt to maintain that strict guardianship of the finances of the country in future years which he so steadfastly maintained for the present year. He thought the subsection ought to be recast in order that all the bars to pensions might be clearly understood by all citizens.
§ MR. BOWLES
thought everybody would agree that there was some force in the remarks made by his hon. friends on this point. The object they had in view was to make the disqualification clear and final, and that could be achieved if the Government would put in some words confining their measure to those matters which were at the present moment a disqualification. Surely they could not allow the Bill when it became an Act to shift about automatically with every change in the franchise.
§ Amendment agreed to.1554
said the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London were not in order.
§ SIR F. BANBURY,
on a point' of order, said his Amendment added the words "by reason of gambling, drunkenness, or idleness." He respectfully submitted that those words were in order.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said it would considerably narrow the area of disqualification, and, therefore, decrease the charge on the revenue.
§ LORD R. CECIL,
speaking on the point of order, said it was a great surprise to many Members of the House to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his test would exclude more people than would be excluded by the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. That was a matter of very grave doubt, and he submitted with the greatest respect that it was not one which it was possible for any occupant of the Chair to pronounce upon. The words which provided that it was to be a disqualification for a pension if an applicant "has habitually failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need hellip." were so vague that it was difficult to say what they meant. He submitted that they would be construed to exclude only those who were, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wastrels and drunkards. If the Amendment were accepted, not only would wastrels and drunkards be excluded, but also those whose failure could be shown to be due to gambling or idleness.
I have conferred with Mr. Speaker particularly on this point. On the question of substance, I do think that the hon. Baronet's Amendment would narrow the exceptions.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
asked if he might move the Amendment in another way. He would move to insert after the second "he" in line 21 the words "shall have brought himself into a position to apply for a pension by reason of gambling, drunkenness, idleness, or."
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he would move the Amendment in that form. It would pass the wit of man to define the words in the Bill "ability, opportunity, and need," and, therefore, some words should be introduced which the ordinary pension committee or pension officer would be able to understand. The words of the Amendment were extremely clear. There were a large number of people who worked for some hours of the day at crossing sweeping and other casual occupations and earned enough to keep themselves in a very comfortable way. He was told by the chairman of a London board of guardians that there were many people who earned their living by doing odd jobs for small payments, and who never had what might be called regular work. These people did not dislike hard work, but they disliked regular work, prefering to take the chance of earning 1s. or 2s. casually now and again. So far as he could make out that class would under this clause be qualified for pensions, because all they would have to say was that they had worked so far as was necessary for their need. Who was going to define what was meant by working according to opportunity? He had come across a great many people who always attributed their misfortune to want of opportunity; it was never caused by stupidity, laziness, or anything inherent in themselves. [Cries of "Oh."] He was not speaking specially of the working classes. That applied to all classes. The people he had in his mind were more or less the professional classes. Hon. Members misjudged him if they thought he was in the least prejudiced. He had gained some experience of the world, and he would devote himself to the best of his ability to see that Acts of Parliament were framed in accordance with human nature as it was, and not in accordance with human nature as it appeared to be in the generous hearts of hon. Members. The word "ability" would be equally difficult to define, for there were some who, though they had the ability, preferred the easier part of not exerting themselves 1556 according to their ability. The clause as it stood was almost incapable of interpretation, and it would be interpreted in all sorts of different ways by pension committees and pension officers. The words he proposed to introduce were simple and would have the effect of governing the loose phraseology of the Bill. He begged to move.
In page 2, line 21, after the second word 'he.' to insert the words 'shall have brought himself into a position to apply for a pension by reason of gambling, drunkenness, idleness, or.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR.CROOKS (Woolwich)
said the hon. Baronet made a useful observation which would be very helpful to the House. He said that to find a proper form of words would pass the wit of man.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that what he stated was that, to interpret the form of words in the clause as proposed by the Government would pass the wit of man.
