§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 3:
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,) Carnarvon Boroughs
moved to leave out in subsection (1) (a) the words "such parochial or other," with a view to the insertion afterwards of different words to make the disqualification apply to receipt of "any poor relief at the expense of the rates other than relief " to be excepted by subsequent amendments. He said that there was some doubt as to what the words "or other relief " might imply. Several hon. Members were under the misapprehension that those words might apply to charity or alms, but the clause was simply intended to disqualify those who were in receipt of poor relief, and in order to make it quite clear he moved his Amendment.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
asked whether "poor" was not rather a new term. It had generally been "Poor Law" relief. Was it quite certain that the term "poor relief" would exclude all the various complications which had arisen under the Registration Act, which 382 made it doubtful as to what was covered by "poor relief"?
In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'such parochial or other' and to insert the word 'poor.'— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the words as they stood certainly would not suffice, but he had on the Paper other Amendments which would cover the Cases raised by the hon. Member. The words as they stood certainly would not deal effectively and conclusively with the difficulties which have arisen under the Registration Law, and that was why he proposed to move a series of amendments later on.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
asked why the right hon. Gentleman said "poor relief" instead of "parochial relief." "Poor relief" was surely not a common way of referring to it; it should be "parochial relief."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he had to take the experts' advice on technical terms of that kind, and he was advised that those words would really cover all the cases. There was some doubt as to the interpretation of the word "relief" in the Bill, but "poor relief" would certainly confine it to the cases they intended to exclude.
§ MR. W. R. REA (Scarborough)
asked if they were quite sure that all descriptions of medical relief were excluded.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked the hon. Member to postpone that point until they came to his next Amendment, which specifically raised that point.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
asked why the words "or other" were ever put in the Bill. He presumed they were put in for some reason.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said they had nothing to do with the law of this country, but they were told that these words were necessary in order to cover some law in Scotland and elsewhere. 383 That was really why they were put in, but his Amendment would cover both the Scottish case and the Welsh case.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'poor' be there inserted."
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert the word "indoor" before "poor,'' because they had never yet had any explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what was the difference in principle between outdoor relief paid out of the rates and 5s. a week paid out of the taxes in respect of old-age pensions. It appeared to him that they were exactly alike. They heard a great deal about the stigma of pauperism, but it seemed to him that if there was any stigma of pauperism in receiving 3s. 6d. a week out of the rates there must be just as much, or rather more, in receiving 5s. a week out of the taxes. The only possible argument that he could see on the other side was that people might feel that in taking money out of the rates they were taking money from their own neighbours. Was there no hardship in the case of an unmarried man, or a widow, or a man who had been in bad health and had the greatest difficulty in keeping himself from having recourse to the rates, when he at the age of 69 went and received Poor Law relief, and then this Bill came in he found he was not entitled to an old-age pension? Was there much difference between that man, in principle, and a man who might very likely have been in the enjoyment of a much better income and employment, and who managed, although he might not be nearly so thrifty or respectable, to hold on until seventy years old? What was the difference between those two cases? He knew the right hon. Gentleman had told them that that part of his proposal was merely experimental, and that in a very short time he hoped to be able to alter it. If there was any particular reason why that part of the Bill should be introduced and changed in a short time, he would like to know what it was, and why it was more im- 384 portant that that should be experimental than any other part of the Bill. A good many of these people, if it was going to be changed in two or three years, would be dead before they could get a chance of an old-age pension, and it seemed to him that that was where the greatest hardship came in. He supposed the next consideration on the other side would be the cost. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the number of outdoor paupers over seventy years old was 200,000, and he did not know whether he was in a position to say what was the exact amount, or the average, that those 200,000 were getting in outdoor relief.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN
said that would make it 2s. more, and it would be £800,000 a year total expense. Considering the way in which the Government had embarked on this measure, surely a mere trifle of £800,000 more could not make much difference. Further, the right hon, Member for South Dublin had pointed out that this would be a diminishing cost, because in the future anyone who had not yet received poor relief would receive an old-age pension. It was a very strong argument in favour of his Amendment that in a few years this expense would merge entirely in the cost of the old-age pensions. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
Before the word 'poor,' to insert the word 'indoor.'—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'indoor' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was not sure that even if the financial arrangements permitted it the Government could accept this Amendment, because it would simply involve the transfer of 203,000 indoor paupers to the pension list. He did not think that that was the way to deal with this part of the Poor Law problem, which should be postponed until the pension scheme was out of the way. The hon. Gentleman had 385 said that his Amendment would cost only a trifle of £800,000; but it was a very serious thing to propose to add £800,000 to the already heavy burden of financing a scheme of this kind. It was not possible at the present moment. He thought that, roughly speaking, there were between 200,000 and 210,000 indoor paupers, and that the proportion that would come within the scope of the disqualification would be 203,000 receiving an average of 3s. a week. But even if the relief were only 2s. the total cost would amount to over £1,000,000. Such a serious addition to the burden of the people could not possibly be considered during the present session.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)
said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt as the Bill progressed was beginning to find that the burden to be imposed on the taxpayer was much heavier than was frequently said would be the case when the Prime Minister first introduced the Bill. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal with details his only argument in reply to criticisms was that no more money could be produced. That might be a very sound argument so far as the Members of this House were concerned; they contemplated the pleasure of going down a few weeks hence and telling their constituents that they had conferred an enormous benefit on some people; but the Bill would be examined and criticised by other people than those who sat in that Chamber, and by people who probably knew a good deal more of the way in which it would work out than the Members of that House. The argument of his hon. friend who moved the Amendment was that the people who were excluded from the benefits of the Bill by the receipt of indoor relief were in every particular, in regard to conduct, way of life, and necessity, in exactly the same position as those who were going to benefit by the Bill. The Government said they could not go further, and the same answer was made to every Amendment proposed. He would not be a party to wrecking the Bill or superimposing a burden which would lead to its abandonment; but in common justice to the House 386 of Commons and to the people who really would be affected by the Bill, he must say that the Government ought to have thought it out before they brought it before Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that there were 200,000 paupers in receipt of outdoor relief to the average amount of 3s. a week, and that he was waiting for a reform of the Poor Law to deal with these persons. Even the newest recruit in the House knew what was meant when the Government told them to wait for another session to complete their legislation. Governments were only human, and they knew that when the great part of one session was given up to one subject, it was rare that the same subject was dealt with in the following session. He did not think that that was a good excuse. Knowing as he did how complicated and difficult the Poor Law problem was, and that they were not sure that the Report of the Poor Law Commission would be in their hands in time, he thought that all these references to a reform of the Poor Law were—he would not say dishonest, for he would not use any phrase in an offensive sense—but he did not believe for a moment that the House would be able to approach the reform of the Poor Law next session. If that were the case, what would happen when this Bill passed into law and the pensions committee were called upon to grant pensions under it, if they 'granted double the amount of pension they were entitled by the Bill to give? What power was there of recovering the difference? Were they going to make the committee personally liable, or to prosecute them and make them refund the amount overpaid? If so, then the Government ought to say it in the Bill. And if they did they would get very few men to go on the pensions committee. It was unpleasant enough at present for boards of guardians to discriminate between outdoor and indoor relief, and even now they got very little support from Members of the House. The difficulties of the boards of guardians were very great now, but the difficulties of the pensions committee would be ten times greater. Nobody could be so foolish as to suppose that the complicated provisions of the Bill were going 387 to become familiar to the villagers in the country districts before next year. But there would be scores and hundreds of persons over seventy years of age who would be applicants for pensions, but who would come under the Poor Law disqualification. Not only the pensions committee but hon. Gentlemen who had made speeches would have to deal with these applicants and justify their exclusion from the pension list. It would not be enough to say to these poor people that the money would not go round. Some reason would have to be given to justify the discrimination between two sets of people whose circumstances were exactly the same. He did not wonder that his hon. friend pressed his Amendment. He hoped he would press it, for he was bound to say that the Government in trying to make this discrimination were attempting the impossible. It would involve an injustice in no way mitigated by the fact that it would cease at the end of an indefinite time—when Parliament otherwise determined. It should be remembered what the condition of those was who applied for outdoor relief. They must have suffered acutely before applying, and the board of guardians would not have granted relief unless they were destitute. Those, however, were the people who would be excluded from receiving a pension by the Bill as it stood, and all the excuse that the Government gave was that they had no money.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment for the reasons stated by the mover and seconder. Outdoor relief was very largely given to deserving persons on the recommendation of the boards of guardians of the day The Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember that the Aberdare Commission recommended that—Greater discrimination should be made between those respectable aged persons who become destitute and those whose destitution is distinctly in consequence of their own misconduct, and that outdoor relief should in such cases be given to those who can be shown to have been of good character, thrifty according to their opportunities and generally independent in early life.Then the Local Government Board issued on 4th August, 1900, a circular to 388 the boards of guardians drawing attention to the Report of the Aberdare Commission, in which they stated—The Board consider that aged deserving persons should not be urged to enter the work house at all unless there is some cause which renders such a course necessary, such as infirmity of mind or body, or absence of house accommodation or of a suitable person to care for them, or some similar cause, but that they should be relieved by having adequate outdoor relief granted to them.In many parts of the country boards of guardians had made a system of classification and distinguished between the deserving and undeserving poor—giving outdoor relief to the deserving poor judged according to their character and their antecedents, and excluding from outdoor relief the worthless and undeserving. The result of the Bill as it stood would be to exclude the deserving poor from the right to receive pensions and to give pensions to the undeserving. What justice was there in that? In his own district they had made a very elaborate system of classification both of indoor and outdoor paupers, and the chairman of the board of guardians made these remarks—In Sheffield they had paid great attention to greater classification and had given outdoor relief only to people with good records. Under the Bill the people who had been excluded from relief would now all get old-age pensions, whilst the people who, through their good conduct, had received outdoor relief would be the worse off.That was to say, the people who were undeserving got no outdoor relief. Under the Bill, therefore, the deserving people who received this relief would not receive pensions, which would be given to those who had been excluded. They would be rewarded if they did not come within the Chancellor of the Exchequer's class of wastrels. A great many would, no doubt, come within the classification, but a good many would not, although they would come within the class of unthrifty which the Bill did not exclude. It might be said that it was very difficult to discriminate, but from the Report of the Chaplin Committee it would be seen that evidence was brought forward by the Charity Commissioners and others to show there would be no such difficulty. Although he should support this Amendment he would have 389 supported it more strongly had his hon. friend suggested some kind of authority which should discriminate between the people who had been given outdoor relief under these circumstances.
§ SIR GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)
said the right hon. the Member for South Dublin never rose to speak on this Bill without referring to the applause the Liberal Party expected to receive in the country at the hands of the people who expected to benefit by the Bill. At the same time he argued that the provisions of the Bill were most unpopular. Under those circumstances the one argument might be left to answer the other. Those who would receive the benefits of the Bill were exceedingly thankful at the prospect of the pension which they knew would come to them on 1st January. When the Committee remembered that those persons aggregated 500,000, no one need be surprised at the gratitude they showed. He, however, felt very strongly that some effort should have been made to meet the case of the outdoor paupers. In the agricultural districts they covered a large number of the most deserving poor. He felt, on the other hand, that the House was much to blame for the position in which they found themselves in the matter. Hon. Members had been too keen to secure benefits to others who were better off than the labourers whom this provision would benefit to a great extent. It was quite true that many of the most needy and most deserving of our poor were those who were on outdoor relief at the present moment. A few weeks before the introduction of the Bill he had brought to his notice the case of a woman of eighty-four years of age, who was still working on the land, who had been refused outdoor relief because she preferred to earn her own living, but who, owing to illness a short time ago, was obliged to apply for outdoor relief. She was now in receipt of 3s. a week, of which she paid 1s. 6d. in rent, and this brave old woman would have no benefit under the Bill. Many persons were in that position, and every hon. Member would have been glad if they could have made provision for them. Many hon. Members regretted 390 that the Committee had preferred to deal with the question of old couples than to get what assistance they could from the Government for these persons. He was himself in a great difficulty with regard to the Amendment, because he felt that the Government had done their best to meet the demands made upon them. Having distributed the surplus which he had, he was afraid his right hon. friend would be unable to meet this case this year. He hoped, however, in meeting the Amendment, his right hon. friend would be able to give some definite promise to deal with these outdoor pauper cases at the earliest opportunity. The feeling on the Ministerial side of the House was that the Committee had, to a great extent, committed itself in accepting the offer of his right hon. friend but at the same time he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a definite promise to help these people next year. The Committee, he feared, in their desire to get something more for these who had 10s., 12s., or 13s. a week, had consumed all the finances without touching a class which had nothing whatever and was dependent on outdoor relief and contributions from their families who too often robbed these own young children to maintain these aged parents. He had hoped that the Bill would have put an end to the unmerciful provisions of the Poor Law, but now he was afraid they would have to wait a little longer for that.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
said that the spectacle of the hon. Member attempting to reconcile the passive pledge which he gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day not to press any further demands upon him——
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said they still had in their minds the impression of what took place when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, excluding hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, turned to his supporters behind him and said that if they would promise to be good boys in future and not ask for any further concessions from him, they 391 should have their slice of cake. He did not know whether the hon. Member protested against such a bargain. Perhaps he would let the House know whether he only protested against it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."]
