§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 4:
§ MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)
moved to insert "net" before "income" in subsection (a). He desired to make it clear that only the available net income should be taken into account. The Amendment was intended to cover cases where people paid into clubs. As everybody knew, the working men in the country paid their pence in subscriptions to coal clubs, medicine and doctors' clubs, boot and shoe and clothing clubs, co-operative clubs, and so forth; and these subscriptions enabled them to obtain necessaries cheaply. Such payments reduced their incomes, and ought, therefore, to be deducted. No doubt the deductions would only be in pence; but then, the sliding scale of a pension also went down to pence; let them be fair to the thrifty.
In page 3, line 6, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'net.'"—(Mr. Smeaton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'net' be there inserted.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, Rossendale
said the Government could accept the insertion of the word proposed. It was certainly the intention of the Bill that the yearly value of a man's income should be taken into account, and that it should not include any outgoings. The word "net" as applied to profits had a meaning which was fairly well understood, but as applied to income it would seem to require some definition. It was quite clear that rent 592 and cost of living were not to be deducted from income for the purpose of the Bill, and to insert the word "net" without any explanatory phrase or word would certainly not do. The intention of the Bill was clear, and they could not accept that word, which might give rise to an interpretation dangerous to the whole clause.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
said he was sorry the Government would not agree to the Amendment. It was quite clear in reading over the whole of Clause 4 that it would be very difficult to ascertain what a man's means really were within the meaning of the clause. He would give a case in illustration. Supposing an old man or an old woman subscribed to the Post Office for a small sum to be paid at death. Was that to be deducted, or not? He took it that the proposer of the Amendment assumed that income meant the available net income that the elderly person was really going to receive and could spend, whereas by the clause as it stood, there were no limitations and no definition, and there was nothing to show that small outgoings such as he had suggested would be allowed to be deducted so that the net amount might be ascertained. It was obvious that if they had two or three people whose means hovered about the limit, and who had some little outgoing, those expenses would be included, unless Parliament made it clear by putting in the word "net," that such outgoings were not to be calculated in the income. He was in hopes when he saw the Amendment that the Government would accept such a simple way of doing ordinary justice, and he very much regretted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had not accepted it.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E)
said he did not quite follow the objection which the Government had to the Amendment. Supposing a person was left the benefit of a small property, and received the income from that property, but was bound to pay out of that income some small sum to another person, what would his income be taken as under the clause as it stood? 593 The net income would mean merely what they received for themselves after allowing for deductions, but was it quite certain that the word "income" by itself would mean the net income, and not the gross income? He was not certain whether there was not a technical meaning attached to the word "income" in law in connection with the Income-Tax Act, and if there was, and if the definition under the Income-Tax Act could be applied under the Bill, considerable injustice might be done, because the income for the purposes of income-tax included in certain cases money which the person clearly had not got to spend, i.e., it was rather the gross income of a business before making certain deductions which the business involved, than the not income available to be spent by the proprietor.
§ MR. L. HARCOURT
said it was the intention of the Government and of the Bill that only clear income or clear annual value should be treated under this section, and he was advised that that would be the effect of the words as they stood. Although the word "net" as applied to profits had a definite meaning, it had no such definite meaning as applied to the word "income," and it might give rise to the suggestion that from the income should be deducted the cost of living, etc., and the Government regarded the word as too dangerous and too wide to insert in this case.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)
asked what was the meaning of a "clear" income. Take the case of a middle class man who had insured his life; he deducted his insurance money for the purposes of the income-tax. Supposing those old persons who came under this clause were insured for their funeral expenses, which, was really a form of life insurance, would the premiums they had paid for that benefit be regarded as part of a clear income or be excluded?