§ MR. CROOKS
said that was exactly what he was going to apply to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It would pass the wit of any ordinary man to give a definition of those three words— "gambling, drunkenness, and idleness." It would be possible to argue for a week, or, for that part, for any length of time as to what was gambling. He had heard it described as a man putting a shilling on the wrong horse and losing his money. There were people who declared that such a man was a supporter of the glorious national sport of horse-racing. That was one form of gambling. Then, he had heard in that House discussions on company promoters, and those who watered stock and the capital of companies. He had also heard talk of South African mines, and the necessity of putting Chinese labour into them in 1557 order to get the shareholders' money back. He did not know whether that was gambling or not; it might be open to discussion. It might be regarded as the spirit of initiative for which the Britisher was so notable, and, in that event, the man was an investor; but if he was "blued" in his investment he would lose his pension, and if he backed the wrong horse he was bowled out at once. Next as to drunkenness; was there any living soul who could define drunkenness? He had seen a barometer marking degrees of drunkenness—half-slewed, half-drunk, steadily drunk, talkatively drunk, quarrelsome drunk, maudlin drunk, dead drunk, besides other sorts of drunkenness. What particular degree of drunkenness was to disqualify for a pension? He had even been in another place, and had seen a noble Lord trying to balance a glass of water. He did not think it was the water that over-balanced his legs. What about the noble Lords who had gambled away the whole of their estates? He had seen men walk into this House and it was difficult to say that they were drunk, but still more difficult to say that they were perfectly sober. Were they going to put the poor pension committee in the position of inquiring how a man had lost his money if he ever had any? But when he came to idleness, that capped the whole lot. Would they define the British House of Commons listening to the hon. Baronet hour after hour as indulging in idleness? No one could define idleness. It all depended upon the class one belonged to. The ordinary intelligent legislator "cultivated leisure"; the poor unfortunate members below the gangway "wasted time" in discussing questions they had not properly devoted attention to! The House might go on debating these three words, "gambling, drunkenness and idleness" until hon. Members were seventy, and then, though qualified by age for pensions, they would be disqualified on account of so many years waste of time and idleness. Who then would be qualified? It was useless to discuss what the scheme would cost, because everyone would be disqualified, and so the scheme would cost nothing at all. The hon. Baronet had said something about the man who did odd jobs. 1558 He thought the hon. Baronet said "messing about"; that was language up to his standard! He was reminded of the man who, on being asked by his employer what he had been doing, presented a bill:—"To whitewashing, stopping up rat holes, and humbugging about, 4s. 6d. "Under the hon. Baronet's scheme that man would be ruled out. He had no two opinions about the Amendment; and he would vote against it at once.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr, SYDNEY BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets, Poplar
said that the hon. Member who had just spoken had demonstrated how impossible it would be to carry out the hon. Baronet's Amendment. The only definition of drunkenness that he had ever heard was made by a man who was asked if he had ever seen anybody drunk; and his reply was "Oh, he did not think he had; but he had seen a commercial traveller wheeled along a railway platform in a wheelbarrow, and he really thought that he was a little overcome." As to a question of character as a test, that had been abandoned in deference to the general opinion expressed on both sides of the House that the test ought to be rather that of industry. That was the Amendment which the Government had now introduced into the Bill. The hon. Baronet proposed to revert to the character test, which discussion had shown would be not only impossible but inexpedient. The words of the Bill as they now stood would cover the cases referred to by the hon. Baronet, viz., the cases of those who were habitual gamblers, drunkards, and idlers.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he wished the opponents of the Amendment would come to some agreement among themselves as to what the effect of it would really be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been upheld by the Deputy Speaker in the view, when the Amendment was proposed in another form, that it would lead to an increase of charge, and now it was held that it would diminish pensions. He had listened with some regret to the references made by the hon. Member for 1559 Woolwich to this House and to another place, and he still further regretted that these charges should have been received as a matter of laughter. The hon. Member for Woolwich, in opposing the Amendment, had asked if they set up a test, and said that a man should be disqualified for receiving a pension who had brought himself into a position of need by gambling, drunkenness, and idleness, who was to get a pension? But who was to get a pension under the Government scheme? He admitted the difficulty of determining who had brought himself into a position of need by gambling, drunkenness, or idleness. The Government believed that by their Amendment they would exclude any man who had wasted his life by gambling, drunkenness, and idleness. They also believed that they had done something more; but he did not think that the Government had found a definition which was easier of interpretation than that of the hon. Baronet. That was the question he wanted answered by the Postmaster-General, and he thought the House was entitled to an answer before the vote was taken.
MR. KEIR HAEDIE
said the objection to the Amendment was obvious. The Postmaster-General had stated quite clearly that the Government had agreed to delete the character test, and the Amendment proposed to reinsert it. The Government proposed only an industry test, the Amendment suggested there should be also a moral one. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment and pass to the discussion of other Amendments of importance.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
expressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. The object of it was not to cast any slur on the words proposed by the Government but to add certain other disqualifications. It was only right to make it quite clear that as these pensions were to be a reward for elderly people of a deserving character, the drunkard the gambler, and the idle person should be excluded. Although it might be difficult to define the words gambler and drunkard, it would not be difficult 1560 if a man had been convicted three or four times in three or four consecutive years for drunkenness to say that the man was a drunkard and ought not to have a pension. There was far greater difficulty in defining what the ability of a man of seventy was. It might be easy to do so in the rural districts, but in large cities such as Liverpool and London where work was not given to men over forty-five years of age there were many hundreds of deserving people who were unable to find work. How was it possible to say that those men had failed to work according to their ability, opportunity, and needs? It would be a very easy thing for a pension officer to say to a man: "You have not worked according to your ability, opportunity and needs, because I myself have seen you knocking about for the last ten or fifteen years doing nothing." The clause, if passed, would be a most unsatisfactory and difficult clause to deal with; it provided no reasonable safeguards against; the wrong kind of men getting pensions, and the idea of the Amendment was to make it possible for the habitual drunkard, gambler, or idler to be kept out. He would support the Amendment.