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the hon Member, at all events, was one of those who gave a tacit approval to the bargain proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his attempt to reconcile his loyal adherence to that bargain with his interest as representing a large constituency was instructive, if it was not edifying. He should think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be too ready to follow the path the hon. Member invited him to follow. Let the Committee be careful how they gave pledges to do more before they knew their resources and saw the field that was opening up. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government would not meet with a rigid refusal all the Amendments to be moved; but they should not attempt to tide over present difficulties by making vague promises as to what they would do in the future out of resources they had not got. The right hon. Gentleman had now given away all his surplus, and what they were now dealing with was a deficit. The point they had arrived at was that if the Budget estimates were right and its proposals were voted as they were made, the year would end with a deficit instead of a surplus—that was to say, the Supplementary Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced had already imposed a heavier charge on the Exchequer than the small balance accounted for in the Budget Speech. He was quite willing when the Finance Bill was considered in Committee to revise the Budget proposals if the changes made in the Bill necessitated it, and he ventured to press on the Government the extreme hardship they would inflict by the particular words they were now considering. Most legislation of a penal or restrictive character had its action confined to the future, but this Bill had the peculiarity that its penal clauses were retroactive. It did 392 not say that if a man after the passing of the Bill could not keep himself from the poorhouse he should not have a pension, but that if this year he accepted poor relief he should be disqualified from receiving a pension. The Bill went back to 1st January of this year, before the question came up, before the lines on which it was to be formed were known, before the conditions which it embodied were published, probably before they were definitely decided in the minds of His Majesty's Government, and if a man had been unfortunate and received Poor Law relief, outdoor or indoor, between 1st January and the moment when the Bill was introduced he would be disqualified for ever from receiving a pension. That was a very hard thing. What had been said by his right hon. friend, by the mover of the Amendment, and by others, showed how hard was the case if they attempted to draw a rigid line against the receipt of outdoor relief under such conditions as those on which it was given by boards of guardians. It very hard that they should apply this condition retrospectively, but when it was applied to people who had no alternative he thought it was harder still. If the Government were not prepared to accept the whole of the proposals of his hon. friend, at least he would urge that in the case of those who had been selected for outdoor relief—and outdoor relief was almost entirely reserved for those whom the guardians considered most deserving—if they could keep clear of that relief by aid of the pension, their past misfortunes should be wiped out, and they should be given a free start on the pension. For his part, compromising for the moment, he would accept that. He had no right to speak for others; he spoke for himself in this matter. That was the special point he wished to press upon the Government; it was one which concerned a great number of very deserving people. He thought there would be a great sense of hardship, unless the Committee met their case in some way. When the Bill was in force, charities available for distribution among the poor would very likely be largely used to aid old people who were near the age of seventy to carry them on to that 393 age, and private relief would be forthcoming from the same purpose. Before the Bill was brought in, there was no incentive or reason to carry them on to a particular age. It made a special case for this kind of relief prior to the time when the Bill would come into operation, and if the right hon. Gentleman could except from this depriving clause those who had no alternative, he thought it would do something to meet a real hardship. He pressed the point all the more because the ground on which the Government based their whole scheme was that people were to be entitled to the pension as of right. That being so, they had no ground for coupling the exercise of that right with arbitrary and illogical conditions. If it were a charitable gift, they might impose what conditions they liked; but when they were recognising the pension as a right, they should not make it dependent on arbitrary and illogical conditions.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
I am really rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience at the Treasury, should have put forward a suggestion of this kind. It is really a wilder proposal than that made by the hon. Member, and practically of the same nature. His suggestion was that the Treasury should find the difference between the amount which is now paid by the guardians and the 5s. allocated by the Bill. That is the minimum. What is the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman? He comes forward here and says: "Will you consent to the inclusion of those who, before the Act, were in receipt of Poor Law relief, and therefore had no alternative?" That means 200,000 people.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I thank the hon. Baronet for being my ready reckoner for the moment. That sum of £2,700,000 is to be added at a stroke to the cost of the Bill. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman if he were in my place now—and he cannot divest himself, if I may respectfully say so, of his experience at the Exchequer— would have recommended to his friends 394 in the House the proposal that with a single stroke of the pen, without any consideration at all, they should add £2,700,000 to a Bill which already ranges from £6,000,000 next year up to £7,500,000. That is really accounted for, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has informed us, by the fact that he has not consulted his colleagues. I can well believe it. I do not think he has consulted himself, if I may say so. I am not going to take part in this kind of byplay between parties, by having a kind of auction as to who shall bid the highest. If the Committee will allow me, I will discuss this absolutely on its merits. What is the proposal? I had the privilege of sitting on two Committees which dealt with this problem. They were Committees appointed by the late Unionist Government. They both agreed that you should exclude paupers, and exclude not merely those who were in receipt for the time being, but all those who received any Poor Law relief for twenty years before the application. What is the difference? Taking the Chaplin Committee, and taking the other Committee on the Aged Pensioners Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester, the difference is this, as I put it to the House in reply to my right hon. friend last week: Under those proposals they excluded 420,000 persons; under the proposals of the Government we simply exclude 270,000£a difference of 150,000 persons whom we are including in our Bill, and who would have been excluded by every proposal which has ever been submitted to the House up to the present. I do not think that it is really fair to say that we are submitting harsh, cruel, and impossible proposals to the House of Commons. We rather regret that it is not possible to make them considerably wider, but we have gone as far as we prudently can for the moment, and we have gone better by 140,000 or 150,000 than any proposal submitted to the House before. Really, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear that in mind, and even the exigencies of Parliamentary controversy might have justified them in giving us that credit when they were criticising proposals of this kind, which are milder, I will not say than they proposed, because I was a party to them 395 on both Committees, but milder than the proposals of both those Committees. Therefore, it is not a question of our going one better than they were going, but we are going better than any proposal subscribed to by any Member on both sides of the House. I agree that my hon. friend the Member for Northampton had a Bill which proposed a scheme of a more sweeping character.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
But that was a scheme of a totally different character. I am referring to schemes of a more moderate, and, if my hon. friend will allow me to say so, of a more practical character, having regard to all the financial exigencies of the country, which have been submitted by both sides. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Sheffield has said. There is not a single hard case that he put which I do not accept and deplore. I think it is a very great pity that we cannot deal with all those cases. But, after all, this is not a Bill dealing with every hard case in the country. It is simply a Bill to deal with them as far as our financial resources for the moment will enable us to proceed. Then I hope we shall be able to extend it gradually. If I may say so about the hon. Member's speech, I think it was a very strong argument in favour of my industry test. You want to exclude the wastrel, and you say that the man who is receiving 3s. a week from the parish will be excluded, while he will see the wastrel and loafer at the age of seventy years getting 5s. a week. Therefore, I am strongly in favour of the industry test, which I supported on the Chaplin Committee, and I agree with the hon. Member to that extent. My hon. friend the Member for North-West Norfolk made an appeal to me. He wants to know whether, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have a nest egg. I have no nest eggs at all. I have got to rob somebody's hen roost next year. I am on the look-out which will be the easiest to get and where I shall be least punished, and where I shall get the most eggs, and, not only that, but where 396 they can be most easily spared, which is another important qualification. I said to the House on Wednesday, for I was perfectly frank, that I knew exactly the limit to which we could go, and the House preferred to take it on married couples. You cannot have your cake, and eat it. The House consumed it on Wednesday, and there is nothing left. That is really the position. We really have not a sum of money with which to meet an exigency of this kind, and meet it in the only possible way in which I think it ought to be met. In the most moderate scheme of the hon. Member opposite, I do not mean it was moderate in his Amendment, but moderate in the speech with which he supported it, he suggested that the difference might be made up by the Exchequer. That would mean a million. But it is far better to deal with the whole question, and that is the view which the House took on Wednesday night. They prefer to deal with the whole problem. Then my hon. friend asks: Does this mean indefinitely postponing dealing with this question? My first answer to that is that the very construction of the clause makes it imperative upon the Exchequer to deal with the problem at the earliest possible moment. ["Why?"] Because the guardians necessarily will in future do their very best to keep men off the poor rate in order to transfer them to the pension fund. It is their duty. They are not merely the guardians of the poor, they are the guardians of the rates, and, therefore, they would naturally wish to transfer every destitute person to the care of the Exchequer. Not only that, but there would be a conspiracy with the poor person himself and his relatives to get on to the Excehquer fund, and gradually the number of outdoor paupers must necessarily diminish by the automatic operation of this disqualification. That is why I have always put this figure a little higher than £6,000,000. Therefore it is to the interests of the Exchequer to deal with the problem. But I do not at all mind making it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill itself that we have got to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite who was in charge of the Agricultural Rating Bill put in a provision of that kind which made it 397 almost imperative on the Imperial Parliament to deal with the problem on a certain day.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Well, I know. But there is this distinction between that case and the present one, that it certainly is to the interest of the Exchequer in this case to deal with this, and I am not sure whether it is in the interest of the Exchequer to deal with the other problem, because the inevitable result of that would be that more money would come out of the Exchequer of the country for local purposes.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
Would the right hon. Gentleman mind telling us how it is to the interest of the Exchequer? This Bill imposes limitations, and the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the difficulty in maintaining them. Those limitations being there, unless it is proposed to make them stricter still, I do not see what the Exchequer would gain by dealing with this matter in any other way than under this Bill.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, we have no absolutely reliable figures, but our estimate is that about 60,000 persons fall on the Poor Law after they reach seventy years of age. Well, in future they will not go to the parish; they will ask for a 5s. pension. But it is a little more than that, because all those who are approaching seventy will not go to the parish if they know that they will be excluded from the pension the moment they receive relief from the parish. The result will be that not 60,000 persons, but probably 80,000 persons per annum in the ordinary course will come straight on the pension fund. That is a very serious addition.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I know the effect of that would be still further to diminish the burdens on the parish, but it is those who come on who impose a burden on the Exchequer.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I am allowing for that in my computation, but it is purely a computation. To that extent, at any rate, you diminish the burden on the poor-rate and you increase the burden on the pension fund. However, I am perfectly willing, if the House thinks it would be better, to fix a date which would make it incumbent upon Parliament at any rate to face it, because if you want to extend the term you would have a debate in Parliament, and that would be a statutory pledge that it would be dealt with. My own view—and that must be taken for what it is worth, because I do not profess to be in a position now to give any final decision—my own opinion is that you will be able to prepare financially next year to deal with the problem in the following year, but you would have to prepare financially next year. What is perfectly clear is that you cannot readjust your finance year by year for every contingency that arises. You have got to take a very wide view of the whole problem next year, and consider the problem of the Poor Law among others when you are arranging your finance. That, in my judgment, will probably mean that whereas you will arrange your finance next year with a view to dealing with the problem, you cannot deal with the problem itself effectively possibly till the following year. So you will have the best pledge in the world to deal with the problem—you will have a pledge next year of the provisions of finance. And, therefore, I would suggest to the House, if they prefer a statutory pledge, that they should accept one of the Amendments on the Paper in the name of one of my hon. friends for the substitution of the words "the 31st day of December, 1910." That would mean that the present disqualification should come to an end in 1910, instead of having the vague words "until Parliament otherwise determines." Parliament is anxious to deal with this problem, and should pledge itself, because there seems to be a desire on both sides of the House to deal with the problem of the pauper. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are keen to deal with this problem. 399 [OPPOSITION cries of "Now."] Well, I thought there would be a little shrinking.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I was making an appeal for the people who became a charge upon the Poor Law for outdoor relief before they had notice of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman promised to revise the Act for the benefit of the pauper in 1910. Clearly that does not meet their case. Many of those old people may have ceased to live. Therefore, I am not shrinking from the offer he has made, but it is not addressed in the least to the argument I put before him.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I had already addressed myself to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He proposes to add £2,600,000 now. Really, it is such an impossible scheme that I do not think his colleagues will support him in a proposal of that kind. There are two problems—the problem of the kind of person you are going to introduce among the pensioners, and the problem of the relations between local and Imperial finance, because the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment knows perfectly well that you cannot deal with this problem without dealing with the problem of the relations of local and Imperial finance, and that is why he made the suggestion. It is impossible that you should do that at the present stage, and when you deal with a thing of that sort it is so much better to deal with it once for all. I make that suggestion to the House as a guarantee of the good faith of the Government that we are not really trying to exclude the paupers, but simply dealing with a temporary difficulty. We are awaiting the Report of the Poor Law Commission with a view of dealing with it in a thoroughly comprehensive fashion, and we have given the best guarantee by saying that next year we confidently hope to be able to make financial arrangements to deal with it, and before December, 1910, the whole operation will have been completed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
Everybody will admit that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the most important, if not the most important, which has 400 been delivered in the course of our committee deliberations on this Bill. I am not sure whether it is not the most important speech delivered from the Government Bench on the Bill altogether. The right hon. Gentleman has announced the happy news that in future the Government mean to arrange their finance before they go into their liabilities. Without turning a hair, the right hon. Gentleman got up and said, as if it was the most obvious and natural thing in the world, that we had what was no doubt the prospect of a great reform of the Poor Law before us, and you cannot deal with these great reforms, involving great expenditure of money, unless you arranged your financial system so as to meet the liabilities imposed upon it. When did His Majesty's Government make this happy discovery? Have not we been earnestly pressing them during the Budget debate and during the earlier stages of this Committee not to ask us to discuss a Bill involving these enormous financial burdens without giving us some slight indication of how those financial burdens might be met? The only indication we have had up to the present time, either from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer or the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that when we see these proposals the best parallel to them will be that of a boy robbing a hen roost. It is upon that rather shadowy financial adumbration of the future that we have to make all our estimates as to what can and cannot properly be asked of the Government in dealing with this Bill. The Government in this matter are obviously wholly inconsistent, but I will congratulate them upon the fact that their new doctrine is incomparably better than their old doctrine, and that their future procedure in the matter of social reform and public finance, though directly opposed to their present system, is yet a great improvement. Let me deal with the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman made at the end of his speech. He said he would give us a guarantee of the good faith of the Government that they meant to deal with this problem, that they would put in words in the Bill limiting this clause to two and a half years, or some period of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that in the meantime between this 401 and 1910 there would not be this obligation thrown upon the Treasury, owing, to the fact that the local authorities would try to substitute pensions for Poor Law relief in all possible cases. That process will begin at once, in fact it has begun. So that the Treasury are now undergoing this obligation without the reform of the Poor Law, and without any of those safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman thinks are necessary, and in two-and-a half years time the local authorities are going to dump upon the Exchequer all the obligations which the right hon. Gentleman says will be so onerous that Parliament and the Exchequer must deal with them not later than the end of 1910. They ought to deal with them now. Is not this another manifest proof, if proof were required, that this Bill has never been thought out, that it has been tossed to a sated country in order again to revive and whet their appetites for more Radical reforms? I do not ask now whether it is or is not successfully framed for performing that culinary operation. I confine myself now to asking whether that is the way we ought to legislate, and whether the straits in which the Government are placed do not prove that they ought to have formulated their Bill with far more care than they have manifestly given to it. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that simply because there has been inconvenience, Parliament will be forced to legislate. To pass a Bill of this kind is not any security that Parliament will legislate, although it gives them an opportunity of dealing with it. It has been said that when Parliament deals with it there will be a great debate. I have heard that stated before in regard to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Let me point out another thing. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a transition period. It is a transition period; but does he not remember that when we protested against excluding all contributory schemes the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister turned round and said that the objection to all our contributory schemes was that they do not deal with a transition period? Does your scheme deal with it? It is the one thing which your scheme does not do. Who is it you ought most to assist during a transition period? It is the people who 402 are in every respect on the same plane, with the same qualifications, the same rights to relief as the people your Bill proposes to deal with. You do not deal with them, and you do not deal with them on the ground that you have not sufficient money. I thought I never heard anything done better in this House than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's strategical, tactical movement to the rear on Wednesday last. I confess myself to being rather a connoisseur in these movements. I have watched them from both sides of the House. Successive Governments in thirty years have occasionally been in the position of trying to deal with what is obviously the general sense of the House, and it is not easy to carry out that tactical movement with dignity, good temper, and dexterity. The right hon. Gentleman showed all these three qualities. But the most he did was to get a kind of tacit pledge from a stunned body of friends behind him that, if he gave way upon the subject of married couples and old people living together, no further demands should be made upon him. That was admirably dexterous, because it was impossible for any one, except by calling out an occasional "No, no," to resist the kind of obligation which the right hon. Gentleman thrust upon them. And yet the Committee was not in a position to compare the sufferings of the old couples with the sufferings of the deserving poor whom you are going to exclude now. We had no comparative estimate of the kinds of demands that are going to be made for different classes of deserving persons excluded, for there were only ten minutes to lapse before the fatal moment when all discussion had to cease. I ask the House whether there could be a more tremendous commentary upon the whole method under which we are obliged to conduct our debates. One hon. Member has said that he thought if there was not enough money for all, it ought to go to the outdoor pauper. But how can the Committee be in a position even to consider this question properly? The consequence is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer now gets up, and in the name of finance asks us to reject an Amendment, the plain and manifest justice of which on his own showing is apparent. What are the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own principles upon 403 which he relied on the Second Reading? He said that all those people were to get pensions who had earned them by a hard and laborious life spent for the benefit not merely of themselves, but of the community. Having so spent their lives, they had a right to a pension. We look at his Bill to find out how he carries out his plan. The right hon. Gentleman is as aware as anyone else that there has been a great effort made under the existing law to carry out something like a scheme of pensions by classification in many districts and small outdoor pensions have been given under the name of relief for many years past. Do you hold that this outdoor relief, although in the nature of a pension, has the taint of the Poor Law, and is a degradation to the man who receives it? If so, that degradation you are going to insist upon his bearing for the natural term of his life. I have heard something about the popularity of this Bill; but it will produce a most bitter sense of injustice amongst a class which is specially deserving of our consideration, because the people of this class are, first, very old; secondly, very deserving; and thirdly, they have no votes. It will produce a bitter sense of injustice amongst them, and I do not think that can be denied from any quarter of the House. You have only to mention a case which occurs instinctively—namely, of two old labourers living in contiguous cottages, one a year younger than the other. The one is eligible and the other is not. There is no substantial distinction between the two, but the one has to remain under the taint of Poor Law relief while the other is an honourable pensioner of the State for services rendered. One of two things must happen. Either you will have this bitter sense of a differential treatment of people in almost identical circumstances, or you will make the general population feel that, after all, your pensions do not differ from outdoor relief. The man who, being qualified under your Bill, receives a pension of 5s., is really in nowise differently circumstanced from a man who receives 3s. from the guardians, except that 3s. is less than 5s. I think this is a very serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman does not meet the point of the accusation by saying he has not got the money. He gave away £3,500,000 from 404 the sugar duties. Those £3,500,000 would have dealt with the old married couples and the hard cases under this Bill. I cannot conceive anything more amazing than the procedure of the Government in this matter. They call this part of the general financial scheme of the year and treat it almost as part of the Budget. When discussing the Budget, they take £3,500,000 off the sugar duties, and that is met with loud cheers from hon. Members opposite. To each hard case which in turn is presented to them the Government say, "Your case is utterly hard and grossly unjust; the cruelty inflicted is undeniable; we would gladly ameliorate the suffering if we could, but we have spent all our money in taking off taxation, and we have not a shilling left to meet the unanswerable appeal you make to us." The Government have produced an old-age pension scheme which professes to give to certain classes of the community the right to a pension of 5s. a week, but on examination it is found not to do so; and when we ask for an explanation of this gross inconsistency between the doctrine the Government have preached and the Bill they have introduced we are told it is want of money—a want of money brought on themselves by the twin measure of the Bill which the House is now engaged in passing into law. The justice of the Amendment is admitted. The only answer to it is that the money is not forthcoming. We know it would be forthcoming if a single Amendment were made in the Finance Bill. That Bill is not yet passed. Therefore, as the justice of the Amendment is clear, and as a method of meeting it is obvious, I shall support my hon. friend if he goes to a division.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)
said he found some difficulty in supporting the Amendment because, in its present form, it did not enable him and his friends to say exactly what they would like to do under the clause. They were not in favour of paying old-age pensions at the same time as Poor Law relief was being given, but the Amendment did involve that.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN
said he did not think his Amendment involved that. What 405 he said in his speech did not bear that interpretation.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD
said they were now discussing the disqualification clause. The clause said that a person should be disqualified for receiving an old-age pension, while he was in receipt of Poor Law relief. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member was that they should not be disqualified in respect of receiving outdoor relief. That did not exactly express what he thought the Committee would like to vote upon. That was his point. He thought it would be convenient, in order to save the time of the Committee later on, to discuss the whole question now, and vote for or against the different Amendments as they arose later on. The Government admitted that everything that could be said in favour of paupers being included in an old-age pension scheme was just, but declared that they had not the necessary money. It raised the question whether any proposal, even as a beginning, for paying old-age pensions was satisfactory, which accepted the mere fact of pauperism as a disqualifying basis, and he thought the Committee ought to say "No." If they accepted this scheme which excluded paupers, they said in effect that there were certain people in this country who were too poor to benefit by an old-age pension scheme. When the Prime Minister was considering how much money he was going to spend on old-age pensions and how he was going to spend it, he ought to have been aware that it would violate most severely the sense of justice of the House if he placed before it a scheme which said that no pauper must apply for an old-age pension. The case was overwhelmingly in favour of the inclusion of the paupers. Had it not been for the melancholy picture of the aged and deserving paupers there probably would have been no agitation for old-age pensions. On every platform in the country the Labour Party made it their chief case for urging the payment of old-age pensions to old people of sixty-five and seventy years of age that by applying for pauper relief those persons lost their independence and their civic rights. A particularly bad case had been sent to 406 him by the secretary of a distress committee. It concerned a woman, aged seventy-two years, whose husband, aged seventy-four, was a shoemaker, who had been unable to work for some years owing to rheumatism; the lady was strong and hearty, and had worked for two years prior to 1st June as a general servant, but had lost her work owing to a daughter of her employer coming to reside at home. Previous to this the lady was the cleaner of an office in the Inner Temple. Her character was satisfactory. Being unable to work the husband applied for parish relief, and had been for some years allowed 3s. a week with which he paid the rent. Those people would be disqualified for old-age pensions because the man had been in receipt of Poor Law relief. He felt certain that other Members could mention cases in which equal injustice would be done. It was no answer to their appeal for justice for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he had spent the money in other directions. As to the compromise arrived at on Wednesday, he and his friends on that side were no parties to it. Nor, as a matter of fact, had the Committee any opportunity of choosing one way or another. The proposal was made within a few minutes of the dropping of the guillotine. It was made under circumstances which made it absolutely impossible for the members of the Committee to make up their minds. Before the Committee knew where they were, they were committed, and now he thought it was not quite fair to bind the Committee to the arrangement come to when they had had no opportunity of saying whether they accepted the conditions or not. There was another important point which must not be overlooked. There were thousands of people who would be disqualified under the Bill, and who, had they had eighteen months or two years notice that such a measure was going to introduced, would have been kept off the Poor Law altogether, and yet the Government warned those people whose condition had been the occasion of the Proposal of old-age pensions that they were going to be disqualified by the very cruel and harsh provision the Committee were now discussing. Undoubtedly the two years' date, now proposed to be 407 introduced, met them to a certain extent, but not altogether. There was no guarantee that they were to have this matter opened up again in 1910. It was perfectly simple to carry on the disqualification by methods which every Member knew. Moreover, what was going to happen to the existing paupers? Were the Government going deliberately and in cold blood to say to the pauper of seventy, seventy-one, and seventy-two: "You have got to die a pauper, and the benefits that are going to be derived under the Bill can only be derived by men and women two or three years younger than you." That proposal was too cruel for the Committee to entertain at all, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have foreseen it before he drafted his Bill. It was no good to come to the House after the Bill had been drafted and say: "You have got to be cruel, because cruelty is necessary to keep you within the scope of the proposals I make." There was another point which he wished to make. It was said that, once this was passed, boards of guardians would do their best to refuse outdoor relief, and the poor people themselves, who valued their self-respect very highly, would pinch and starve for twelve months in order to save themselves from the pauper taint, so as to become eligible for old-age pensions at the proper time. Did the Committee contemplate what that meant? Was that a virtue after all? It meant that the sum total of human suffering for five years, from sixty-five to seventy years of age, was going to be increased as the result of the passing of this Bill. There were thousands of these people who were prepared to bring themselves almost to the brink of starvation rather than apply for pauper relief, and the Government were going to put inducements in their way to undergo that deprivation. They were going to pay a premium practically to the boards of guardians in the rural districts to administer the Poor Law more harshly than now. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That was the effect of the Bill, and then the guardians were going to say: "We are not administering the Poor Law harshly; we are only trying to enable you to become beneficiaries under the Old-Age Pensions Act two or three years from now." Nobody who had experience of the 408 administration of the Poor Law would deny that that would be the effect of the Bill. Was the Committee prepared seriously to face that situation and to pass this Bill saying that they were going to put this premium upon the harsh administration on the part of the boards of guardians only too prevalent at the present time? If this bargain, supposed to have been come to last Wednesday, but not come to at all with the Labour Party, was going to be held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a binding bargain, would the right hon. Gentleman not give them a chance of expressing their opinions upon it? Were they going to be told that the increase of the pensions to married couples had barred out finally and effectually all claims of the existing pauper? The point was of sufficient gravity, in his opinion, not to force it through the Committee owing to the operation of the guillotine, without the Committee knowing what it was doing and without having made up its mind.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, Rossendale
said that the hon. Member was, quite intentionally of course, unfair to the Government in the way in which he had treated the pauper provision in the Bill. Over and over again it had been explained that that was merely a temporary provision, and the hon. Member spoke as if the Government intended the permanent exclusion of this class of paupers.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD
said he would recall to the right hon. Gentleman's memory that he had dealt with the matter of the two years qualification.