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said that in the case of house property of a rather common class, large deductions were generally made for unlets, for the collection of rents, and for such outgoings as repairs, 594 etc. Would the term "income" be the income after those charges had been satisfied or not? He would certainly have thought the income would be the gross rental receivable from those cottages, and that the landlord would not be entitled to deduct the expenditure necessary to command that rent.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,) Carnarvon
said he could not give an answer to a very complicated conundrum of that kind, nor did he think it was altogether a question for the Law Officers. It was more a question for the Inland Revenue, who had been interpreting these things in the past. With regard to insurance, he would say the Inland Revenue would deduct any payment made in respect of that insurance. There was a very elaborate set of regulations which had accumulated for years, and he would be sorry to answer the point of the right hon. Gentleman straight off. He would not like to commit himself, but he did not think the case would be likely to arise under this Act, which would not take in men who had property of that kind. They might, of course, get a man who owned a cottage, and he did not know what the regulations of the Inland Revenue provided in a case of that sort, but he should think they would follow the general principles adopted in the case of income-tax, with this exception, that it was likely they might give a more liberal interpretation under this Act.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
thought the answer of the right hon. Gentleman showed that they were on rather a delicate point, and one requiring more serious consideration than had been given to it. Clearly the Government had not considered it, because the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to answer, and said the Law Officers could not be expected to answer, and, therefore, he presumed they had not gone into it. What was the answer as far as the right hon. Gentleman had been able to give it? As regarded insurance, he thought the Inland Revenue would interpret anything in the nature of insurance as being entitled to an exception, following 595 the principles adopted in regard to income-tax, and that the Inland Revenue might, in fact, go a little farther in these matters than they would under the Income-Tax Act. But the Inland Revenue had nothing whatever to do with the administration of his Act. The Excise officer was, the Prime Minister interrupted, an officer of the Inland Revenue, but that was really a correction of his statement of the flimsiest character, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had announced his intention to transfer the whole of the Excise officers to the Customs. The Customs was not the Board of Inland Revenue, and as a matter of fact the Excise officer in this case was not put forward as an official who was to act under directions from either the Board of Customs or the Inland Revenue; he had to act to the best of his knowledge and judgment in consultation with or in correction of the local pension committee, and if they differed, the determination of the dispute rested with the President of the Local Government Board. Accordingly the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing to do with the matter, and the Board's precedents in connection with the income-tax could hardly be said to be binding on the Local Government Board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the precedents in connection with the abatements allowed from income-tax in respect of the premium paid on an insurance policy would be followed. That was a statutory abatement, and the Inland Revenue only allowed it because there was a statutory provision to that effect, and the very fact that they only allowed it because of that would, he thought, be their justification for saying that where there was no statutory provision clearly Parliament did not intend them to do it. Under those circumstances he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, for he thought it was clear that the word "income" by itself would not do. He would ask the Law Officer, who had now happily arrived, to assist them to find a suitable word.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.
did not think there was any necessity for the assistance of the 596 Law Officers. It was not a technical matter, and anyone acquainted with income-tax legislation, as he was, knew that the word "income" was rarely used in the Act. For that reason he thought there was a great advantage in putting it in this section, because it was not fettered by technical interpretations or legal associations. He understood by income what a pension committee or the Excise officer would say was, as a matter of common sense, the clear income of the person in question, and if they put in "net" he thought it would be a great mistake. Although he thought that, as a rule, the Excise officer would consider he ought to follow the spirit of the deduction allowed under the Income Tax Acts, it was much better in the interests of all concerned that they should not put in a hard and fast definition to prevent an elastic interpretation of the clause. In the case of cottage property, it was clear they could not regard the man's gross receipts as being his income, and the case of insurance premiums had been, expressly provided for by statute in regard to income-tax, and he thought a pension committee would form the same opinion about it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said he did not know whether leaving things to the common sense of the committees was the best way to avoid litigation, and the speech just delivered showed the extreme need of some guiding words. They had before them two illustrations of the difficulties that might ensue from the use of the word "income" only. Speaking as a man totally ignorant of the technicalities of the law, it seemed to him quite possible that if he were on one of these pension committes he should, from a common sense point of view, say the income from the cottages would be what was commonly called the net income, i.e., the gross income less the necessary outgoings, and in that he agreed with the Prime Minister. But he was not so clear about the insurance matter. He had the utmost sympathy with those who insured their lives in order to provide for a cost which might occur after death, or for their successors in any form, but unless they put in statutory words and said that the ordinary income-tax regulation 597 was to apply in this case, he asked Committee whether they thought a man's income was to be exclusive of what he paid for insurance purposes. He though common sense led them to the opposite view. Very likely old people would save what they could