§ MR. ADKINS (Lancashire, Middleton)
said that while the hon. Member who spoke last was nominally supporting the Amendment, his speech was a criticism of the clause which the Amendment was to alter. If there were difficulties of construction in the clause those difficulties would be increased by the Amendment, which would lead to great injustice in many cases. The word "habitually" did not apply in any reasonable interpretation of the clause. He was surprised that the hon. Member should seek to support an Amendment which would bring into consideration matters which could not properly be decided by any tribunal or committee established under the Bill and which would work inequitably and unjustly throughout the country. On these grounds he opposed the Amendment.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said he could not support 1561 the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It only carried the absurdity of the clause a little further. There were only two ways of carrying out a pension scheme: it should be either contributory or universal. In either case these difficulties would have been avoided. He was amazed at the attitude of the Postmaster-General when he said the Government were abandoning the character test.
said the right hon. Gentleman called it an industry test. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to an industry test, but he made one reservation in the case of what he called the wastrel. He himself would like to know what a wastrel was. What was the meaning of subsection (b), which referred to refusal to work, if it was not a character test? Surely, if it was an industry test to exclude wastrels, it was an industry test to exclude a person who had brought himself into a position to apply for a pension by reason of gambling, drunkenness, and idleness. It was really absurd for the Postmaster-General to tell them there was any difference in principle between the two. The Amendment would make the Bill more ridiculous than it was, and for that reason he thanked his hon. friend for having moved it.
§ MR. VERNEY
thought the Postmaster-General was perfectly justified. The whole system of pensions was based on wealth which was the direct result of industry. An immoral man who by industry contributed to that wealth had a right to a pension. But, in the absence of industry, there could be no right to a pension at all.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. He sympathised with his object to clear up the definition in the Bill, which he was sure would lead to untold difficulties, but he was afraid his words did not do it. Under the Amendment it would not only be necessary 1562 to prove a man had been a gambler, an idler, or a drunkard, but that his gambling, idleness, or drunkenness had placed him in a position to need a pension. They might prove the one, but how would they prove the other? A man might admit he had put a shilling on, had no doubt taken too much at times, and had not worked as hard as he might, and yet say that his present condition was not owing to these little peccadilloes but to other matters, such, for instance, as foreign competition or hostile tariffs. A pension committee, unconsciously impregnated with these views, might accept his excuses. He was afraid the Amendment was not practicable, and, though he had the heartiest sympathy with his hon. friend's object, he could not support him and would be bound to vote against the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON moved to insert in Clause 3, after the word "maintenance," the words "or benefit." It had, he said, been thought by some Members that the subsection would only apply to men, because it might be difficult for a woman to show that she had worked according to her ability, opportunity, and need for the maintenance of herself and those legally dependent upon her; and they proposed to insert the words "or benefit" in order to make it clear the subsection applied to women as well as to men.
In page 2, line 23, after the word 'maintenance,' to insert the words 'or benefit1.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
§ Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he was in entire sympathy with the Amendment and he had only one observation to make. The Bill either included married women who had kept house respectably and well, but who technically it might be said had not worked for the maintenance of themselves or those dependent upon them, 1563 in which case the words proposed were unnecessary; or it did not, in which case the Amendment would place a new charge upon the Exchequer and therefore fell within the category of those which they had not been allowed to move. He did not know on which of these horns of dilemma the right hon. Gentleman desired to sit.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said he did not desire to sit on either. The Government had carefully considered the question, and they had been advised that the words in the Bill would cover the case of women. Certain Members doubted that. They were anxious to make it absolutely clear, and they therefore proposed these words. They would not impose any additional charge, because in the opinion of the Government the case of women was already covered.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE
said that, so far as wives were concerned, the words were not necessary, because provision was made for them in a second paragraph of the clause, but the object of the Amendment which he had put down was to meet the case of a woman who was not a wife but who was either a widow or a spinster. They might possibly have been excluded, and he was therefore very glad the Government preferred to insert the words.
§ MR. BOWLES
said he had an Amendment to deal with this very point. It appeared to him that whilst the Amendment of the Postmaster-General would no doubt provide for the case of married women, it was not certain that it would do so for the single woman, who possibly had no person legally dependent upon her. He preferred the plain and straightforward statement of his own Amendment to the very intricate Amendment the Government proposed. It did not seem at all certain that it would include all women.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said they had not had an opportunity of considering words but he Confessed they appeared to him to make it very doubtful what would be the ultimate meaning of the 1564 clause. All work was practically done for the maintenance or benefit either of the man himself or those legally dependent upon him, and he wanted to ask the Government what was the force of the words, "maintenance or benefit of himself or those legally depend-dent upon him." He ventured to submit that the addition of the words "or benefit" would enormously extend the scope of the clause.
If the noble Lord puts that to me as a point of order, I have to say that the Postmaster-General, in reply to a question, stated that the charge would not be increased, and I shall treat the Amendment as an explanation, just as I have decided to treat the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood which follows. It is extremely difficult, as hon. Members will see, to draw the line sometimes.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BOWLES
said he desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name, because it appeared to be extremely doubtful whether the words, as amended, included every woman whom it was desired to include. There were very few working women of whom it could be said that they had worked according to their ability, opportunity and need for the maintenance of themselves and those legally dependent upon them. What was wanted was not some mere indirect allusion such as the Postmaster-General had put in, but a plain and simple statement such as he now proposed. To leave it to the pension officer to judge whether or not she had worked for other people's benefit was very vague, and it was not the right way to deal with it. The Government Amendment gave great scope to doubts of interpretation of many kinds. He hoped the Government would either assure them that the case of every woman who ought to be included was included in the words as they stood or accept the Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECIL
seconded the Amendment. He did not understand that the words of the Government 1565 would include the case which they all wanted to include, namely, that of the woman who was keeping house. It was pretty clear that she did not work for the maintenance of herself if she kept house for her husband.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he did not think the wives of hon. Members were the best judges of the construction of the clause. He did not think the words were at all clear, but the words of the Amendment were perfectly clear, and the Government, he suggested, would do well to accept it.