said it had always been admitted that there were certain paupers—probably a large number—who might and should be included in this scheme in the future; but it was absolutely impossible to include them until the Government were able to deal with the whole question of the Poor Law. He was sorry the Poor Law Commission had not reported twelve months ago; for then, although the time would have been short enough, the Government might have been able 409 to make the provisions of the Bill fit in with their action on the Report of that Commission. Meanwhile they were bound to wait and consider the Report. It was easy to raise a number of specific hard cases. In every proposal either for taxation or for a grant or gift where there was a limitation there must be hard cases on one side or the other of the line. The Leader of the Opposition did not see what pressure there would be on the Treasury to deal with this subject in the near future. There would be the pressure of an additional charge coming on the Treasury. The two and a half years offered by his right hon. friend was not the minimum time for dealing with this matter, but the maximum time; and at, or before, the expiration of two years the House would have the opportunity of dealing with this matter again. He asked the right hon. Gentleman how paupers could have been brought into the scheme at all if it had been on a contributory basis. The Amendment would throw all the existing outdoor paupers on to the pension fund at once.
§ MR. HARCOURT
Of course, subject to those limitations. They must go slow and postpone such a transaction as that until they could make an equitable arrangement with the local authorities which would be fair to the taxpayer and to all concerned. He would like to point out to hon. Members opposite that all previous schemes had been more severe on the paupers, excepting one referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton. It was an interesting fact that the Poor Law Union deputation introduced to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, while pressing for the sliding scale and the concession to married couples, were in perfect agreement with the Government as to the impossibility of touching the pauper question until they came to deal with the Poor Law Commission Report.
§ MR.WALTER LONG
said he only wanted to say one word as to what had fallen from the right hon .Gentleman in 410 reply to the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government had entirely misunderstood the case put from that side of the House in regard to the operation of the Bill when passed. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated that the passing of the Bill without any of those exemptions imposed on the Treasury the obligation to deal with the reform of the Poor Law within a limited time. The contention of the Opposition was that the passing of the Bill in its present state would make it ten times more difficult to deal with the disqualifications later on than now. He asked the question of the First Commissioner of Works: Did the Government propose in their subsequent legislation to strengthen and tighten up the disqualifications at present in the Bill? The First Commissioner said that by the operation of every Bill there would be hard cases; but he was mistaken in saying that those hard cases would be exceptional under the Bill. In every agricultural village where there were six poor people, three on one side of the line would receive pensions, and three on the other side would be disqualified under this section, while there would not be one single detail in their life which would differentiate their condition. He admitted that where benefits were conferred there must be certain limits which would involve hard cases; but that did not apply to this legislation at all. In a country village of 500 people, the number of men and women over seventy years of age would be probably six or eight, one half of whom would come on the Poor Law during a hard winter, and the Government said to them under this section: "Until the reform of the Poor Law is accomplished you will get no pension, although the man next door gets one." He did not suppose that; here was an agricultural village in the country where a man working for a land-lord or a large employer would not be kept on out of charity during a hard frost, and another man working for a small employer would have no alternative under the same circumstances but to go to the board of guardians and get outdoor relief. The Government had no right to reproach he Opposition for raising this question 411 now. He himself had raised it on the Second Reading, and in subsequent debates. They had held throughout that these limitations could not be maintained in practice or in justice. The Opposition had been no party to the bargain which had been made between the Government and their supporters, and they regretted that it had been made. They were bound to point out the effect of these limitations, that they could not be enforced and that even if they could, they could not be justified.
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)
said that the Leader of the Opposition had made a bitter attack on the Government because they had not sufficient money to do everything. The position was that when the Government were elected they gave no pledges at all in regard to old-age pensions; whereas the Leader of the Opposition, who had been in power for ten years, had given pledges and yet had done nothing. So far as he understood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given definite pledges with regard to this question of dealing with the pauper. He had given a Parliamentary pledge that he would deal with it if possible next session, and had shown how circumstances would, in all probability, drive the Government to do so. But even if the right hon. Gentleman were to be recalcitrant in that matter, he had also promised to give a statutory pledge, viz., that he would accept the Amendment substituting "1st December, 1910" for "until Parliament otherwise determines." Therefore, the Government ought not to be further urged in the matter. Of course, every one who lived in the country and knew the rural districts recognised the truth of every word which had been said about the hard and cruel cases which would arise. There must be hard and cruel cases in which people would be deprived of these old-age pensions; but it was peculiarly the privilege of the Liberal Party to look after these hard cases. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] The Liberal Party had always laid it down that one of the main items of their policy was to look after those who were not able to look after themselves. There was nothing dearer to the heart of the Liberal Party than 412 this question of old-age relief. But let the Committee consider what the effect would be if this Amendment were accepted by the Government and they were to admit indoor and outdoor paupers, because, after all, they were now discussing the whole question. It would mean an addition of £3,500,000 to the cost of the scheme. He himself was a member of a board of guardians and he knew what he and his board would do under those circumstances. They would endeavour to put as many off the rates as they could, and put them on to the Exchequer. The people who would benefit then would be the ratepayers. It would be a large subvention to the rates. They had an example in the Agricultural Rates Act of who got the benefit of a large subvention to the rates. It ultimately went into the pockets of the landlords. If they did not deal with all these questions in the way the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with them next year the result would be to put a large sum into the pockets of the landlords, and that they had no desire to do. He, personally, wished the whole matter could be dealt with this session, but if it could not he was content that it should be dealt with next session. He submitted that, the Committee should be satisfied with the Parliamentary and the statutory pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. GOULDING (Worcester)
said the Amendment was designed to protect those who could not protect themselves, and now the hon. Member who had just sat down had told the Committee that the Party opposite were the only people endowed with the will to do that. But the hon. Gentleman was not going to vote for the Amendment, because the people affected could not record their votes in the ballot boxes. He hoped the Amendment would be considered on its merits. It was no use saying that the intention of the Government was good, because the Committee knew where good intentions sometimes led. The Committee wanted these particular grievances dealt with on their merits. The First Commissioner of Works had for the first time given a new excuse for not dealing with these matters. The right hon. Gentleman said the Poor Law Commis- 413 sioners would shortly report and the Government must wait until that Report was received before dealing with the matter. Up to now the only excuse that had come from the Treasury Bench was that the Government were short of cash, that their coffers were empty, but if they were full they would be desirous of dealing with all these questions. That was the ground on which the Government were attacked. They had no right to give away the £3,500,000 on sugar duty; they should have kept the money to deal with these cases. Right through the debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, before making any concessions whatever, that the concession he was most anxious to give effect to was to those disqualified by reason of their receiving Poor Law relief. Now when that question arose the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give any redress. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to close the door to some small redress to these people. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire claimed a concession for all in receipt of outdoor relief. That complicated the matter because it could not be asserted that all outdoor relief was given on the lines of selection, but it was a fact that outdoor relief was largely given to those who had endeavoured to live thrifty lives, and under the Bill those people would be excluded from receiving a pension. He had a case before him of some villages in Wiltshire, where there were twenty people who had belonged to friendly societies, paid into them for fifty-five or sixty years, and had started contributing to them when they were earning only 7s. a week. They had done everything they could to show their thrifty habits. The great friendly societies like the Oddfellows and the Foresters never came to their doors. Now, because the village clubs to which they had subscribed had broken up, and these men could not begin to subscribe to other friendly societies, being by age precluded from joining them, though they had done everything possible to provide for their old age and be placed in the category of deserving citizens they were to suffer this great injustice. Surely the pension committee should consider and make an exception in such cases. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to consider, before 414 the Committee came to a decision, some way in which he could give relief to this class of persons. The cost would not amount to more than £200,000.
§ SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)
said the hon. Member for Leicester had stated that the mere fact of pauperism ought not to be raised as a disqualification, and had also referred to the fact that previous schemes contained the same idea. He himself had formulated the first Bill of this kind, and that Bill arose out of one that proposed to give pensions to deserving persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. From that proposal they advanced to a suggestion that the pension scheme should be altogether dissociated from the Poor Law, and from that to the scheme of the Bill which he introduced in 1892. In that Bill there was a clause excluding those who had at any time been in receipt of Poor Law relief, but since then there had been a great change of opinion. A feeling had grown up that Poor Law relief should under certain conditions not be a barrier to the receipt of a pension, and that view had now reached the point that the Government was being pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the principle that persons receiving outdoor relief should receive a pension. It was said that this clause would only mean a temporary exclusion. The provision was to apply to everyone who had received Poor Law relief after 1st January, 1908. There were many people of seventy-three years of age, and even older, whom this disqualification would affect. It might happen that they had not received relief for many years, but that this year they had been unable to overcome their difficulties and had been obliged to receive it. It would take three years before the Report of the Poor Law Commission was sifted and analysed, and these poor old people would have to wait until after the lapse of that time before there could be legislation to enable them to receive the pension granted as a right. It might be that a man at the age of sixty had begun to get Poor Law relief, and after having received it for nearly ten years, he might have gone off it this year, and would, therefore, be eligible for the pension; whereas a man might have been off Poor 415 Law relief all those years, and then, bring forward with reference to the through accident or illness, or a severe Amendment. He hoped, however, that winter, or some temporary condition connected with his employment, might have been obliged to receive it this year, and he would be excluded from the pension until another Act was passed. He wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the matter from that point of view, and to try to introduce some principle in the exclusion on the ground of Poor Law relief. If he were to say that no one was to get a pension who had received relief for six or twelve months before the passing of the Act, that would be introducing the principle of a definite time. He would have been willing to accept that. But by the right hon. Gentleman's plans the time might run over several years. Heknew that the right hon. Gentleman intended to pass another Act at the earliest possible opportunity, but not even Chancellors of the Exchequer could do what they wished. He had known Chancellors of the Exchequer who had not been able to carry out plans which they had promised two years previously. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this from the point of view of putting in some definite period as to the receipt of Poor Law relief. If it were decided that no one should get the pension who had received Poor Law relief during a period of six or twelve months before the great of the pension, that would be a definite principle which would apply all round, next year as well as this year, until the law was altered. But he did not think that he could support the Amendment, for the simple reason that there was no money to carry it out. He had said on the Second Reading that he was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made more use of that argument by saying that it was a question of money, which, after all, was the strongest argument that could be advanced. He did not think that this provision as to Poor Law relief could be defended argumentatively, though it could be defended and ought to be defended on the question of means. They had not the money to do it with, and that was the strongest argument to 416 bring forward with reference to the Amendment He hoped however that before the debate concluded the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to moidfy the very harsh and unjust proposal in the Bill, and fix a period instead of a date with reference to Poor Law relief.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY
said he was extremely glad that his hon. friend by his Amendment, and particularly in his speech, had said that these poor people should at least have given to them an amount equal to that to be given to the pensioner who had not received Poor Law relief. If they took an extreme view of the bargain, a vast number of old people would be barred all their lives from receiving pensions, because they had received Poor Law relief. The Committee had decided that 3s. 9d. each was not enough to give married couples, but they had the fact that a great number of married couples would be left with a very much smaller allowance owing to their being excluded under the disqualification now proposed. He thought that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, a suggestion which now came from almost every department—they had seen it in other Bills—the Licensing Bill, the Eight-Hours Bill and other measures—was not one which could be considered as satisfactory when they were dealing with persons of over seventy years of age. A time-limit to them was a serious matter; it meant that many of them would never receive the pension; and it was a time-limit which depended not only on the will of this Ministry, but might also depend on the will of another Parliament altogether. First Commissioner of Works and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the fact that in other schemes this matter was one for disqualification. But those schemes were founded on very different principles from those which the Government had always announced in connection with this Bill. They had announced that they were giving a pension as a right, and that every man and woman was entitled to it. When once they had taken up that position it was impossible for them to argue upon the analogy of other schemes which did not carry with them the same absolute 417 right which had been put by the Government in the very forefront of their argument. Therefore, when the Government had done that, he thought that his hon. friend was right when he said that it was an absolute wrong if they did not carry out what was practically a promise to all these unfortunate people who were now receiving outdoor relief, and who, under the Bill, would be debarred, at all events for a considerable period, from receiving the same amount that others were receiving. They had always been told that the pension was to be kept free from the Poor Law. But he did not think that anybody in that House or out of it thought that the Poor Law claim was going to be pressed so far that anybody who by misfortune came under it was to be debarred from sharing in the boon which was going to be given by the country. They on that side of the House, at all events, thought that they must press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he could not see his way to finding another magic egg in addition to those he had already found. A famous conjuror produced eggs from every part of a person's clothing, and the right hon. Gentleman had already shown his wonderful skill in this matter. While the sliding scale and the married couples Amendments were under consideration the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed an instance of his conjuring, and he might furnish another instance of his skill on this occasion. He was sure that the House felt this matter just as much as they felt the question of the married couples. If a free vote were taken, without pressure on the part of the Government, there was no doubt what would be the result. This was a matter which in the country would be viewed very seriously, and would interfere very materially with the prosperity and success of the Bill. On these grounds he ventured again to press upon the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not in some way meet the point. He should at all events alter the date in the Bill from 1st January, 1908, and bring it down to 1st July, or some date nearer the present time, so that the very few people who had received relief since 1st January might not be debarred from benefit, It really could 418 not do any harm, and it would be only a small relief, though he was sure a just one.