In page 2, line 24, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that a woman shall be deemed to have worked for the maintenance of herself and her dependants if she has kept house for others.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
had no hesitation in saying that every case that had been mentioned by the mover and seconder of the Amendment was absolutely covered by the Bill as it stood. The Amendment, however, appeared very much to limit the number of those who would benefit under the Bill. It limited them to those who had kept house for others, and not even kept house for themselves, and the Government could not possibly accept the words as they stood.
§ MR. BOWLES
said that if the Government were sure these cases were covered, he did not think he ought to put the House to the trouble of a division.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD R. CECIL moved to omit the words "up to" and insert "any time before" in the proviso removing the disqualification in the case of ten years 1566 continuous membership of a trade union or benefit society. He wanted to know whether by "up to" they meant from fifty to sixty or any time before reaching the age of sixty. It was a matter of great importance, because if it meant from fifty to sixty he would have thought that that would exclude a very large number of people whom it would be rather hard to exclude because they had failed for one term to pay their subscriptions after the age of fifty. That was probably the most difficult period for a working man to keep up his payments to a society. Whichever the Government meant, they ought to make it quite clear. He had put down two alternative Amendments. One was to insert "any time before." and the other to insert "immediately before." He did not think it was of very great importance which was intended, though there were great difficulties attaching to both, but whichever was intended it should be made quite clear.
§ MR. BARNES
said he would do himself the pleasure of seconding the noble Lord's Amendment, and he was very glad to find himself in agreement with him for once. This seemed to have a widening effect on the Bill, and he was glad the point was raised, because he could conceive conditions under which it would be a very great hardship for a man between fifty and sixty to keep up his payments. That was the most difficult period to get through. In the industrial world a man often found it difficult even before fifty and very hard after that to get work, and he would say there were many cases which would be excluded under the operation of the Bill as it stood. He knew the point had been made before. It might be said that members of friendly societies and trade unions were members of those societies at an early age and had to stick to them. But that did not apply all round. There were members of such trade unions, for instance, as that with which the hon. Member for West Ham was connected, where members were constantly going in and out again.
said that having heard from the speeches of the 1567 mover and seconder what they were desiring to do, it seemed that it must inevitably increase the charge.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE
asked whether this was not an interpretation Amendment similar to the two which had been allowed to pass previously.
I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his interpretation of the Amendment is.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that he had proposed to raise the point of order. It was clear that the paragraph could only mean the ten years immediately before the age of sixty. He would not have thought that there was the slightest doubt about that. If any ten years were to be taken, a man might have been a member of a friendly society or trade union at any time of his life, and that would add considerably to the number of those who would come on the pensions.
§ LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out "up to" and insert "immediately before." Let them at any rate know what they were doing. The Labour Members would hope the Bill did not mean what the Government said it did, and he could understand that they would be against the Amendment, but the Government would be only too glad to accept it because it would make it perfectly plain. "Immediately before attaining the ago of sixty" was far clearer and more definite than the Government's words. Let them not use a phrase which might be construed by one committee in one way and by another committee in another. Let them say exactly what they meant and they would know what benefit they were conferring on the working class and what they were not.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
seconded the Amendment, as he understood that 1568 it only effected what the Government desired.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 26, to leave out the words 'up to,' and insert the words 'immediately before,' "—(Lord R. Cecil,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'up to' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer' had taken him by surprise. The language of the provision had not given the impression which the right hon. Gentleman now placed upon it. Had the word "the" been inserted before the words "ten years" the section might have been understood in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman interpreted it. The impression of the Labour Party had been that what was required was membership of a trade union or friendly society for any ten years of a man's life before he reached the age of sixty years. They were seriously concerned about the construction which the right hon. Gentleman had put upon the provision. In his own trade union there were 150,000 operatives in the cotton trade, not one of whom had a vested interest in a pension. It was a common thing for those people to cease work at fifty or fifty-five years of age, and, according to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, the Bill would be of no use to them. That was something which the Labour Members had never contemplated, and it appeared now, by the ruling from the Chair, that the provision could not be altered; but he hoped that another opportunity would be found to alter it, and that the Government would not acept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
replied that he would not have thought there was the slightest doubt about the meaning of the clause. The Government chose the words in order to make it clear to everybody that they meant the ten years before the age of sixty was reached. That was done for a very good reason. A man might join a friendly society or trade 1569 union at the age of twenty years, remain a member for ten years, and then become a wastrel and a loafer through the remainder of his life. If he could claim a pension, that would not make the clause a test of industry and thrift. But if from his fiftieth to his sixtieth year a man worked and was a member of a friendly society or trade union, that was a real test, and if his hon. friend looked at any Colonial or foreign scheme of old-age pensions he would find that that period of life was the real testing time. In the most favourable scheme—the Colonial—the test of industry and character went up to sixty-five years of age. The Government had taken the age of sixty. He had interviewed representatives of friendly societies, and put this point to them, and they were certainly in favour of a test up to sixty years of age.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that he did, and they preferred it, because they did not wish a man merely to join a society in a fit of enthusiasm and leave it after a few years, but to continue his membership. He put to them the case of a man whose health broke down when he was fifty years old, and he became unable to keep up his subscriptions, and they answered that they regarded such a man as a member as long as he was receiving benefit from the society, and that his subscriptions were paid by the society for him. The question was purely one of drafting. They could not go back on the decision of the Committee. If there was to be any test of thrift and industry at all, it was certainly better to have it immediately before a man reached the age at which he might be entitled to a pension. The words suggested by the noble Lord were the alternative words considered by the Government, and their advisors were strongly of opinion that those they had decided upon were better, and made the matter clearer. After a good deal of careful consideration the Government decided on these words.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
concurred in thinking that these words, 1570 naturally interpreted, meant the last ten years preceding the age of sixty. No doubt it was annoying and vexatious to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to find out at the last moment, when neither they nor anyone else had the opportunity of moving an alternative, what was the intention of the Government, and what was the effect of the Bill they were passing. Once again those hon. Gentlemen had an illustration of the result of the cheerful vote they gave for the guillotine, and the engineer found himself hoist with his own petard. On the general merits of the case he was with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as against hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. At the same time he thought there would be some very hard cases under the test, and he hoped that even now the Government would consider what could be done to meet them. There was the case of the man in the rural district, often alluded to by his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin, who joined one of the small clubs or friendly societies, many of which had come to grief. He might have contributed right up to the time the club failed, but if it failed when he was fifty-nine or fifty-eight, or at any time when he was between fifty and sixty, it was practically impossible for the man to qualify under this proviso. The proviso said—If he continuously makes payment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
replied that he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had again referred to this case. He thought it was a very strong case on its merits, and he was advised' that under the words in the proviso, "or other approved steps made such provision," he had power to deal with it. He thought the case was one which ought to be recognised.
§ MR. GRETTON
desired to give a word of warning in reference to the wholesale statement which had been made on this point, because he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, at some future time, find it very difficult to resist the claims which would be made.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE
asked the Attorney-General whether, according to 1571 the interpretation, of the subsection, a pension committee or pension officer would be justified in holding that a person had not worked to the best o his ability if he had failed to maintain his contributions to one of the societies mentioned. That appeared to him to be a real danger. The pension committee might take that as a test whether a person had worked according to his ability, and if an applicant had not complied with that condition, he might be ruled out. If that was so, it constituted a very serious state of affairs indeed.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that the hon. Member anticipated a danger that would not arise in the construction of the clause The first part laid down the principle that if a man had "habitually failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need" he was disqualified. But in order that there might be an easy means of rebutting any allegation made against him the man was provided with a remedy if he could show that "he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty" made his contributions in the way prescribed by the proviso. No question could arise, therefore, out of the antecedent part of the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of Lord Robert Cecil as follows—
In Clause 3, page 2. line 29, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'if at any time he has by.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ MR. SPEAKER
This Amendment is not in order. It seems to me to whittle away the meaning of the word "continuously," and in that respect it Would increase the charge.
§ LORD R. CECIL
May I ask your construction of the words "or other approved steps." I do not understand that to mean some other means of con- 1572 tributing to societies, but that a man has taken some other means of providing for old age. I think that, as a matter of clearness, it is desirable it should be stated in the clause that this need not be done over a period of ten years. It cannot be the meaning of the Government or of any sane person that you should not invest your money for ten years except in "friendly, provident, or other societies."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
According to the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it need not be a continuous contribution even to a friendly society. The right hon. Gentleman explained that he meant to include, or to leave himself open to include, cases in which a man had contributed for part of the ten years to societies which had subsequently become bankrupt.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The noble Lord must not ask me to construe the words of the Bill. As to the import of the word "continuously" I would say that it is applicable to the whole of that sentence, and, therefore, if the noble Lord seeks to whittle it away, he is really going back on the decision of the Committee and also widening the number of persons who will be admitted, and for that reason I do not think the noble Lord has a right to move it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
With all respect, on the point of order may I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the Government draftsman did not mean the word "continuously" to apply to all the methods by which approved steps for providing against old age, sickness, and infirmity, are dealt with. That is part of the explicit policy of the Government.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I take the Amendment on the Paper which proposes to insert the words "if at any time he has by." That certainly widens the clause, and it would increase the number who would come under the provision.
§ MR. BOWLES moved to leave out the following words at the end of the proviso: 1573 "And any such provision, when made by the husband in the case of a married couple living together, shall as respects any right of the wife to a pension, be treated as provision made by the wife as well as by the husband." He did not know whether the Government had considered this any more than the rest of the subsection, but it seemed to him to be an extraordinary provision. It would mean that a perfectly worthless woman whom nobody would desire to provide with a pension would be pensioned at the public expense. It could not be said that the pension in such a case was the reward of industry or of anything else. He could not understand how such a position could be justified. He supposed it had been put in, like a good deal of the rest of the Bill, in order to meet some case which had vaguely floated across the mind of the Government. The Government should say what they meant by a form of words which seemed to him to be perfectly ridiculous. He begged to move.
In page 2, line 32, to leave out from the word 'Act' to end of page 2, line 36."—(Mr. Bowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that these words had received very careful consideration from the Government, and they intended to stand by them. If a man had been able to pay his subscriptions up to the age of sixty years, the wife ought to benefit from it. It was very often owing to the wife's care and good housewifery that the man had been able to save any money and pay his subscription to his friendly society, and she ought to have a fair share of the benefit of it. If the woman had been one who squandered her husband's means, he would not have been able to save anything at all.