§ SIR FRANCIS CHANNING
said that that was the first opportunity he had to express his opinion on these issues, and he wished to say at once that he had to repudiate any form of bargain as regarded himself. He had never entered into any bargain whatsoever, and he had an absolutely free hand to deal with these questions on their merits. In the second place, the Amendment before the Committee was a bad Amendment. If he had been exiled in to consult with his hon. friends about their course, he would say to them that those who agreed with him would stultify themselves if they voted for this Amendment. They none of them contemplated associating themselves with the giving of an old-age pension at the same time that outdoor relief was being received. Those who voted for the Amendment with the object of supporting the aged poor would really be voting for the pension being given to persons who were also in receipt of Poor Law relief. He had repeatedly brought before the House an Old-Age Pensions Bill to carry out a universal scheme on Mr. Booth's lines, and in doing so had introduced no disqualification from having received out-door relief; but he had distinctly contemplated that no person was to receive the pension at the same time that he was receiving Poor Law relief. But that would be the case if this Amendment were adopted. Another point which they had to note was this. While they were deeply grateful to the Government for attempting to deal with this question at all, and so soon, while they were deeply grateful to them for having made concessions on other matters, and while they recognised that the time-limit to the disqualification of even two and a half years which they had placed in the Bill was a distinct improvement, yet he ventured to press in the very strongest way upon his right hon. friend and the Prime Minister the moral claim and absolute justice, and also the necessity of attempting to deal further with the question. What had been the whole basis of the proposal of old-age pensions? 419 It was, as regards the rural districts at least, that the aged poor almost inevitably in the vast proportion of cases were compelled to come upon the rates. Those who knew as well as he knew the rural districts of the Midlands knew perfectly well that the right hon. Member for South Dublin had not exaggerated, but had, if anything, understated the facts. In the case of a village he knew very well in Northamptonshire, there were most deserving persons of seventy years of age who had been kept going by the farmers until their health had finally broken down through rheumatism, ruptures, and all sorts of disabilities which had grown upon them, so that they were forced, in their last years, to accept outdoor relief. Most of these men were dear friends of his own, and he felt almost a sense of personal indignation that, after having talked to them so long about what they were going to receive from the Liberal Government, they were to be met by this disqualification. The Government ought to try to consider means of giving the pension at the earliest possible moment in these deserving cases, for these were just the people most worthy of consideration. It would be a crying shame if the Government, for the sake of a little over £1,000,000, deprived these persons of the benefits of the Bill. He appealed to the Government to deal with the question in a broad and generous spirit. In putting this matter in the form of a bargain, which he rather deprecated, before the House the other afternoon, he was convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have really felt that the claim of the people for whom he ventured to say a word now was vastly stronger than that of the well-to-do artisan with his sliding scale, or that of the married couple. This case of the aged poor was the gravest case the Government had to face, and it would be a great disaster if they did not attempt to deal with it. He felt profoundly that no Government under the sun would get his vote in the sense of repudiating the claim of these people, and at all hazards. While he could not vote for the Amendment in favour of doing justice to these people, there were three ways in which he thought the Government could deal with the question. They could do it by means of the Amendments in the names of the 420 hon. Member for North Bedfordshire and himself, which practically evaded the administrative difficulties the Prime Minister had several times pointed out. He proposed the 1st of November, or if it was necessary it might be the 1st of December, but at any rate this would give these people a chance to get out of the miserable position which rent the hearts of the worthiest of these men and would make them still more-unhappy and despairing when they thought these hopes had been held out to them, and yet they were to be denied any chance of getting old-age pensions at once and re-attaining the citizenship with which they had parted with deep sorrow and regret. This was a very important matter. He appealed to his right hon. friend, if he could not deal with the question broadly by getting rid of the disqualification altogether, to accept' the Amendment to put in October or November; if he could not do that, let him accept the valuable suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester and give a discretionary power to the local committee to deal with the more deserving of these cases as a temporary expedient till the whole question could be dealt with. He appealed in the strongest possible way to the Government not to allow the mere money argument to outweigh the logic.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
said he would like to ask a question on the construction of the section which seemed to him to raise some difficulty. According to what he understood, the debate had proceeded upon the assumption that any person who had received outdoor relief since 1st January would be for ever disqualified from receiving any pension. That would be a very hard case—much harder than the ordinary case, because during the winter months many a man might have been out of work and had two or three weeks outdoor relief. Even one week's outdoor relief would disqualify from ever getting any benefit under the Bill. If that was the construction, what was the meaning of the first part of the section? What was the necessity for enacting that while he was in receipt of any such poor relief as would disqualify from registration for Parliamentary elections he should not receive a pension? Had it any meaning at all? As far as he could 421 see, the section would be complete on merely enacting that if any person had since 1st January, 1908, received any such relief he should be excluded, and that would cover all cases. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to leave it open to this construction, that he must not only have received relief since 1st January, but must be still receiving it? It might be that this was only another instance of hurried drafting, but as far as he could read it the whole matter would be just as well carried out by striking out the first alternative and leaving only the second.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think we are getting a bit too wide. I cannot allow too much latitude in this matter. This seems to depend upon the words " while he is in receipt." We have got beyond those words. I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the whole of the subsection.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said he had shown how his question was germane to the present debate, because, as he understood, the Government said they had not the money to meet all the cases which would arise under the Amendment. What he was going to suggest to the Chairman was this. He must so frame the section as not to include in the disabilities of the Bill persons who were merely for a short time taking temporary relief and had gone back to their work and were back at it without relief at the time the Bill passed. Really, the section was so drawn that it was impossible for anybody to say what it really meant.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSOX,) South Shields
said his right hon. friend had not had the advantage of hearing this very question dealt with on the subsection as a whole. It was then pointed out that the first half of the subsection dealt with a disqualification which on the face of the Bill stood as a permanent disqualification. But the second half of the subsection was introduced by the words "until Parliament otherwise determines," and was thereby shown to be intended as a temporary disqualification and one which would be removed as soon as the Report of the Poor Law Committee had been presented. The matter was somewhat fully dealt with last week when the Bill was last 422 before the House, and he was just generally referring to it now.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said he did not understand that that was any explanation at all. It really bore out what he said, that there was no difference whatsoever between the first and the second half-section, unless there were two things that must coincide before the section came into play. The first half was "until Parliament otherwise determined."
§ THE CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I cannot allow this to go on. We are discussing the whole of the subsection instead of the actual Amendment.
§ MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)
said that anyone who had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester would be very much touched by his pathos, and he greatly admired the hon. Member's vigour and general sense; but, in spite of that, it was almost with grief that he felt quite unable to support him, and would be bound to support the Government. He objected to any increase in the expenditure on these old-age pensions. It was not fair to the country, and most of all it was not fair to the pensioners themselves. On the Budget, they heard that the pensions were to cost £6,000,000. Subsequently the £6,000,000 had developed into £7,500,000, and the Amendment would add rather less than £500,000. He was afraid the Bill would not leave the House before they had compromised themselves annually to the extent of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. They had decided on a non-contributory scheme the other night after a brief discussion. If they had decided on a contributory scheme—if they had decided that the beneficiaries should contribute, say, one glass or two glasses of beer a week—they could have made the scheme as secure and as permanent as the National Debt. He believed that this non-contributory scheme, including this Amendment if it passed, would vanish into thin air at the first signal defeat that England endured at sea. These non-contributory pensions would revert to the nation whenever the nation was fighting for its life. Speaking now in regard to this or any other Amendment—[laughter]—hon. Gentlemen were eminently discourteous. Bat if he were in a minority of one in the whole House he 423 would say what he thought, and it was a, rather exceptional thing when a politician in the House did actually say what he thought. If they increased the amount of the pension they would decrease their security. He did not believe under the present non-contributory scheme these pensions were worth ten years purchase, and if they added this amount of £2,500,000 or £3,000,000 he did not believe they would be worth five years purchase. The dice were loaded against them. They were gambling in the country's security, and he did not look forward with hope or happiness to the permanence of the present scheme.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTERMAN,) West Ham, N.
said that, speaking as he did in the regrettable absence of his right hon. friend who represented the Department responsible for Poor Law administration, he hoped he might be allowed, to use the words of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, to say what he thought of this matter. He had listened to every word and he was still a little uncertain whether hon. Gentlemen had been prepared to say what they thought. It appeared to some hon. Members perfectly legitimate that the most monstrous charges should be advanced as to the motive which prompted any particular restrictions, and they had been openly told that it was only because paupers had not votes and could not be represented in the ballot boxes that these restrictions had been placed in the Bill. [OPPOSITION cries of " No."] Yes, the hon. Member for Worcester said it.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
said he was glad to accept that disclaimer, because if every hon. Member said what he thought upon this point they would acknowledge that no Member of the House wished to see hard cases dealt harshly with. Such cases must arise within the personal knowledge of all hon. Members. What were they to think of those who at one moment earnestly advocated a contributory scheme which ex-hypothesi must rule 424 out every pauper, and at another time with pathetic fervour passionately pleaded for the pauper in connection with this matter? The hon. Member for Worcester had said that if the Bill passed in its present form it would be a black stain upon the legislation of the country. He would remind the hon. Member of the Aged Pensions Bill of 1903, in regard to which it was declared that only those should be qualified who had not within the last twenty years received Poor Law relief, other than medical relief, in relation to circumstances wholly exceptional in character. The hon. Member for Worcester might declare that every case he had mentioned would come under those circumstances which were entirely exceptional in character, but which according to the right hon. Member for South Dublin were the normal condition they were now dealing with. Therefore, the wholly exceptional character of the pension in the hard case absolutely vanished. Nor need he draw the attention of the House too closely to the fact that the scheme of the hon. Member for Worcester provided for some 450,000 pensions of which half would be paid by the local authority, whereas the Government provided for 572,000 pensions quite apart from anything which the local authorities themselves might do. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had made a speech which very much surprised him, coming from one who had occupied the position of the head of the Board to which he at the present moment had the honour to be Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a moving picture of two people, one out of work supported by the landlord and the other an out-of-work who had to go upon the rates. That was a picture of the present day, and it was not a particular disqualification put in with regard to pensions. Every hard case of that kind came under the disqualifications at the present time. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not against this pension scheme, but against the whole system of outdoor relief carrying with it penalising clauses. It was assumed, and it was rightly assumed and officially acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the whole matter was one connected with finance and if it was financially possible he would deal immediately with the whole question. If it was practicable 425 by the continuance of the sugar tax which the Leader of the Opposition had laid before his followers as a practical policy to provide old-age pensions in these cases, the proposal would still present great difficulties. Speaking as one who had some responsibility for Poor Law administration, he held that it would be impossible to accept the Amendment before the House or even to accept it in an enlarged form. The Amendment merely made a distinction between indoor and outdoor pauperism, and sought to raise the embargo from outdoor pauperism. It should not be overlooked that various methods of relief were adopted by different boards of guardians which were often adjacent. Immediately they attempted to carry out this proposal a larger case would naturally arise from the consideration of the condition of those who had been squeezed into the workhouse by some particular kind of policy which refused all outdoor relief, as distinguished from those boards who were lax in outdoor relief. The hon. Member had suggested that they should assist the new pension system by subsidising the Poor Law or allowing the pension authorities to subsidise the Poor Law.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN
said that what he stated was that the cost to the public would only be 2s. a head more whether it came from the rates or from the taxes. His point was that only 2s. was to be found out of public money.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
replied that "public money" was a very elastic definition. If they assumed that all the 5s.was to come from the National Exchequer, then the scheme attained the region of dreams, because they would immediately want £2,700,000 more, and although the Opposition wore prepared to allocate the sugar duty for this purpose, he did not believe that was a financial proposition which would be agreeable to the House as a whole. If hey were going to allow part to be paid by the Exchequer and part by the guardians in the proportion of 3s. to 2s. that would be a system utterly vicious in character, going behind the 1834 scheme, and a system which every man familiar with Poor Law administration would undoubtedly condemn. If, on the other hand, they were going to draw from the local authorities 426 the amount which they now gave in outdoor relief and hand it over as a 5/- pension, then it would be impossible to raise that question without raising much larger questions of local finance and their relation to Imperial finance. Those questions were awaiting solution by some modification of the Poor Law, which pressed severely on certain districts and very lightly on others. If they transferred this as an Imperial charge, then it would be impossible to make that arrangement under an old-age pension scheme. It had been said again and again in the debate that of necessity such a proposal must mean indefinite postponement. They had had a deliberate assertion made in the country and in the House that immediately after the Report of the Poor Law Commission or as speedily as legislation could be devised, not only the aged poor, but the whole question of the Poor Law would come under revision, and the promise had been made absolutely independently of the introduction of paupers under this scheme. The argument had been used that from the moment this scheme commenced to operate there would be a continual tendency towards the transference of financial obligations from the local authorities to the Imperial Exchequer, and that acting automatically it would increase every year, making it impossible for Parliament to deal with the matter as a whole. But they had the concession made by his right hon. friend, which had been welcomed by hon. Members on the Ministerial side, that instead of leaving it in the vague form provided by the words "until Parliament determines," he would specifically provide that it should operate down to the end of the year 1910. Realising something of the intricacies not only of the Poor Law administration, but of what any large change in the Poor Law might mean in a Bill which must be large and intricate in its character, he should say that even if that obligation were not laid down, no Party in the House would be able to carry out the scheme in very much less time than that. It meant legislation at the early part of the session of the year after next if it was to be in operation by December 1910. That provision, he thought, ought to have commanded some other recognition than the continual criticism to which it had been subjected, because it was proposing to do what no Committee had ever 427 recommended before, and was far more liberal, making every possible kind of restriction, so that no one except those who were really paupers in the true and natural sense of the term should come under these disqualifications. He thought such a measure deserved more favourable consideration than statements concerning the black stain of the Bill or assertions like that of the hon. Member for Leicester, that the Bill was a cruel arrangement calculated to produce more misery and less enjoyment. He could give cases by the dozen of those who came to accept Poor Law relief in their old age. In this measure they provided for cases which would otherwise not be provided for, and which had not been provided for from the beginning of time until this Bill came into operation. This class of the community had as much right to serious treatment as the pauper and he admitted that that class of case had up to this moment been absolutely neglected. No doubt there were hard cases involving considerable suffering and a sense of injustice which would arise during the next two years in regard to those who were at present in receipt of outdoor relief, but he was not unhopeful that their case might be alleviated in two directions. There was first the possibility that as the amount of obligation upon the guardians decreased, an increasing number, not of those who had had relief, but who would have had relief—those whom his right hon. friend described as persons who were ripening for relief—would be taken off the guardians, who would be more prepared to carry out the spirit of the Order of August, 1900, in the way of making more adequate the relief given to those who at present were receiving inadequate relief, and therefore not the Exchequer, but the guardians themselves would have less liability to face in the future in providing for those people. An enormous amount of money at the present time went to the support of men and women just in order to keep them off the rates. There were charities, organised and unorganised, from which poor people received small subsidies, sometimes less than five shillings a week, in order that they should not become paupers. The State took over these obligations, and he thought they might not be without hope that the charitable public would not be less generous, and that part of the money which had been 428 subscribed would go to make more satisfactory the lot of the pauper population if the pauper population would come under the control of the charities whose funds were now to be liberated. It was easy to get up and make passionate appeals to the House, to read out details of cases, to say that what was proposed was in accordance with the opinion neither of the Liberal nor of the Conservative Party, and to claim that all these people should be immediately relieved. The Government were bound entirely in this matter by the limitations imposed upon them. He spoke not for the Treasury, but for the administrative department of the Poor Law. It was evident that the suggestion as to the beggarly £800,000 made by the hon. Member for Shropshire had already vanished, and the demand was for nearly £3,000, 000. In the circumstances he thought they should be content with what they were getting without making extravagant demands.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
said the hon. Member had referred to the fact that the Report of the Poor Law Commission was expected before very long, and that they should wait. He did not see what that Report had to do with the question they were discussing. They were calling attention to the cases of cruelty, hardship, and injustice which would arise under the proposal in the Bill, and he took it that his hon. friend would not say that they should be influenced in regard to that matter by any Report. The argument had been continually brought forward that the proposal of the Government would induce poor people to avoid coming on the rates so as to qualify for becoming pensioners. What did that mean? It meant that people must continue in a state of suffering for an indefinite time. But starvation, privation, and destitution could not wait. There was not only the case of the man himself to be considered, but there was the wife and children. He thought, therefore, that argument fell to-the ground. At the time Lord Aberdare's Commission sat it was shown in evidence that three out of every seven persons of the age of sixty-five were paupers. If under this Bill the age-limit was fixed at seventy, a still larger number of persons would be disqualified unless the Amendment, or something like it, 429 was adopted. His hon. friend had said that the local committee should discriminate as to character. He was somewhat tired of hearing of the deserving and the non-deserving, the thrifty and the non-thrifty. If those who talked in that way would realise what was meant by having an income of 10s. or 12s. a week, and meeting all the charges incidental to family life, they would cease to talk of the want of thrift with regard to these poor people. The local committee was to decide who was deserving. That was a task which no human being could undertake. There were thousands of men, especially in the rural districts, who had carried on the battle of life for forty or fifty years and had then, through ill-health or some of the other incidents of the fight, broken down in spirits. They "threw up the sponge " and fell into the ranks of what were called the undeserving. If the history of all paupers could be written, it would be found that those who appeared to be undeserving now had in their lives displayed the greatest heroism. He himself would omit all the disqualifications from the Bill. If the Labour Members were true to their order, they would insist that there should be no disqualifications in the Bill which would prevent man who was in need from receiving an old-age pension. He instanced the case of a poor woman seventy-two years of age—and this case was typical of tens of thousands—who was a model of industry and trustworthiness. Through an accident she was incapacitated for all work, and since then she had received 3s. a week from the Poor Law guardians. That sum was supplemented by friends who knew her. She would be treated as an undeserving person and ruled out with regard to an old-age pension. It had been suggested that those who had subscribed to friendly societies for so many years should have that fact accepted as proof of thrift and care. In this debate hon. Members had shown that they were thinking a little too much of the population in the great towns where the conditions were altogether different from those in the rural districts. His own experience was that the labourersin the rural districts were divided into two classes. Those of the first class would almost starve themselves and their children in order that they might save a few pounds and pay 6d. a week to a 430 friendly society. That did not affect the proposition of his hon. friend.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this was not a question of outdoor relief.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said he was replying to what his hon. friend behind him had said. The question of money was important, but he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the case at once. It lay with the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not this great act of injustice and cruelty should be inflicted on such a large number of persons. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that a contributory system would rule out all paupers. That was not quite true. He was not in favour of a contributory system because of its impossibility, but the old paupers could be provided for by special means. He was sorry to hear his hon. friend throw those poor people on casual charity, which might or might not be forthcoming. That was not a satisfactory answer. The fact was that there was no middle course; the Government must either accept this Amendment or refuse it. To give a promise of further legislation in two years time would not meet the case. He sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his difficulty with regard to money, but they had such faith in his resources that he had no doubt he would be able to overcome that difficulty. At any rate it was worth trying; and if he would make this alteration he would improve the Bill, and make it understood by the great mass of the poor people.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said that the debate had been intensely interesting to all those who had taken an active part in the administration of relief under the Poor Law; but curiously enough the most important argument against the Amendment had only been used by one of the last speakers, viz.: the extraordinary inequality of the financial operation. That could not be denied for a moment. In some parts of England, and in Ireland there was one kind of discrimination between indoor and outdoor relief; whereas elsewhere an absolutely different principle. 431 prevailed. The very cruelty of this discrimination was a ground for refusing to support any of the limited proposals that had been brought before the House. Many hon. Members had been asked over and over again to put their names on the back of a Bill, but had refused on account of the discrimination, and they said that they could only support a universal scheme. The House hardly realised the extreme cruelty that would now be involved for the first time. Hon. Members talked about the stigma connected with Poor Law relief. In some parishes there might be a stigma, but taking the rural districts generally there was no stigma. The people did not know who received poor relief. When the revising barrister was considering the Parliamentary electors list names were handed in surreptitiously, and names struck off in a whispered fashion. A case had been mentioned of a man whose wife had received the price of a coffin for his child from the board of guardians. Now, for the first time, a stigma would be imposed. One would be taken and the other left. Everybody would know; the man would be pointed at because his wife had accepted the price of a coffin, and that that was why he was struck off' the list. There were now cases where certain relief would be given expressly for the purpose of causing disqualification. The man would in future be placed in the position of a criminal. There was a balance of argument between the financial difficulties in the way and accepting this crude distinction involving real cruelty in discrimination.
§ MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)
said that the Secretary to the Local Government Board appeared to be somewhat angry with certain hon. Members who supported the Amendment, and said that the Government had been charged with deliberate cruelty. Of course, that was not so. For himself he wanted to say that the distinction between paupers and other poor people was entirely unreal. In many country districts there were numerous people who received outdoor relief from time to time, but who for the greater part of their lives were ratepayers. They struggled on year after year, but when a bad season came, or a death in the family occurred, they were forced to ask for temporary relief. 432 He was entirely against any disqualification of paupers of that kind; and he was afraid that as the Government had not held out any modification of their scheme in this respect, he and those who agreed with him would be forced to support the Amendment. The Government had not given sufficient weight to the arguments of hon. Members who had pointed out the extreme unfairness of attaching this disqualification at all. But if it was to be maintained, notice of the disqualification ought to be given; and he was extremely disappointed that the Government had not seen their way to accept one of the Amendments extending either to the end of the year or to a later period the point of time at which the disqualification would begin to operate. He hoped the Government would even yet see their way to accept that before the closure came into play. If, however, the Government were not able to yield on one or other of these-points he trusted that, at least, they would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the Government that if they would not abandon the disqualification of pauperism as such, and if they were unwilling to change the date in the Bill, that they should in some way make it clear that the only people to be disqualified would be those who were more or less permanent paupers. There had not been a single word said in the debate that would justify the indefinite postponement of the benefits of the Bill to those persons who for a few weeks or days in times of great stress bad since the 1st January received some outdoor relief.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that as he proposed to vote with the Government on this Amendment he would give shortly his reasons for so doing. It was not because he was in favour of the Government or thought the Bill was a good one, but because he foresaw that if the Committee continued to make alterations to meet hard cases they would soon be pledged to an expenditure of something like £15,000,000. First they lost £100,000 on the sliding scale and then £350,000 on aged married couples, and now they were asked to lose a further £2,500,000 on outdoor paupers. The case of indoor relief was just as hard. In one district in London which he knew, 433 no outdoor relief was given, and people struggled along without until they were driven to go indoors. The Amendment was only another nail in the coffin of the Bill, because if they went on as they had been going every time there was a hard case, they would say "This is a hard case and we must find money from some unknown quarter and meet it." Under those circumstances he should support the Government. Later on he would move to leave out the words 1910. He was not in favour of putting off the evil day but of grasping the nettle at once. The real fact was they could not afford the money, and therefore, they had better drop all this clap-trap of humanitarism. He would not support the Amendment because they could not afford the money, and if hon. Gentlemen below the gangway wished to include all these cases they should either have insisted on a contributory scheme or have come forward and said they would not accept any scheme which had any qualification in it at all.
said there was no part of the Bill that so much appealed to the country generally and the agricultural districts in particular as this clause. On the face of it the Bill was to relieve the poorest of the poor, and the poorest of the poor outside the poorhouse were those in receipt of outdoor relief. The Committee must not forget also that those in receipt of that relief had had the greatest struggle to live before they accepted it. Let Members contrast two cases with which he was familiar. One was the case of a dressmaker, who had for many years struggled to keep herself out of the poor house, but who at last had to apply for outdoor relief and now was in receipt of 2s. 6d. a week. The other was the case of a man who had built himself a house in which he lived rent free and apart from which he had an income of 6/- a week. That man would get a pension; the poor seamstress would not. Such a thing as that was going to create grave discontent throughout the country, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would still be able to do something in this matter. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire, to make up the amount received from the local authorities in the way of outdoor relief to 5/-, he thought it would be a 434 great mistake to supplement the amount these people got. The better way would be for the whole amount to be given by the Exchequer and the amount now given by the locality deducted as it easily might from the grant in relief of local rates. He also thought that to put the date 1910 into the Bill would cause grave disappointment to a great many people, because it must be remembered that the people affected were seventy and over and many would not live the extra two years. It was because such hardships would be felt that he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would even now find some way out of the difficulty. He was quite certain that the expenditure could be met. He believed the Estimates on which the Budget was based were too conservative. That had always been the case in the past and far larger surpluses had been realised than was estimated arid he believed this year it would be the same.
§ MR. GEORGE ROBERTS (Norwich)
thought the Government must now realise that their attitude on this question was absolutely indefensible. They had hardly found one champion for the maintenance of this disability from any quarter of the House. If he had been in doubt before as to how he should record his vote the mere fact that the Government had converted the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London would have certainly decided the question. The chief point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the Poor Law Commission was sitting and that before dealing with this matter it was necessary to wait for their Report, because out of the Report would be found the necessity for readjusting the financial relations between the State and the localities. If there was an insuperable difficulty in the way of dealing with this case it must have been also an insuperable difficulty in dealing with the question when the Chancellor offered this as an alternative to the concession made to aged couples, but it was not. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division that the Labour Party must be a powerful factor in this case. If they were as powerful as the hon. Gentleman believed them to be they would remove at once this disability. He was, however, afraid that on this occasion their power had been overrated. They could neither compel nor 435 induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change his view, but considerable hardship would be caused by the retention of this disability. He had received notice of a case only this week in his own constituency, a man of seventy-four years of age, a sober, industrious, and respectable man who had worked all his life until the early part of this year. His wife was then taken ill, and, not being able to afford a professional nurse, this old man left his work to nurse his wife. Before many weeks had passed, owing to his being unable to earn wages, he had to accept outdoor relief. Ultimately his wife died and he resumed work, but, by this Bill, because of his hard circumstances, he was to be stigmatised as a pauper for the rest of his life. The retention of this disability practically destroyed the whole value of the Bill to large numbers of the rural population. Only this week the statistics were placed in his hand of a parish in which a reverend friend of his ministered. It was a village in Norfolk, of 345 inhabitants. Ten of the inhabitants were over seventy but seven out of the ten had received outdoor relief and were therefore disqualified under this Bill. Two others failed before the income test, and it was feared that the remaining one would be unable to survive the inquisitorial tests of the measure. Therefore, in this one Norfolk village, the whole of the people qualified by age for the pension were disqualified because of the differentiation and discrimination made under this particular clause of the measure. The reverend gentleman, who was at any rate in a position to know the circumstances, had assured him that the whole of these old people had spent industrious lives, but the fact of their having been unable to keep off poor law relief until they attained the age of seventy deprived them of the pension under the Bill, and certainly marked them
§ off as paupers for the remainder of their lives. Under the guidance of the reverend gentleman he had made close inquiry into the earlier history of these men, and in two or three instances he had found that whilst they were bringing up their family, and adding to the wealth and productivity of the nation, they had to contribute 1s. a week towards the maintenance of their aged parents. He was hopeful, of course, that this enforced levy would be removed as the result of the Poor Law Commission's inquiry, but he desired to emphasise the fact that these people had been worthy citizens. When at work, probably they had not received more than 12s. a week, and, while bringing up a small family on that sum, they had to contribute to the maintenance of their aged parents. Therefore, they had been unable in any way to make provision for their old age; yet, because they had at length to come upon Poor Law relief before reaching the statutory age of seventy, they were debarred from any of the benefits given under the provisions of this Bill. Under the circumstances, although his hon. friend the Member for Leicester had stated that the Labour members did not like the Amendment in the form in which it had been submitted, nevertheless, as the discussion had ranged over the whole principle involved, it was the intention of those associated with him to follow the mover of the Amendment into the lobby.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 141.)439
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Bertram, Julius|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd|
|Alden, Percy||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Beale, W. P.||Black, Arthur W.|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Beauchamp, E.||Boland, John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Beck, A. Cecil||Brace, William|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bell, Richard||Bramsdon, T. A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bellairs, Carlyon||Branch, James|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Bennett, E. N.||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Barker, John||Berridge, T. H. D.||Brooke, Stopford|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mond, A.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hazleton, Richard||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hedges, A. Paget||Mooney, J. J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hemmerde, Edward George||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cameron, Robert||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morrell, Philip|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morse, L. L.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Henry, Charles S.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Chance, Frederick William||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Muldoon, John|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Higham, John Sharp||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hodge, John||Myer, Horatio|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hogan, Michael||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clough, William||Holland, Sir William Henry||Napier, T. B.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Horniman, Emslie John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S.Pancras, W||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hudson, Walter||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hyde, Clarendon||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Cox, Harold||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Crean, Eugene||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Jackson, R. S.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Dowd, John|
|Crossley, William J.||Jenkins, J.||O'Grady, J.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Jowett, F. W.||Parker, James (Halifax,|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Joyce, Michael||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St, Pancras, N||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Dillon, John||Kearley, Hudson E.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Duckworth, James||Kekewich, Sir George||Perks, Robert William|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Laidlaw, Robert||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh,||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Elibank, Master of||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Erskine, David C.||Lambert, George||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Essex, R. W.||Lament, Norman||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Radford, G. H.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lehmann, R. C.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Lundon, W.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Lupton, Arnold||Rees, J. D.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Richardson, A.|
|Gill, A. H.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Glover, Thomas||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Robinson, S.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Callum, John M.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Crae, George||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Gulland, John W.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Rowlands, J.|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton||M'Micking, Major G.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Maddison, Frederick||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Mallet, Charles E.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Hall, Frederick||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Halpin, J.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Marnham, F. J.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Sears, J. E.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Massie, J.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Meagher, Michael||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Menzies, Walter||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Thomasson, Franklin||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)||Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Snowden, P.||Tillett, Louis John||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Spicer, Sir Albert||Toulmin, George||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Ure, Alexander||Williamson, A.|
|Steadman, W. C.||Verney, F. W.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Vivian, Henry||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walsh, Stephen||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Walton, Joseph||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Wardle, George J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Waring, Walter||Winfrey, R.|
|Summerbell, T.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Waterlow, D. S.||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Watt, Henry A.||Elibank.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Forster, Henry William||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gardner, Ernest||Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gretton, John||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Guinness, Walter Edward||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Haddock, George B.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Helmsley, Viscount||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hill, Sir Clement||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hills, J. W.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cave, George||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hunt, Rowland||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Joynson-Hicks, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafi'sh)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kerry, Earl of||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitehell-(Lanark|
|Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lookwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Ceilings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cross, Alexander||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||M'Arthur, Charles||Younger, George|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|DuncanRobert (Lanark, Govan||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Viscount Valentia.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Moore, William|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'indoor' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."440
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 257. (Division List No.142.)443
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Brace, William|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Banner, John S. Harmood-||Brodie, H. C.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Bull, Sir William James|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Balcarres, Lord||Boland, John||Butcher, Samuel Henry|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Bowerman, C. W.||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Cave, George||Houston, Robert Paterson||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hudson, Walter||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hunt, Rowland||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Wor.)||Jenkins, J.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Jowett, F. W.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Joynson-Hicks, William||Richardson, A.|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Kerry, Earl of||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Cross, Alexander||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Law, Hugh A. (Denegal, W.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Dillon, John||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Snowden, P.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Stanier, Beville|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Starkey, John R.|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Lundon, W.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh).|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Steadman, W. C.|
|Fell, Arthur||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Flynn, James Christopher||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Summerbell, T.|
|Forater, Henry William||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Gardner, Ernest||M'Arthur, Charles||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Gill, A. H.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Glover, Thomas||Meagher, Michael||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Gretton, John||Moore, William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Haddock, George B.||Muldoon, John||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Hall, Frederick||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Halpin, J.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Wardle, George J.|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Nield, Herbert||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hazleton, Richard||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Helmsley, Viscount||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Younger, George|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Dowd, John|
|Hill, Sir Clement||O'Grady, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Hills, J. W.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Bridgeman and Mr.Lane-|
|Hodge, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Fox.|
|Hogan, Michael||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Bramsdon, T. A.||Cremer, Sir William Randal|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Branch, James||Crosfield, A. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Crossley, William J.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Brooke, Stopford||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bryce, J. Annan||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Byles, William Pollard||Duckworth, James|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cameron, Robert||Dunn, A. Edward (C'amborne)|
|Barker, John||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Chance, Frederick William||Elibank, Master of|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Erskine, David C.|
|Beale, W. P.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Essex, R. W.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Clough, William||Evans, Sir Samuel T.|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Ferens, T. R.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Bennett, E. N.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Findlay, Alexander|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Bertram, Julius||Cowan, W. H.||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cox, Harold||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Crean, Eugene||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn HerbertJohn||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sears, J. E.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford,||M'Micking, Major G.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Maddison, Frederick||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Mallet, Charles E.||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Gulland, John W.||Marnham, F. J.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Massie, J.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Masterman, C. F. G.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Menzies, Walter||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Mond, A.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Mooney, J. J.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morrell, Philip||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morse, L. L.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Murray, Capt. Hn A. C.(Kincard)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E,.)|
|Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Myer, Horatio||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Napier, T. B.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Norman, Sir Henry||Thorne, G.R.(Wolverhampton)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Tillett, Louis John|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nuttall, Harry||Toulmin, George|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Paulton, James Mellor||Verney, F. W.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Vivian, Henry|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Perks, Robert William||Walton, Joseph|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||Waring, Walter|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Pollard, Dr.||Wason,Rt Hn.E.(Clackmannan|
|Jackson, R. S.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Price, Robertjohn (Norfolk, E.)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pullar, Sir Robert||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Radford, G. H.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rainy, A. Rolland||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Raphael, Herbert H.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lambert, George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n|
|Lamont, Norman||Rees, J. D.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Lay land- Barratt, Francis||Ridsdale, E. A.||Williamson, A.|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Robinson, S.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Rowlands, J.||Winfrey, R.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Runciman, Rt, Hon. Walter||Wood, T. M Kinnon|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis|
|M'Crae, George||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
Question, "That the word 'poor' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. GOULDING
moved to insert after "poor relief" the words "owing to improvidence." He said his object was to give the committee some discretion so that they could consider the specially hard
§ cases which had been alluded to by several speakers,. He more particularly desired that some relief should be given to those individuals who had exercised thrift and joined in their earlier years, friendly societies which had since failed, and who, owing to their age, had been disqualified from joining 445 another. These really were a most deserving class. At the time they joined these friendly societies the Foresters, the Oddfellows, and the other big societies had not gone into the villages at all, and agricultural labourers had no means of getting into the towns where there might have been friendly societies existing. He had three specific cases which deserved attention. There was the case of Albert Smith, who was seventy-six years of age, had for fifty years belonged to a friendly society which only became defunct six months ago, had since naturally ceased to belong to any friendly society, and had had to receive poor law relief and so become totally disqualified under the Bill. There was the case of another man, James Giles, who was ninety-two years of age, and had remained a member of a friendly society as long as it existed, which was until three or four years ago. He was never ill till he was over seventy-six years of age, and then could not get any sick pay; he worked until eighty six years of age and had since received outdoor relief. He had brought up seventeen children, providing the necessary ammunition for the service of the country, and he had in every way open to him qualified himself for a well-deserved pension in old age. Then he had another case, George Sainsbury, sixty-nine years of age. He also for fifty-five years belonged to a friendly society, which within the last twelve months had broken up; he had consequently had to take poor law relief, and was disqualified for receiving any benefit. What he desired was that some discretion should be left in the hands of the committee who were distributing the pensions, that they might inquire into these cases, so that where people had exercised thrift in the only possible way open to them, relief might be given to them and they should not be deprived of that pension which was going to be given to others simply because 1st January was inserted in the Bill. The Secretary to the Local Government Board had alluded to the disqualifications in the Aged Pensioners Bill. In every one of the Bills brought forward extraordinary circumstances were to be dealt with specifically in each case. He could not imagine any circumstances which would come in that category more than that of those of the character quoted 446 —men who as long as it was possible continuously subscribed to a friendly society. Every one of these cases could have been dealt with under that Bill. He appealed most earnestly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if he could not accept the Amendment, that he would give an undertaking that he would in his own Resolution on the Paper introduce some words giving the committee some discretion to deal with these cases and not absolutely to exclude them from any possible participation All these people had exercised thrift in joining the only societies open to them when they were young men. When the societies broke they were too old to get admission into substantial societies like the Oddfellows or Foresters. It was only to save time that he did not quote several other cases of hardship that were known to him. Without some amendment the Bill would inflict much wrong in many villages. Take the case in Norfolk, where there were thirteen old people over seventy years of age in a village where the population was only 350, and only one of those was in any way a possible candidate for an old-age pension, and his prospects were doubtful. At least ten had received outdoor-relief, so were disqualified, and two had means. Surely it could not be argued that such cases as those ought not to be dealt with under this Bill. He hoped that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept his Amendment he would at least insert some words which would meet his point, otherwise he would have to press his Amendment to a division.