§ MR. BOWLES
said that, after the appeal which had been made to him by his hon. friend, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD R. CECIL moved to insert the following proviso at the end of Subsection (c) in Clause 4: "Provided that such property shall not be deemed to be capable of investment, so as to bring in a larger return than at the rate of 2frac34;per cent, per annum." He thought something should be done to say what kind of investment a man who had saved—100 was bound to make of that money. Was he to buy an annuity? Supposing a man did buy himself an annuity with his £100 at seventy years of age, that would represent a very considerable annuity and would reduce his pension considerably. But if he was bound to invest in Consols, his £100 would only bring in £2 15s. per annum. In that case, he would get a pension of an income subject to that deduction, and in addition to that he would be able to leave his £100 to his children, or his descendants. He thought that some such words as he proposed were needed in order to make it quite clear what was the nature of the investment the man was to make. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 32, after the word 'him' to insert the words, 'Provided that such property shall not be deemed capable of investment so as to bring in a larger return than at the rate of 2frac34;per cent, per annum.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he wished the noble Lord had put his Amendment 1575 down on the Paper so that they might have seen what the effect of it would be on the rest of the proviso. The noble Lord had taken only one kind of property. He had taken a sum of money yielding more than 2frace34; per cent.; they might take some other kind of property which was not put to profitable use, and which ought to be put to profit able use. They must judge each case on its merits, and that was what the section did. It left it to the officer of the Government and to the pension committee to exercise their discretion in deciding in each particular case what use the property could be put to, and what return could be reasonably expected from it. It was all a matter of business, and he did not think they ought to prescribe the particular investment that ought to be made in each case.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought there was a bigger question behind this. A man might save throughout his life, and put his savings into a friendly society, insurance society, or some other society which paid him an annuity at a certain age, and paid him at a different rate of interest to a permanent investment because this investment would cease altogether with the man's life. Then there was the other case. Another man would invest exactly the same sum of money for the same number of years of his life, but he invested his money in some permanent funds like Government stock. During the short period of expectancy of life after seventy the man who had bought an annuity got large interest on his money, and it would seriously diminish the amount of his pension. But the second man, who had invested in a permanent security, got a smaller rate of interest, but he could leave the principal sum to his children, and the burden was thrown upon the taxpayer of paying the whole of his pension. The first man saved the taxpayers; the second man saved his principal. These were two quite different methods of dealing with exactly the same sum of money. The House ought to determine how the directions in this subsection were to be carried out by the committee. He hoped the 1576 Government would carefuly consider this question.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said it was very difficult to go into all the ramifications of a proposal of this kind without a little more notice.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought the noble Lord had a case where a man might have saved £1,800, and yet he and his wife might be able to claim the whole of their pensions.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Yes. That was a case which ought to be excluded. The committee ought to have some discretion. The pension committee ought to be able to say what sum of money ought to produce more than enough to exclude. It would be absurd that a man who had £1,800 which he could leave to his children should be able to claim 10s. in pensions for his wife and himself.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
thought the Government ought to be particularly careful if they discriminated that they did not discriminate against those who invested their savings with the Government itself. He had always regretted that in this country we had not that large number of small investors in Government funds which in France made so much for the stability of the French nation as well as French finance, and he thought that the Government ought to be very careful if they discriminated at all that they should not discriminate in such a way as to deter 1577 people from investing in Government funds.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised a very important question which ought to be debated. Let him take the case of a man to whom at the age of sixty-eight £400 was given as compensation for an accident. If that man invested it in Government funds it would bring in £10 a year. Was the pension officer to say that the money was not properly invested and that if instead of putting it in the funds its
§ possessor had purchased an annuity it would have produced 4 per cent., and that therefore he was entitled to less pension?
§ And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th June, to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 363.(Division List No. 177.)1581
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Faber, George Denison (York)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gordon, J.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Gretton, John||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Walter Edward||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Haddock, George B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester||Hamilton, Marquess of||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hill, Sir Clement||Stanier, Beville|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hills, J. W.||Starkey, John R.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Hunt, Rowland||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kerry, Earl of||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Whitbread, Howard|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Younger, George|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Craik, Sir Henry||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||M'Arthur, Charles||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Magnus, Sir Philip||Viscount Valentia.|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barnes, G. N.||Black, Arthur W.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Agnew, George William||Beale, W. P.||Bramsdon, T. A.|
|Alden, Percy||Beauchamp, E.||Brigg, John|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Beck, A. Cecil||Bright, J. A.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bellairs, Carlyon||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp' rt||Brooke, Stopford|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Bennett, E. N.||Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir JT (Cheshire|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Berridge, T. H. D.||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Bertram, Julius||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hall, Frederick||Mac veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Halpin, J.||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||M'Callum, John M.|
|Cameron, Robert||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||M'Crae, Sir George|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||M'Laren, Sir C B. (Leicester)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)||M 'Micking, Major G.|
|Chance, Frederick William||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh.||Maddison, Frederick|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hart-Davies, T.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Harwood, George||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Clough, William||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Marnham, F. J.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hedges, A. Paget||Massie, J.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Helme, Norval Watson||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Meagher, Michael|
|Cooper, G. J.||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Henry, Charles S.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Mond, A.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Higham, John Sharp||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Crean, Eugene||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Morrell, Philip|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Hodge, John||Morse, L. L.|
|Crooks, William||Hogan, Michael||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Murnaghan, George|
|Crossley, William J.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Cullinan, J.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Myer, Horatio|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Horniman, Emslie John||Napier, T. B.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hudson, Walter||Nicholls, George|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Button, Alfred Eddison||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Hyde, Clarendon||Nolan, Joseph|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Idris, T. H. W.||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Duffy, William J.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jenkins, J.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O' Doherty, Philip|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jowett, F. W.||O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Joyce, Michael||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Erskine, David C.||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||O' Dowd, John|
|Essex, R. W.||Kekewich, Sir George||O' Grady, J.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Kilbride, Denis||O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||O' Kelly Jas. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O' Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Laidlaw, Robert||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Partington, Oswald|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lament, Norman||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S' thampton)|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lehmann, R. C.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Levy, Sir Maurice||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lewis, John Herbert||Pollard, Dr.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Lupton, Arnold||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Glover, Thomas||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lyell, Charles Henry||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Lynch, H. B.||Radford, G. H.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Maclean, Donald||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Gulland, John W.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Reddy, M.|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Waring, Walter|
|Richards, T F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T|
|Richardson, A.||Snowden, P.||Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Soares, Ernest J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Steadman, W. C.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Robinson, S.||Strachey, Sir Edward||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Roche, John (Galway, East)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Summerbell, T.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Rowlands, J.||Sutherland, J. E.||Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Russell, T. W.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Williamson, A.|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Scarisbrick T. T. L.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Thomasson, Franklin||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Scott, A. H (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)|
|Soars, J. E.||Thorne, William (West Ham)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Seaverns J. H.||Tomkinson, James||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Seddon, J.||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Seely, Colonel||Toulmin, George||Winfrey, R.|
|Shackleton, David James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wood, T. M' Kinnon|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Verney, F. W.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)||Vivian, Henry|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wadsworth, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Walsh, Stephen||Elibank.|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Walters, John Tudor|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Walton, Joseph|
§ Mr. SPEAKER
then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
In page 4, line 12, after the word 'after,
§ 'to insert the words 'the day on which.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question put, ''That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 372; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 178.)1585
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Beale, W. P.||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh'|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Beauchamp, E.||Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir JT (Cheshire|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Beck, A. Cecil||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Bellairs, Carlyon||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Agnew, George William||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Alden, Percy||Bennett, E. N.||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Berridge, T. H. D.||Byles, William Pollard|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bertram, Julius||Cameron, Robert|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight|
|Astbury, John Meir||Black, Arthur W.||Cawley, Sir Frederick|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bowerman, C. W.||Chance, Frederick William|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Brigg, John||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bright, J. A.||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Cleland, J. W.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Brooke, Stopford||Clough, William|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Harwood, George||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Collius, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hazleton, Richard||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hedges, A. Paget||Marnham, F. J.|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Helme, Norval Watson||Massie, J.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Meagher, Michael|
|Crean, Eugene||Henry, Charles S.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Crooks, William||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Higham, John Sharp||Mond, A.|
|Crossley, William J.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cullinan, J.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Hodge, John||Morrell, Philip|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Hogan, Michael||Morse, L. L.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Murnaghan, George|
|Devlin, Joseph||Holt, Richard Durning||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Myer, Horatio|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N||Horniman, Emslie John||Napier, T. B.|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nicholls, George|
|Duffy, William J.||Hudson, Walter||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Nolan, Joseph|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Hyde, Clarendon||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Jenkins, J.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Erskine, David C.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Essex, R. W.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Jowett, F. W.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Joyce, Michael||O'Dowd, John|
|Fenwick, Charles||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||O'Grady, J.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Kekewich, Sir George||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Kettle, Thomas Michael||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Ffrench, Peter||Kilbride, Denis||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Findlay, Alexander||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Partington, Oswald|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Laidlaw, Robert||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Lament, Norman||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Gill, A. H.||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Lehmann, R. C.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Pollard, Dr.|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Glover, Thomas||Lewis, John Herbert||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Lupton, Arnold||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Radford, G. H.|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Lynch, H. B.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Gulland, John W.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Maclean, Donald||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Hall, Frederick||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Reddy, M.|
|Halpin, J.||Macpherson, J. T.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||M'Callum, John M.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Crae, Sir George||Richardson, A.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss-sh||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.).||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||M'Micking, Major G.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.|
|Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Robinson, S.||Steadman, W. C.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Rowlands, J.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Summerbell, T.||White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)|
|Russell, T. W.||Sutherland, J. E.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne||Thomasson, Franklin||William, Llewelyn (Carm'rthn|
|Sears, J. E.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E||Williamson, A.|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Seddon, J.||Thorne, William (West Ham)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Seely, Colonel||Tomkinson, James||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Shackleton, David James||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Toulmin, George||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Ure, Alexander||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Verncy, F. W.||Winfrey, R.|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Vivian, Henry||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Wadsworth, J.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Walsh, Stephen||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Walters, John Tudor||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Walton, Joseph||Elibank.|
|Snowden, P.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Waring, Walter|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fell, Arthur||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Forster, Henry William||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham||Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gordon, J.||O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gretton, John||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)||Guinness, Walter Edward||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Haddock, George B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Banner, John. S. Harmood-||Hamilton, Marquess of||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Heaton, John Henniker||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Sir Clement||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Stanier, Beville|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Starkey, John R.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Houston, Robert Paterson||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Joynson-Hicks, William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kerry, Earl of||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J. A.(Worc||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)||Lonsdale, John; Brownlee||Younger, George|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M' Arthur, Charles||Claude Hay and Mr. George|
|Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Denison Faber.|
|Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
§ MR. SPEAKER
The next Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to add at the end of line 13 the words "or if that day is a Friday on that day," is one which increases the charge by adding one week to the pension period, if a pension is granted on a Friday, and consequently it is not in order.