In page 2, line 11, after the word 'relief,' to insert the words 'owing to improvidence.' "—(Mr. Goulding.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
regretted that an Amendment of so much importance was not on the Paper. It raised the very issue which the Poor Law Commission was appointed to report upon—as to how they were to differentiate between the deserving and the undeserving poor. It was generally accepted by both parties that legislation 447 must be brought in to deal with the question at an early date. He had already given an undertaking that the very point which the hon. Member had raised should be attended to probably next year. But he could not now at once set up the proper machinery for winnowin the chaff from the wheat, and any sweeping and far-reaching Amendment of this kind was beyond the conception of the Bill as drawn. They must wait until they had the recommendations of the Poor Law Commission. He could not at once improvise the machinery necessary to carry into operation an Amendment of this kind, and he could not promise to introduce any form of words which would deal with such a vast problem. They would probably find some 150,000 cases of poor old people who had kept off the Poor Law as long as they possibly could. These were people who must eventually come into the pension scheme, but before they did there must be machinery for separating the deserving and undeserving, and for readjusting the relations of local and Imperial finance. The hon. Member for Ashford had suggested that the contributions should be in the proportion of three parts local to two parts from Imperial sources. The Imperial Exchequer could not accept the whole of this burden, while at the same time relieving local taxation to the extent of £3,500,000. He was really sorry, but he could not see his way to meet the hon. Member for Worcester.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he was afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to want of proper notice, did not fully apprehend what his hon. friend desired by his Amendment. The words suggested would open up a wide field of inquiry and might be held to meet all those cases of the deserving poor. There would be a large number of cases in the rural districts where people had made every effort to maintain themselves. His hon. friend had given a case where for fifty years a man had subscribed to the village club and then when he was seventy the club broke, and the man had to go upon the Poor Law. The breaking of village clubs not only made it difficult for the victims, but it made it almost impossible for a time to get men to join 448 friendly societies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was throwing a very difficult and invidious duty upon the pension committees. He thought it would be very difficult under the Bill to find men suited to the work which they would be called upon to discharge on those committees. If they had to deal with cases of the kind mentioned, he doubted whether it would be possible to find a competent committee in any village in the country. Many years ago he made an exhaustive inquiry into the case of village clubs, their then position, the number that had come to grief and those which were likely to come to grief, and he put a scheme before the late Mr. Goschen, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since then many of those village clubs had disappeared and left their members stranded. That had for a time a discouraging effect upon men joining friendly societies. Those men who were stranded in the villages had not only suffered severely, but they had been the cause of a good many of their neighbours not showing the foresight displayed by those who joined friendly societies. The numbers were not great, and they were decreasing year by year. It would be extremely difficult to enforce this invidious distinction against those who had not only done nothing wrong, but had done everything in their power to provide against the day of distress.
§ LORD R. CECIL
expressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment, not perhaps in the particular form in which it had been moved, for he thought the words were too wide, but in a form which would meet the obvious objections to their proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that something should be done, because he recognised that a man who accepted outdoor relief through misfortune, and not improvidence, should be treated differently from a man who was an ordinary pauper. Nor was the Amendment intended to complete the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving. He understood that his hon. friend who moved the Amendment intended it to meet the special case of those who had genuinely made provision for their old age, and who, 449 owing to the failure of a building society, or the fact that they had not been able to keep up their contributions to the end, or something of that kind, were not now in a position to save themselves by their own efforts and were bound to accept Poor Law relief, it might be very trifling relief, and were cut out of the benefits of the Bill in consequence. He did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he would not be prepared to deal with that particular case. It was one which would not involve great expense. He admitted that logic had not much to do with the Bill, but he could not see on what logical ground the Government could defend the position that the habitual loafer was not to be penalised if he had been a member of a friendly society, while a pauper, who had not been a member of a friendly society, but who had made every possible provision for old age, was to be penalised.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
Do I understand the noble Lord to say that the habitual loafer is to be qualified if he has been a member of a friendly society?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
No, we simply take membership of a friendly society for ten years as an indication that a man cannot be a loafer. Men cannot go on paying contributions year after year and at the same time be loafers.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said the loafer who was also a member of a friendly society was rather a rare person. As a matter of fact, the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was that, provided a person had subscribed to a friendly society, or made other provision for his old age, the earlier part of the disqualification was not to apply. That was the way it was put in the Amendment, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not have meant it. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that some provision might be put in to meet the point which had been raised. He could not conceive any answer to the proposal of his hon. friend the Member for Worcester. Why not save people who had made provision for their old age 450 from the pauper disqualification in precisely the same manner as it was proposed to save idlers? Everyone who had listened to the debates must feel there were only two alternatives—to have either a contributory scheme or a universal scheme. He did not believe there was a single Member who, sitting in his room by himself, would venture to say a word for the scheme as it stood. He was not at all sure that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would. Were it not for the restrictions imposed upon debate the truth of the contention that the scheme must be either contributory or universal would have so forced itself into the minds of hon. Members opposite that they could not possibly go on supporting the Bill. Nothing but the guillotine could save the measure from the fate it so richly merited.
§ MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes)
said he had naturally a great deal of symmathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester to introduce words in the clause which would leave the door open to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the matter at a later date. It was rather difficult to say whether any suggestion was or was not logical. If they made an exception in one case, it was extremely difficult not to make it in another. If they were going to introduce words which would enable men who had contributed to friendly societies to have an advantage under the Bill, that would be unfair to women. Women were not members of friendly societies. There was another objection which he asked the right hon. Gentleman to keep before him. He hoped nothing would be done to put on the local committees the duty of picking and choosing between one applicant and another. They ought to try to maintain the automatic character of the old-age pension scheme. Those who had been members of boards of guardians knew how terribly difficult it was to judge Between one case and another. If they could not have a universal scheme, let them, at any rate, start this one in such a way that those who were to receive the Benefit should get it as a matter of right and not as a favour from the local pension committee.
§ MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)
said there was some reason for supporting the Amendment in the fact that it was obviously a defence of friendly societies. The Amendment was practically an acknowledgment of the valuable work done by friendly societies. It appeared to him that the Labour Members did not always sufficiently consider existing conditions. Hon. Members on that side of the House believed that the whole Bill was being rushed through after being carelessly and improperly drafted. The result was that the Bill contained a huge number of anomalies. It would have been wiser to have waited until the Poor Law Commission had reported, when they would have had the benefit of the opinions exprepressed by men of experience in these matters. He did not blame the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he blamed his predecessor, who prepared the measure for which the right hon. Gentleman was now responsible.
§ SIR J. BETHELL (Essex, Romford)
said there were a number of men who were receiving outdoor relief and the amount of such relief was being repaid to the board of guardians by the relatives of the men. Would these cases be eligible for a pension as they were not a burden on the rates?
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)
said it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member for Govan to endeavour to teach the Labour Members their duty in relation to friendly societies. The whole of the hon. Member's speech was wide of the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Worcester did not deal with the whole question of friendly societies. It dealt only with those persons who had been compelled to receive outdoor relief because the societies of which they had formerly been members had broken. There was an Amendment to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on dealing with those who were actually members of friendly societies, and the Labour Members would give it their most hearty support at the proper time, because it would protect the members not only of friendly societies, but of all other kindred societies. He objected 452 to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester on two grounds, and he hoped it would not be pressed. He objected to it, in the first place, because it would cast on the local pension committees an intolerable duty. Under the Bill as it stood the work of the pension committees was going to be very difficult. If they accepted the Amendment they would make the work of the pension committees almost intolerable. He objected because it was going to involve a process of inquiry of the most objectionable character. The hon. Member said it was not to be an inquisitorial inquiry, but it was to be inquisitorial plus association with the guardians, and anything of that kind was most objectionable to the Labour Members. They were sorry that the previous Amendment had not been carried. They wanted—and this ought to have been previously stated in reply to the challenge that was thrown out to them—to sweep away from the Bill every disqualification which had in it anything in the nature of a discrimination. But having been defeated in securing that object, they were not going to support an Amendment which involved an inquiry and especially an inquiry in association with the guardians. However worthy the object of the hon. Member for Worcester was, that hon. Gentleman's Amendment ought to be opposed, and he sincerely hoped that he would not press it to a division.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
thought there was a simple way out of the difficulty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on the Paper a proviso that in the event of a man being disqualified from want of industry he should be exempt if, for ten years, he had belonged to a friendly society. That would be, automatic and not inquisitorial in character. Why not extend that proviso by inserting "provided that a person not actually in receipt of poor relief shall not be disqualified under the foregoing paragraphs of this section."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the hon. Member's suggestion dealt with a totally different question from what they were discussing at the present moment. He was bound to point out to the Committee that all these Amendments on a 453 money Bill had a way of working out differently from what was intended. The hon. Member for Worcester had talked about friendly societies which had become insolvent, and said that that accounted for a considerable number of paupers in the country. But if that were so, the case was formidable and yet the hon. Member had not given the slightest idea of how many paupers there were, or any indication of the expenditure which the Amendment would involve. This was a money Bill, and before anyone moved an Amendment he should go through the same process as the Government had gone through, of calculating what each proposal really meant. The hon. Member had not even in the most shadowy fashion hinted at the amount of expenditure his Amendment would involve. Would the number of paupers he referred to be 250,000, or 100,000, or 50,000? Even if only 50,000, that would mean £650,000 added to the annual charge on the Exchequer. He did not think hon. Members ought really to press Amendments on the Government unless they knew how they would work out. He did not complain of hon. Members sitting below the gangway, and for this reason: they did not make any proposal, however sweeping, which they were not prepared to back up with legislation next year. But hon. Members opposite were not in that position, and they had no right to press any grave financial commitments upon the Government unless they went a step further and said they had some information on which calculations could be based, and that they were prepared to support the Government next year in finding the money.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
said that the right hon. Gentleman had criticised the Opposition for making proposals which involved the expenditure of money without counting the cost. He pleaded guilty to that frankly, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman was to some extent open to the same criticism. It was not the fault of the Opposition that they had not at their elbow an army of highly-skilled statisticians capable of making actuarial calculations, and the right hon. Gentleman should not complain if they put 454 forward an Amendment which he himself admitted was founded on justice. The Amendment was not one which turned on a question of finance which might be solved next year or the year after, but was a question of abstract justice. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle had said that the Amendment was going to place an immense responsibility on the pensions committees, but the responsibility already placed on these committees in country villages was such that it would be difficult to get the best men to join them, because they would be the local representatives of what appeared on the face of it to be an act of cruel injustice. The hon. Member had said that the Amendment would involve objectionable inquiries and in the same breath that ho and his colleagues were going to support an Amendment which would throw upon the pensions committees the duty of going back on a man's life till he was twenty-one years of age, in order to determine whether that man had worked as well as he could, or as he had had opportunity, or whether he had worked according to his needs, or for the benefit or maintenance of his family. Really, when the hon. Member for Barnard Castle was going to support such an Amendment as that, he need not be afraid of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester that a man should not be disqualified if he had been a member of a friendly society that had broken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that they could not improvise machinery, but he had only to graft it on the existing pensions committee, which would be a pure detail, and it would be unnecessary to improvise fresh machinery for that purpose. The hon. Member for Wiltshire hoped that nothing would be done, as indicated by the Amendment, to make the pensions committee pick and choose. That could not be avoided, do what they would, so long as the system was not universal or contributory. For his own part, he did not see why the committees should not be allowed to pick and choose, because if they had some latitude they could help cases of really admitted hardship. He confessed that the word "improvidence" was a vague and not very suitable word, but "providence" was 455 an equally vague word. If a man subscribed 3d. a month to a Post Office Savings Bank to the age of between sixty and seventy years, he was to be qualified for the receipt of a pension of 5s. a week for life. That was what the Government called "providence." It might be only 2d. a month, nothing was laid down. It was all to be done by rules. There was, it was true, a certain vagueness in the term "improvidence," but though this Amendment contained nebulous terms which were difficult to define there was no doubt as to the principle which his hon. friend desired to put before the House.
§ MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)
said that as one of those who went boldly into the lobby and voted for a contributory scheme he was compelled to take part in the discussion on this Amendment for the purpose of emphasising the position created by the line which the Government had taken. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, having taken it upon themselves to introduce a measure of this kind, must take upon themselves the full burden and responsibility of making the scheme thorough and complete in every sense. The right hon. Gentleman had blamed the Opposition for not coming for ward with all their figures arranged as to what would be the probable cost to the Exchequer of whittling down these objections to the scheme. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not been altogether candid, because he had an Amendment himself lower down on the Paper—an Amendment which would make a considerable alteration in the disqualifications which it was proposed to put into the Bill—but the right hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee what figures he had gone into. He could not say he had not ascertained what would be the cost of removing these disqualifications from the men who had contributed for ten years to a friendly society. It would have been just as easy for the right hon. Gentleman to have computed what the acceptance of this Amendment would have involved. Therefore, it was hardly a good answer to say that this Amendment could not be entertained because the Government had no means of ascertaining the cost. He 456 thought the Government would be wise in these matters where hardships were shown to exist to allow the financial considerations to take a second place. [Cries of "No" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] He did not wonder that there were certain misgivings among hon. Members opposite at the morass into which the Government were leading them. These petty exclusions would create grave prejudice against the Government in the country. There could be no possible reason why a person who had subscribed to a friendly society should not be allowed to go free from these disabilities, for the past contribution to a friendly society for such a period was of itself evidence of a thrifty mind. He was certainly surprised that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle should have objected to this Amendment on the ground that it would result in inquisitorial proceedings. Surely it was indeed straining at the gnat to object to the suggestion contained in the Amendment when the House and the hon. Member considered the drastic inquiry which the provisions of the Bill prescribed, an inquiry which extended practically over the whole period of the life of the applicant for a pension. Although there might be some objection to the operation of the Amendment in urban districts, on the ground of the difficulty of verification there could be none in the rural districts, where no man certainly would object if he had been out of work for some time to submitting himself to examination as to the reasons why he had been out of work, especially as that would most probably be a matter of common knowledge in a village community. He respectfully advised the Government to reconsider the position.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)
said the debate on the Amendment illustrated very sharply the difficulty in which the Committee found themselves through the Government having introduced a scheme of great social reform, founded solely upon finance, without sufficient consideration. The House, having considered the Bill, drafted Amendments and made suggestions, giving the Government ample time to consider those suggestions.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWBLL,) Lanarkshire, Mid.
said this Amendment was not on the Paper.
§ MR. BOWLES
contended that the principle of the Amendment was embodied in another which had been set down in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
said the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. BOWLES
said that the Amendment being similar to that in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester the Government must have been perfectly well aware for some days past that this point would be raised. It was not sufficient for the Government to say that although the Amendment was reasonable and they had nothing to say against the wisdom of the proposal, they must object to it on the ground that they had made no inquiry as to the cost.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
warned the hon. Member that he was now entering into what had just been ruled to be out of order.
§ of this system of old-age pensions, and therefore, in supporting this Amendment, he could not be suspected of any desire of unduly increasing the burden of taxation. He hoped the Government before the closure fell would be able to give the Committee some assurance that they would seriously consider this case, the genuineness, fairness and justice of which they fully admitted. All they wished to do was to add at the end of paragraph (a) the proviso which the right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to add at the end of paragraph (b).
§ MR. R. DUNCAN
said the fact that some friendly societies had gone the wrong way was no argument against friendly societies, but rather an argument for the need of a capable public official to investigate their finances and give the public confidence in them.
§ MR. GOULDING
said that as the Government had not seen their way to promise to endorse thrift in their Amendment, he would have to put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 267. (Division List No. 143.)461
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Guinness, Walter Edward||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Balcarres, Lord||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hill, Sir Clement||Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hills, J. W.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield||Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stanier, Beville|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hunt, Rowland||Starkey, John R.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kerry, Earl of||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Cave, George||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Clive, Percy Archer||M'Arthur, Charles||Valentia, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Morpeth, Viscount||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Forster, Henry William||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Goulding and Mr. Mildmay.|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Alden, Percy||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Barker, John|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Mond, A.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Barnes, G. N.||Gulland, John W.||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Mooney, J. J.|
|Beale, W. P.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Hall, Frederick||Morrell, Philip|
|Bell, Richard||Halpin, J.||Morse, L. L.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale||Muldoon, John|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Bertram, Julius||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Murray, Capt Hn. A. C. (Kincard|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Myer, Horatio|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harwood, George||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Boland, John||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Napier, T. B.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Brace, William||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Branch, James||Hedges, A. Paget||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Helme, Norval Watson||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hemmerde, Edward George||Nuttall, Harry|
|Brooke, Stopford||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Henry, Charles S.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Higham, John Sharp||O'Dowd, John|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Grady, J.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hodge, John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cameron, Robert||Horniman, Emslie John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hudson, Walter||Perks, Robert William|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hyde, Clarendon||pirie, Duncan V.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Pollard, Dr.|
|Clough, William||Jackson, R. S.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Price, C. E. (Kdinb'gh, Central)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jenkins, J.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Radford, G. H.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Joyce, Michael||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Cowan, W. H.||Kekewich, Sir George||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Crean, Eugene||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crooks, William||Laidlaw, Robert||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Rees, J. D.|
|Crossley, William J.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lambert, George||Richardson, A.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamont, Norman||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Lehmann, R. C.||Robinson, S.|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Dillon, John||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Rowlands, J.|
|Duckworth, James||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Lynch, H. B.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Essex, R. W.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Sears, J. E.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Callum, John M.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Crae, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Findlay, Alexander||Maddison, Frederick||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Mallet, Charles E.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie,|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Marnham, F. J.||Snowden, P.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Massie, J.||Scares, Ernest J.|
|Gill, A. H.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Glover, Thomas||Meagher, Michael||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Menzies, Walter||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.|
|Steadman, W. C.||Toulmin, George||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Verney, F. W.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Vivian, Henry||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rthen|
|Stuart James (Sunderland)||Walsh, Stephen||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Summerbell, T.||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Walton, Joseph||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n||Winfrey, R.|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wardle, George J.|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Thomasson, Franklin||Waterlow, D. S.||Joseph Pease and Mr.|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||Watt, Henry A.||Herbert Lewis.|
|Tillett, Louis John||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Torrance, Sir A. M.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
§ MR. HARCOURT
said he desired, on behalf of his right hon. friend, to move to leave out the words "as disqualifies for registration as a parliamentary election," in order to insert the words "other than relief excepted under this provision." The Amendment should be read in conjunction with a further Amendment to make the proposal intelligible. The two were put down really to cover some observations of his right hon. friend the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member for Stoke. The Government intended, and had always intended, what his right hon. friend wished to have inserted in the provision; but unfortunately some objections had been taken to the clause, and they therefore proposed to make it absolutely certain that none other than those intended would be disqualified. Disqualification for the franchise under former Acts contained, not only parochial relief, but "other alms." It was not intended by the Government to apply "other alms" to the disqualification for a pension. It was more than possible that parochial relief for a wife or child might disqualify a wife or father from voting, and it was also possible that the maintenance of a wife in an asylum would disqualify a husband from the receipt of a pension. This was not intended and never had been. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to; the variability of the decisions of the revising barristers, and a man of seventy years of age whose affairs placed him in a position to require and acquire an old-age pension was not the sort of person who would be able to appeal against the decision of a revising barrister. Under ordinary circumstances, he would probably accept with a certain amount of
§ equanimity, his disqualification from the franchise, but when it came to the revising barrister's decision at the same time disqualifying him from receiving an old-age pension, it became a more serious matter. It was that they wished to avoid. The words of the hon. Member for Stoke, he suggested, were not wide enough. If they dealt in the Amendment specifically with medical relief, it was possible that they might leave in the disqualification for old-age pensions other things like free vaccination or meals for children or maintenance in a hospital or asylum. At all events, it was doubtful whether these would be regarded as disqualifications, and it was desirable to make that clear, because in the various Acts which had provided for free vaccination, meals for children, and support in asylums and hospitals they had been specially exempted from the franchise disqualification. The mere fact that it was necessary to put such an exemption into those Acts might suggest that they should be regarded as medical relief. Now they came to the question of the wife in a lunatic asylum. It was extremely difficult, or, at all events, complicated, to draw a very definite line between what was medical assistance and what was maintenance as a pauper. In the Act of 1885 which was designed to prevent medical relief disqualifying from the franchise, it was no doubt intended that temporary medical assistance should not disqualify but that maintenance in a workhouse infirmary or a lunatic asylum should disqualify. They proposed to except from disqualification under this Bill any relief given for support in a hospital or asylum. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should read the clause as it would 463 stand with the Government Amendments put in: "While he is in receipt of any Poor relief other than relief excepted under this provision, and, until 31st December, 1910, and if he has at any time since 1st January 1908 received or hereafter receives any such relief, provided that for the purpose of this provision: (a) Any medical or surgical assistance supplied by or on the recommendation of a medical officer,; or (b) any relief given to any persons by means of the maintenance of any dependent that person in any lunatic asylum, infirmary, or hospital; or (c) any such relief as by law is not a disqualification for registration as a Parliamentary elector; shall not be considered as poor relief." He did not know that that was very graceful English, but it attained the desired result. He would state perhaps a little less legally but more clearly exactly what it did. They dealt with medical relief separately and did not make disqualification dependent on the decision of a revising barrister. Secondly, a lunatic wife or crippled children supported in a hospital was excepted from the disqualification as relief not given to the pensioner himself or herself. Thirdly, the exceptions which had been engrafted by other Acts on the disqualification for the franchise were specifically included here as additional exceptions in order to avoid any inference which could be taken that they were not to be regarded as exceptions under the Act. Of course, it was perfectly true that they might have left the whole of this rather intricate matter to be dealt with by regulation, and it would have given a certain amount of elasticity, but he knew the Committee was always jealous of too much legislation by regulation and he thought it was desirable that matters of disqualification and matters of exception as far as possible should be set out in the corpus of the Bill; therefore he hoped the Committee would feel that they had met the general wishes of the House and be prepared to accept the Amendment.
In page 2, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words as disqualifies for registration as a Parliamentary elector,' and insert the words' (other than relief excepted under this provision.)'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said that subsection (b) of the proviso was of the greatest possible importance, and largely mitigated the hardship of the clause. There were reservations to be made in regard to (a) and (c), especially (a), but he thought the Government might consider (a) before the Report stage. There were very long debates in 1885 upon the question of medical extras, and if the Government would turn up Hansard, and read those debates, and read the speeches of the present Leader of the Opposition, they would see the exact point. It would be seen that there was a real difficulty here, and if the Government could widen their words "on the recommendation of the medical officer" into such a form as to include these medical extras it would be a great improvement to the clause. He suggested that on Report they might add general words including quasi-medical relief given or articles supplied in connection with burials and child-birth. He once more asked them to consider the question of supplying bread under the Poor Law where it was supposed in some cases to be supplied for the woman who had been confined, but was notoriously supplied for the children.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I may point out to the Committee that they cannot discuss the later Amendment before the present Amendment is disposed of.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
I should not have done it but for the fact that the mover of the Amendment rather invited it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Yes, that is perfectly true, but it leads to a certain amount of confusion if we discuss the later Amendment. In the special circumstances the discussion may proceed as initiated.
§ MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)
said he quite agreed with the Amendment as far as it went except (c), and he was extremely doubtful whether 465 paragraph (c) did not re-enact the very words which the First Commissioner had proposed to leave out. He had read it four or five times, and quite understood what it meant. It meant any such relief as by law was not a disqualification, which pre-supposed that any relief that was a disqualification for the franchise was still to be sufficient to prevent the receipt of a pension. He did not know much about the English language, but he knew enough to make others understand what he meant, and they could generally understand what he meant. It appeared that they were merely striking words out in one form to put them in in another. He would much prefer that (c) was struck out altogether, because however they broadened (a) and (b), (c) was going to limit them. If it was left out there would be no ambiguity about it and that with the broadening of (a) as suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean would meet most of the objections that had been urged. How necessary it was to leave out those words was shown by the fact, which had not been pointed out, that a man who was already receiving a pension might require relief. It could not be supposed for a moment that 5s. a week was going to enable a pensioner to secure medical or any other attendence. It was scarcely sufficient to keep body and soul together to begin with, and they wanted to be extremely careful that they did not leave words in the amended section which might, solely by the revising barrister deciding to disfranchise a pensioner, deprive him of his pension. He was not satisfied that (c) met the case put forward by those who had given notice of Amendments, and unless it was amended—not merely explained by a statement of the Minister in charge, because that could not be used before a pension committee—he should advise great caution before they inserted these words in the Bill.
§ MR. W. K. REA
asked the Government whether they would make provision to enable boards of guardians to give medical relief to a pensioner without charging him for it. It was not just to ask these people to pay for medical comforts out of their 5s. a 466 week. It would not cost the Government anything to make this concession, and it would allow the guardians to do what they thought was just in such cases.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
supported the Amendment, explaining that he also had an Amendment on the Paper in identical terms.
§ THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets. Poplar
, in answer to the hon. Member, for Stoke, explained that paragraph (c) was not, as he seemed to fear, a limitation, but an extension. There were certain Acts of Parliament under which Poor Law relief was given without entailing loss of civil rights. The matters dealt with in those Acts included fees for education of children, payment of fees for vaccination, and provision of meals for children, and the Government proposed that, in those matters in which there was no disqualification for civil rights, there should be no disqualification for a pension. Replying to the hon. Member for Scarborough, he thought it would be within the discretion of boards of guardians to consider what the means of a pensioner might be, and whether or not he should be called upon to pay for medical relief. In answer to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean, he said the principle on which the clause was framed was broadly that relief which was not really pauper relief should not disqualify for a pension.
§ MR. W. R. REA
said there were a great many now in receipt of medical relief who would become entitled to receive pensions, and they could not be expected to provide medical relief out of 5s. a week. What he desired to guard against was that those who were now receiving medical relief should not have that relief discontinued because they obtained a pension.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
thought that would be at the discretion of the guardians. He thought that the point of the hon. Member was covered by the words "surgical assistance" contained in an Amendment standing in the name of 467 the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What the House desired and what the Government desired was that those who received medical relief should not be disqualified for a pension.
§ MR. SNOWDEN
submitted the case where old people in receipt of relief had the charge recovered from the children by the guardians. Would such a case disqualify for a pension?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he understood the law to be that if a man had adequate means the guardians must charge the cost against him. But was 5s. a week adequate means, and was the decision to be left to the board of guardians? He maintained that it ought not to be left to the guardians to decide, and pensions certainly ought not to be subject to the charge for medical relief. This question had been decided by Parliament twenty years ago, and surely they were not going back upon that decision to-day by making the pension chargeable to relief. He understood that the Postmaster-General had given a pledge to meet the difficulty.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said he had already stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to look into the question.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he wanted to know definitely whether these pensions under any circumstances were going to be chargeable for medical relief. Pensions ought not to be subject to such a charge. If this was not guarded against it meant that the Exchequer might be made chargeable for that which the local rates had hitherto provided. They did not intend that these pensions should be devoted to relieving the local rates. He was aware that the whole question of the relation of the Exchequer contributions to local rates would have to be considered, but it should not be raised in this way.
§ MR. HARCOURT
said that the point had nothing to do with the old-age pension or to a limited amount of 5s. a week. The Poor Law authority had to consider in every case before granting medical relief what was the man's total 468 income. While a pensioner with 5s. a week could not pay for medical relief, yet an income of 8s. plus a pension of 5s. might constitute a case where the local authorities would feel justified in asking for the contribution of a certain amount towards the payment of medical relief. They must not put a man who had 13s., partly his own savings and partly from the Government, in a different position from a man earning 13s. in wages. The only thing the local authority had to do was to look to the total means of the recipient.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
said he was glad to see these words disappearing from the section. There were parts of the Bill which had been very loosely drafted, and of all parts this was one of the very worst. The Postmaster-General had not really explained the Amendment. The Bill as it stood made the franchise a test for the giving of a pension. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and others had pointed out how complicated the law was in relation to franchise disqualifications. The Government had exempted from the, franchise disqualifications: (1) Medical attendance; and (2) relief of dependents. He understood that under subsection (c) in other cases the test was to stand. Previous speakers had pointed out that obviously the words of the subsection were open to objection on the ground that they might lead to great difficulties and hardships. If they did not amend this now, they could not do it later on. They could not introduce Amendments in this direction on the Report stage, because they would mean an increased charge on the Exchequer. He understood that that was not permissible, and he appealed to the Chairman to say whether that was so.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said he understood a ruling had already been given on that point. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the matter now, for there was really no use saying that it could be dealt with 469 later on, Subsection (c)was really impossible as it stood at the present moment. Nobody knew what was meant by poor relief, for the law relating to disqualifications under the franchise law was most complicated. It took them back over a whole series of Resolutions of this House to the beginning of the seventeenth century, and, therefore, the meaning of poor relief would be a matter almost impossible to determine. He had understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to move an Amendment providing that the poor relief was to be at the expense of the rates. If he had done so, the clause would have been intelligible, whether they agreed with it or not. In Scotland, relief at the expense of the rates disqualified for the franchise. Unless the point was considered now it would never be considered at all, owing to the impending closure.
§ MR. HARCOURT
said the subsection was an addition to the other subsections, and it was plain it was put in by way of dealing with the exceptions engrafted by other Acts to disqualification for franchise.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD
called attention to cases in which, though technically poor relief was given, it was recovered from relatives; and urged that they should not be classed as cases of poor relief. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware of the technical reasons that sometimes arose. A son or a couple of sons in a family declined to contribute, and so for the convenience of the other members of the family what was really a family contribution was made through the guardians. Surely the right hon. Gentleman saw that, although that was technically poor relief, in reality it was not so. This was a very small matter, but it was a very keen injustice in so far as it existed. He asked the Government whether words could not be introduced to make an exception in respect of that form of poor relief.
§ LORD R. CECIL
doubted whether it would be possible at a later stage to correct the defects pointed out by the Member for the Forest of Dean. If the Government could not improvise an Amendment they ought to undertake to 470 recommit the Bill for the purpose of dealing with the matter.
§ MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.)
expressed the hope that there would be an opportunity for reconsidering the words of subsection (c) on Report. There was no doubt that the subsection had been put in to meet the cases of vaccination, education, and one or two other forms of relief, as to which Parliament had laid down that they should not disfranchise. It also brought in a number of doubtful cases which had been decided by the Courts of Law.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he regretted he had not heard the whole of the debate, but he had made himself acquainted with the point which had been raised. As he understood, there was some doubt as to whether the words on the Paper would cover relief in cases of child-birth and funeral appliances. It was intended by the Government that those should be included. If there was any doubt about it, and should it be found that they could not be included, on Report he-would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Prime Minister had made an arrangement for the recommittal of the Bill on Monday in order to discuss the sliding-scale in the schedule. If the Opposition would be prepared to accept the discussion of these two minor details in the arrangement for Monday night, and supposing the Speaker found that they could not possibly amend the Amendment in the sense indicated on Report, the Bill might be recommitted, with a view to introducing those Amendments. He understood that there was a general desire that they should be incorporated, and the Government would be perfectly prepared to add them to the Bill if there was any doubt, though, as a matter of fact, he thought the words would cover it.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
asked the right hon. Gentleman at what stage he proposed to take the recommittal of the Bill, and whether an extra day would be given for the discussion.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said as far as he could gather from hasty 471 consultation with his friends, it would be convenient that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of this provision as well as in respect of the sliding-scale.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.
said that what the Government proposed to do was on Monday night, when the Eight Hours Bill had been concluded at eight o'clock, to recommit this Bill, though it was not one of the allotted days, in respect of the sliding-scale, because they desired that the House should have an opportunity in Committee of discussing the sliding-scale. But if there were incidental points, such as that which had just been raised, the Government were quite prepared to extend the recommittal to those points. They proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to give full opportunity for discussion.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
asked if he was to understand that if in addition to the sliding scale in the schedule, Clause 3, subsection (a) could also be discussed.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said that he could not give any pledge about that. If there were specific points in regard to details which should be discussed he would have an open mind.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
asked whether they would have an opportunity of discussing the most important point raised by the proviso contained in paragraph (c) in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Any such relief as by law is not a disqualification for registration as a Parliamentary elector shall not be considered as poor relief.He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way for a discussion of that point on the recommital stage.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said he could not give any pledge about that, but it would be considered very carefully.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
said he understood the Question had reference to 472 medical relief repaid by relatives. There was a specific Amendment in relation to that which had to come on later on; and he did not think it was quite relevant at this particular moment.
§ MR. DICKINSON
said that the effect of this subsection might be that when a man who went to a Poor Law infirmary or a Poor Law lunatic asylum came out, he would find he had lost his right to a pension; that was a very serious matter, because anything which would discourage persons going into lunatic asylums or sending their friends into lunatic asylums or Poor Law infirmaries would be very inexpedient, and he hoped the Government would seriously consider the matter.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
drew attention to the fact that this was the only opportunity for discussing the Amendments (a), (b), and (c).