Other Amendments made—
In page 4, line 27, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words '(except in the case of a question which has been originated by the pension officer and on which the committee have already received his report).'
In page 4, line 37, after the first word 'The,' to insert the words 'pension officer, and
§ any person aggrieved, may appeal to the central pension authority against a.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
In page 4, line 39, to leave out from the word 'them' to the word 'referred,' in line 40, and to insert the words 'within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, and any claim or question in respect of which an appeal is so brought shall stand.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 360; Noes, 82. (Division List, No. 179.)1591
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Byles, William Pollard||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Agnew, George William||Cameron, Robert||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Alden, Percy||Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Erskine, David C.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Chance, Frederick William||Essex, R. W.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry||Cheetham, John Frederick||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Fenwick, Charles|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cleland, J. W.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Clough, William||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Clynes, J. R.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Barnes, G. N.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Findlay, Alexander|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Beale, W. P.||Cooper, G. J.||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman|
|Beauchamp, E.||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gill, A. H.|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)||Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John|
|Bennett, E. N.||Crean, Eugene||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Glover, Thomas|
|Bertram, Julius||Crooks, William||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Crosfield, A. H.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Crossley, William J.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Cullinan, J.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Curran, Peter Francis||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Dalziel, James Henry||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Brigg, John||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Gulland, John W.|
|Bright, J. A.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Bampton|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Devlin, Joseph||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius|
|Brooke, Stopford||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hall, Frederick|
|Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh)||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Halpin, J.|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Duffy, William J.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Robertson Sir G Scott (Bradford|
|Harmsworth RL (Caithness-sh.||M'Micking, Major G.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Maddison, Frederick||Robinson, S.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Mallet, Charles E.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Harwood, George||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston||Rowlands, J.|
|Hazleton, Richard||Marnham, F. J.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Hodges, A. Paget||Massie, J.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Masterman, C. F. G.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Meagher, Micdael||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Mond, A.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Sears, J. E.|
|Hodge, John||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Hogan, Michael||Morrell, Philip||Seddon, J.|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Morse, L. L.||Seely, Colonel|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Shackleton, David James|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Murnaghan, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Myer, Horatio||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Napier, T. B.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Hudson, Walter||Nicholls, George||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Nolan, Joseph||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Norman, Sir Henry||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Snowden, P.|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Jenkins, J.||Nuttall, Harry||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Doherty, Philip||Steadman, W. C.|
|Jowett, F. W.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||O'Dowd, John||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||O'Grady, J.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Kettle, Thomas Michael||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Summerbell, T.|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Parker, James (Halifax)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Partington, Oswald||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Perks, Sir Robert William||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Lamont, Norman||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E,)|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Pirie, Duncan V.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Pollard, Dr.||Tomkinson, James|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Toulmin, George|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)\||Ure, Alexander|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Vivian, Henry|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Lupton, Arnold||Radford, G. H.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Luttrell, Huge Fownes||Rainy, A. Rolland||Walsh, Stephen|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Raphael, Herbert H.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Lynch, H. B.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Walton, Joseph|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Reddy, M.||Waring, Walter|
|Maclean, Donald||Rendall, Athelstan||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Wason, Rt Hn. E (Clackmannan|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Richardson, A.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Ridsdale, E. A.||Watt, Henry A.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|M'Crae, Sir George||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Weir, James Galloway|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs||White, Sir George (Norfolk) W.|
|White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Williamson, A.||Winfrey, R.|
|White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Wills, Arthur Walters||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Whitehead, Rowland||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)|
|Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Wiles, Thomas||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)||Elibank.|
|Wilkie, Alexander||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n||Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Forster, Henry William||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Middlebrook, William|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gordon, J.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morrison-Bell, Capain|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gretton, John||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Guinness, Walter Edward||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Haddock, George B.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Hamilton, Marquess of||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Heaton, John Henniker||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hill, Sir Clement||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hills, J. W.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Cave, George||Houston, Robert Peaterson||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hunt, Rowland||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Kerry, Earl of||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.||Lockwood, Rt Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Younger, George|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lonsdale, John Brownlee.|
|Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan||Lowe, Sir Francis William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Lord|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||M'Arthur, Charles||Edmund Talbot.|
|Fell, Arthur||Magnus, Sir Philip|
Other Amendments made—
In page 5, line 28, after the word 'person,' to insert the word 'knowingly.'
In page 6, line 30, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'and for notice being given by registrars of births and deaths to the pension officers or local pension committees of every death of a person over seventy registered by them, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be laid down by the regulations.'
In the Schedule, page 7, line 22, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'per week.'" —(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.