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said he understood that the discussion of those Amendments was to be taken to gether.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked that before the division was taken, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should deal with the point raised by his hon. friend, which would seem to arise at this point.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
said that as his right hon. friend was not in the House when this point was raised, he would, with permission, explain the position. It was a point raised, not by the hon. Member for Leicester, but by the hon. Member for Blackburn, and was this—Where out-relief was being given by the guardians, and the whole amount was obtained by order from the relatives of the person relieved, did that disqualify for pension? As the Bill stood at present the answer was in the affirmative. But nine out of ten of these cases arose owing 473 to the fact that some of the children would not contribute. One son would contribute 2s. 6d. a week, and another would not, and in order to get the 5s. a week a maintenance order had to be made and the old man was made a pauper. He would very greatly deprecate interference with that until the Poor Law Commission had reported. They might say it was only a matter of 6d. a week or 3d. a week loss, but unless they had some clear idea where they were going they got into a morass. He would imagine that nothing had given the Poor Law Commission greater preoccupation than this question of the maintenance by relatives. And what apparently might be a hardship must be borne for a few more mouths until this whole question of contribution to maintenance was reviewed.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he did not wish to squabble with the hon. Gentleman over what was a difficult technical question, but he thought he had not stated the question quite accurately. The morass to which the hon. Member had just referred was a morass which the Government had carefully prepared for the House. These cases of pauperism were extremely complicated, when pauperism occurred because members of the family would not contribute. The point was that pauperism in these cases arose from circumstances over which the individual had no control. This clause imposed a great injustice, and therefore this disability ought not to apply. When the hon. Gentleman said earlier in the evening that they were trying to upset the whole of the Poor Law system he was entirely wrong. He had overlooked the fact that under that system lie had a right to claim a roof to cover him and clothes and food for his body if he was destitute. But the Government were giving another thing altogether. They gave a pension as a matter of right, and in order to fit their scheme to the money at their disposal they added this fantastic proposal. The scheme was hastily conceived, but that did not get over the difficulty the House was now discussing. They could not get out of that difficulty, because in a very short time other points would be raised which were new to the Govern- 474 ment, and although the hon. Gentleman told them the mind of the Government was perfectly clear upon this question—
§ MR. WALTER LONG
Then the mind of the Government and the policy of the Government are two very different things.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that if the policy was but the expression of the mind of the Government, in that case the mind of the Government must be in a remarkably confused state. Was there any man in that House apart from the Treasury Bench who knew what was going to be the Government's definition of pauperism which would disqualify for a pension? The fact was the pension committees would have to do their work with these impossible restrictions imposed upon them, and they would cast them to the winds, and they would be right. What would then be the action of the Government? The right hon. Gentleman had never answered the question which he ventured to put to him earlier in the evening. He knew perfectly well it was the crux of the whole situation. How were the present Poor Law and the Public Health Acts administered? If money was spent improperly, the authorities were surcharged, but if they knew that those payments were made with good intentions, they remitted them. Were they going to remit in cases where pensions had been improperly granted? They were going to lay upon the pension committees the duty of allocating pensions subject to restrictions. Supposing they disregarded the restrictions, what were they going to do? Was an auditor going to examine their accounts and surcharge them if they made a wrong pension; and, if so, were they going to adopt the same policy as they had in Poor Law administration, and remit if the payment was honest? If so, all these debates were worth nothing, because the pension committees would give pensions without any regard to the restrictions. They could not say 475 what was a pauper, for they knew that a man was made a pauper by the interpretation of the law. People were made paupers by the construction placed upon the kind of relief they received. They were going to expose people to that ordeal, and the pension committees would risk it by giving pensions where they ought not. The whole thing, so far as the restrictions were concerned, was a farce. They had better remit them altogether and make up their minds to the extra charge, because it would have to be borne, whatever the House might do.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a very curious misapprehension. He could not have taken the trouble to read the seventh clause of the Bill. His idea was that the pension committee decided not merely to whom the pension was to be given, but that they actually paid it.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
A person is to go to the Post Office to get his pension. Is the Post Office responsible?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the slightest trouble to read Clause 7, he would have seen exactly what happened. First of all the pension officer reported. He was an Imperial officer. The pension committee considered that report, and, if it disagreed with the pension officer, the matter was referred to another Imperial officer. The final decision was with an Imperial officer. He had never heard before of such a suggestion as that a committee would disregard all the first three sections of an Act which they were called upon to administer.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to call attention to the last words of subsection (b). If his description of the Bill was correct, what did they mean? In the first case, the report was referred to the pension committee by the pension officer; and, the pension committee—After obtaining from him, if necessary, any further information as to the claim or question, consider the case, and give their decision upon the claim or question.If these words did not mean that the pension committee would authorise the payment, as the committees of the board 476 of guardians authorised payments, he did not know what they meant.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have read the clause up to line 25, but he would point out to him there were five more lines, and those five lines really decided the whole controversy. He would read them—If any decision of the local pension committee allowing a claim for a pension or determining any question is not in accordance with the report of the pension officer, the matter shall be referred to the central pension authority and shall be considered and determined by them.If they agreed, they were agreeing with an Imperial officer. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that a committee designed to carry out the Act of Parliament would not take into consideration any of the disqualifications. The pension officer, who was an officer of the Treasury, would, at any rate, carry out the Act of Parliament, and he would take into account the disqualifications. If the pension committee refused to do so, then another Imperial authority came in and the final decision was with them. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Bill, he would have found that it was absolutely unnecessary to have conjured up this idea of all the disqualifications being swept away.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he had not the same absolute faith in the judgment of the local excise officer as the right hon. Gentleman, nor did he envy the President of the Local Government Board the role of general supervisor and reviser of pensions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer allotted him. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board had said that, the Government were acting on a principle, and that their principle was to follow the legal definition of a pauper. What they asked was that the Government should not follow an artificial definition made by law, but the practical definition made by facts. If the sons and daughters of a possible pensioner were defraying the whole cost of that person's relief, he should not be disqualified for his pension. He was not upon the rates, and he was not a pauper except in the technical sense.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."478
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 348; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 144.)481
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Cowan, W. H.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Agnew, George William||Crean, Eugene||Henry, Charles S.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Alden, Percy||Crooks, William||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Crosfield, A. H.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Crossley, William J.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Dalziel, James Henry||Hodge, John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Astbury, John Meir||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Devlin, Joseph||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Barker, John||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hudson, Walter|
|Barnes, G. N.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Dillon, John||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Duckworth, James||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Beale, W. P.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Beauchamp, E.||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jackson, R. S.|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Jenkins, J.|
|Bell, Richard||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Elibank, Master of||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Erskine, David C.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Essex, R. W.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Bennett, E. N.||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Everett, R. Lacey||Joyce, Michael|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Ferens, T. R.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Findlay, Alexander||Kettle, Thomas Michael|
|Black, Arthur W.||Flynn, James Christopher||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Boland, John||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Brace, William||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Branch, James||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lambert, George|
|Bright, J. A.||Gill, A. H.||Lamont, Norman|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Glover, Thomas||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Brooke, Stopford||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Gulland, John W.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Lupton, Arnold|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Cameron, Robert||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hall, Frederick||Lynch, H. B.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight||Halpin, J.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal E.)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||M'Crae, George|
|Cleland, J. W.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||M'Killop, W.|
|Clough, William||Hart-Davies, T.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Harwood, George||Maddison, Frederick|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire).||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth,||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Marnham. F. J.|
|Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hazleton, Richard||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hedges, A. Paget||Massie, J.|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Rainy, A, Rolland||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Meagher, Michael||Raphael, Herbert H.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Menzies, Walter||Rea,Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Redmond, William (Clare)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Mond, A.||Rees, J. D.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Rendall, Athelstan||Thorne,G. R.(Wolverhampton)|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Richardson, A.||Tillett, Louis John|
|Montgomery, H. G.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Toulmin, George|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Morrell, Philip||Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradfrd||Verney, F. W.|
|Morse, L. L.||Robinson, S.||Vivian, Henry|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Walker, H. R. (Leicester)|
|Muldoon, John||Roe, Sir Thomas||Walsh, Stephen|
|Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Walters, John Tudor|
|Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard||Rowlands, J.||Walton, Joseph|
|Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Myer, Horatio||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wardle, George J.|
|Napier, T. B.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Waring, Walter|
|Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Nolan, Joseph||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sears, J. E.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Seaverns, J. H.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Seely, Colonel||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Whitehead, Rowland|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|O'Dowd, John||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|O'Grady, J.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wiles, Thomas|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Snowden, P.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Soares, Ernest J.||Williamson, A.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Stanger, H. Y.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n)||Steadman, W. C.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Strachey, Sir Edward||Winfrey, R.|
|Pollard, Dr.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.||Summerbell, T.||Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr.|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Sutherland, J. E.||Herbert Lewis.|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Radford, G. H.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F||Cave, George||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Gretton, John|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Guinness, Walter Edward|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc||Haddock, Gorge B.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Olive, Percy Archer||Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Hill, Sir Clement|
|Bertram, Julius||Courthope, G. Loyd||Hills, J. W.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Craik, Sir Henry||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Cross, Alexander||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Dalrymple, Viscount||Hunt, Rowland|
|Bull, Sir William James||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Kerry, Earl of|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Keswick, William|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Fell, Arthur||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gardner, Ernest||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Morpeth, Viscount||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Nield, Herbert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lowe, Sir Frauds William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|M'Arthur, Charles||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|M'Calmont, Colonel James||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Younger, George|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Stanier, Beville||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)||Viscount Valentia and Mr.|
|Moore, William||Starkey, John R.||Forster.|
Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.
§ And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and on any Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
In page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that for the purposes of this provision—(a) any medical or surgical assistance supplied by or on the recommendation of a medical officer; or (b) any relief given to any person by means of the maintenance of any dependent of that person in any lunatic asylum, infirmary, or hospital; or (c) any such relief as by law is not a disqualification for registration as a Parliamentary elector; shall not be considered as poor relief.' "—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
In page 2, line 17, to leave out from the word 'habitually,' to end of line 20, and to insert the words 'failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need, for the maintenance of himself and those legally dependent upon him. Provided that a person shall not be disqualified under this paragraph if he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, by means of payments to friendly, provident, or other societies, or trade unions, or other approved steps, made such provision against old age, sickness, infirmity, or want or loss of employment as may be recognised as proper provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act, 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.' "(The chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Amendment be made."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether the earlier words of the Amendment could not be put separately. Some hon. Members might desire to vote in favour of some of the propositions in the Amendment and against others. They were separate propositions.
In page 2, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'is convicted of any offence,' and insert the words 'having been convicted before any Court is liable to have a detention order made against him under the Inebriates Act, 1898.' "—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 351; Noes, 89. (Division List, No. 145.)487
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Agnew, Sir George William||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Ainsworth, John Stirling||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Alden, Percy||Armstrong, W. C. Heaton|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John||Jackson, R. S.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Dillon, John||Jenkins, J.|
|Barker, John||Duckworth, James||Johnson W. (Nuneaton)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Joyce, Michael|
|Beale, W. P.||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Elibank, Master of||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Erskine, David C.||Kettle, Thomas Michael|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Essex, R. W.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Bell, Richard||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Everett, R. Lacey||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport||Ferens, T. R.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Findlay, Alexander||Lambert, George|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Flynn, James Christopher||Lamont, Norman|
|Bertram, Julius||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romford||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Fullerton, Hugh||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Boland, John||Gill, A. H.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Brace, William||Glover, Thomas||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lupton, Arnold|
|Branch, James||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Brodie, H. C.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lynch, H. B.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Gulland, John W.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hall, Frederick||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Halpin, J.||M'Callum, John M.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Ross'nd'le)||M'Crae, George|
|Cameron, Robert||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||M'Killop, W.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Chance, Frederick William||Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss)||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Charming, Sir Francis Allston||Hart-Davies, T.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Chectham, John Frederick||Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Harwood, George||Marnham, F. J.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Massie, J.|
|Clough, William||Haworth, Arthur A.||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Meagher, Michael|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hazleton, Richard||Menzies, Walter|
|Collins, Stepher (Lambeth)||Hedges, A. Paget||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Helme, Norval Watson||Molteno, Percy Alpor|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Mond, A.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Corbett, CH. (Sussex, F. Grinst'd||Henry, Charles S.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Cory, Sir Cliford John||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Higham, John Sharp||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Crean, Eugene||Hodge, John||Morrell, Philip|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Hogan, Michael||Morse, L. L.|
|Crooks, William||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Holland, Sir Wlliam Henry||Muldoon, John|
|Crossley, William J.||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Cullinan, J.||Horniman, Emslie John||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Myer, Horatio|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hudson, Walter||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Napier, T. B.|
|Devlin, Joseph||Hyde, Clarendon||Nicholson, Charles X. (Doncast'r|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh S.)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Rowlands, J.||Toulmin, George|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Nuttall, Harry||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Ure, Alexander|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Verney, F. W.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Vivian, Henry|
|O'Connor, John (Killars, N.)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|O'Donell, C. J. (Walworth)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Walsh, Stephen|
|O'Dowd, John||Scott, A. H.(Ashton-under-Lyne||Walters, John Tudor|
|O'Grady, J.||Sears, J. E.||Walton, Joseph|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Seaverns, J. H.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Seely, Colonel||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wardle, George J.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Waring, Walter|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan|
|Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Watt, Henry A.|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Pollard, Dr.||Snowden, P.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Soares, Ernest J.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Spicer, Sir Albert||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Stanger, H. Y.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Steadman, W. C.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rthen|
|Radford, G. H.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Strachey, Sir Edward.||Williamson, A.|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Wilson Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Summerbell, T.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Sutherland, J. E.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Richardson, A.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Winfrey, R.|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Joseph Pease and Mr.|
|Robinson, S.||Thomasson, Franklin||Herbert Lewis.|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Faber, George Denison (York)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh|
|Ashley, W. W.||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Fell, Arthur||Marks, H. H. (Kent)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gardner, Ernest||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Banbury Sir Frederick George||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Gretton, John||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Guinness, Walter Edward||Nield, Herbert|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Haddock, George B.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Helmsley, Viscount||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cave, George||Hill, Sir Clement||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hills, J. W.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Hunt, Rowland||Starkey, John R.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Kerry, Earl of||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Coates, Major E. F.(Liews am)||Keswick, William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Colings, Rt. Hn J. (Birmingh'm||Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Valentia Viscount|
|Cross, Alexander||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Warde, Col. C. E.(Kent, Mid)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George||Lane-Fox and Mr. Hicks|
|Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Younger, George||Beach|
Question put, and agreed to.
In page 2, line 40, to leave out from the word 'direct,' to end of section."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 276; Noes, 158. (Division List, No.146.)491
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Crosfield, A. H.||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Crossley, William J.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Agnew, George William||Dalziel, James Henry||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jackson, R. S.|
|Alden, Percy||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Astbury, John Meir||Duckworth, James||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Barker, John||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Elibank, Master of||Lambert, George|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Erskine, David C.||Lamont, Norman|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Essex, R. W.||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Beale, W. P.||Everett, R. Lacey||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Ferens, T. R.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Bell, Richard||Findlay, Alexander||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lupton, Arnold|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bennett, E. N.||Fullerton, Hugh||Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Bertram, Julius||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Crae, George|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Killop, W.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Branch, James||Gulland, John W.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Bright, J. A.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hall, Frederick||Marnham, F. J.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Massie, J.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Menzies, Walter|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hart-Davies, T.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Mond, A.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harwood, George||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morse, L. L.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hedges, A. Paget||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Helme, Norval Watson||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Clough, William||Henry, Charles S.||Myer, Horatio|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Napier, T. B.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Higham, John Sharp||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Horniman, Emslie John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Crean, Eugene||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||Seaverns, J. H.||Walker, H. De K. (Leicester)|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Seely, Colonel||Walters, John Tudor|
|Pollard, Dr.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Walton, Joseph|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Waring, Walter|
|Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Radford, G. H.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Soares, Ernest J.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Stanger, H. Y.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Rees, J. D.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Strachey, Sir Edward||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen|
|Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Robinson, S.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Williamson, A.|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Rowlands, J.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thomasson, Franklin||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||Winfrey, R.|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Toulmin, George||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Ure, Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||Verney, F. W.||Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr.|
|Sears, J. E.||Vivian, Henry||Herbert Lewis.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Flynn, James Christopher||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster,Henry William||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gardner, Ernest||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gill, A. H.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Glover, Thomas||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gooch, Henry Cubitt(Peckham)||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Gretton, John||Marks, H. H. (Kent)|
|Boland, John||Guinness, Walter Edward||Meagher, Michael|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Haddock, George B.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Brace, William||Halpin, J.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Mooney, J. J.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Moore, William|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hazleton, Richard||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Helmsley, Viscount||Muldoon, John|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hill, Sir Clement||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc.||Hills, J. W.||Nield, Herbert|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hodge, John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hogan, Michael||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Houston, Robert Paterson||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Hudson, Walter||O'Dowd, John|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hunt, Rowland||O'Grady, J.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)||Jenkins, J.||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Jowett, F. W.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Joyce, Michael||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Keny, Earl of||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Crooks, William||Keswick, William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cross, Alexander||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Dillon, John||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Richardson, A.|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Steadman, W. C.||Wardle, George J.|
|Ronaldshay, Earl of||Summe bell, T.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Thomson,W. Mitchell- (Lanark)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Thornton, Percy M.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Snowden, P.||Valentia, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stanier, Beville||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)||Younger, George|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)||Walsh, Stephen||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Starkey, John R.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent||Mr. George Roberts and Mr.|
|Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Charles Duncan.|
§ And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.