and put it by rather than insure directly with an office, but the House was not going to deduct such savings. What they put by themselves for expenses which would occur after death, the House did not deduct from their income. If, however, the money went into a society, they did deduct it. He did not think common sense made it clear that a proper distinction was to be drawn between these two cases. The Prime Minister prided himself on the fact that this phrase was not legal English, but common-sense English, which he properly distinguished from legal English, and they were dealing with common sense persons who were to distribute the fund. But let them compare that argument with the argument of the First Commissioner of Works. He said "net income" might lead the ordinary person to indicate a clear income, but it was a legal term which might be misinterpreted. He would have thought not, but he would accept the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman and make a suggestion. The First Commissioner of Works, appealing to a common-sense audience, talked about a "clear" income. Then let that be put in to the clause and it would hit off the common-sense of the committees who would have to deal with the matter. If "net" income was a legal definition, and they did not want to deal with the legal aspect, then let the commonsense word suggested by a commonsense Minister to a commonsense House of Commons express the meaning of the Government.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said the insertion of that word would not in the least assist the solution of the problem; the committees would still have to construe it according to their own ideas.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether it was not necessary to put in some words in order to solve this problem. His right hon. friend had spoken of the insurance which many might be expected to make in the way of life assurance. He thought it was as stated by the hon. 598 Member for Leicester, but he was not certain. They were clearly likely to make insurance against sickness. They were far more likely to pay so much a week to insure against sickness, which was a far more pressing anxiety. He presumed that that would not be excluded from their means. With all respect to the Prime Minister, he adhered to his view with regard to what would be the effect of the Bill where there was no experience of these matters. The income-tax basis did not provide for any deductions for payments made to provide against sickness and for medical relief. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the money he paid for doctors' bills was no part of his income?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the hon. Gentleman who introduced the income-tax into the discussion said that the Excise officers would follow the precedent of the Income-Tax Act. His first observation upon that was that they would only follow it so far as the powers of this Bill corresponded with the powers of the Income-Tax Act, and this Act did not allow them to grant exemptions for payments made for life insurance. He suggested that some words should be put in to carry out the obvious intention of the Government in the matter.
§ MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
asked for further information as to how income was to be arrived at. In the case of insurance premiums they were according to the Prime Minister to be allowed to be deducted as under the Income-Tax Acts, but the income of cottage property was not to be the sum at which it was assessed to income-tax, but the rental after deducting all cost of repairs, as it was known that the cost of repairs was in excess of the sum allowed in income-tax assessments. There was also another class to be dealt with. How was the amount of income of persons in occupation of land to be arrived at. More than 80 per cent. of the farmers in his constituency held less than 50 acres or paid less than 599 £50 rent. On the basis of the income-tax their profits were deemed to be one-third of their rent. Was that the basis upon which the pension officer was to go? Was the profit of a farmer paying £50 a year to be put down as £16 13s. 4d.? If so, neither he nor the farmers would object. At the present moment, however, so far as he understood the law a elucidated by the Prime Minister, one basis was to be adopted for arriving a the income of a person with cottage property, and another for arriving at the income of a tenant farmer. In dealing with such a complicated matter which was likely to lead to litigation and injustice, there should be precision of definition. He did not at present see how the income was to be arrived at.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said the income of a tenant farmer was arrived at by taking a proportion of his rent.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that in the case of nine out of ten tenant farmers it would be nothing like that, but the person who was eligible for a pension was liable to be assessed on that basis. He contended that it would cause considerable hardship, because a great many people would be deemed to have an income they did not possess. If the word "net" was put in, it would certainly not include provision made for sickness or burial, nor would it include the payments suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester. If provision was to be made for that there must be a separate Amendment to deal with it. The only question for the Committee to consider at present was whether the word "net" should be inserted in this way. "Net" was a plain, simple, business word which every business man understood. "Net amount" meant the actual amount put into the pocket after all charges had been met, and available for spending. Its introduction would be a guide to the pension committee, and would not fetter them. He supported, therefore, the suggestion that it should be put in, although it was 600 not a legal word, in order to make the matter clear.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University),
as one who had had some experience in administering Acts of Parliament, did not think the insertion of either "net" or "clear" would strengthen the clause, without adding of what the amount was net or clear—of medical attendance, of repairs of cottages and so on. He did not see how the income-tax argument had any bearing upon the Bill. The income-tax set up an artificial income and laid down specifically what should or should not be taxed. If the Excise officer in administering the Bill was to work out a system, that was saying that he and not Parliament was to legislate. Committees might take most divergent views. One might exclude one set of payments, and another, another. It was Parliament that decided what should be included in deductions from income for taxing purposes. Even if that was not true, they could only deduct up to a sixth of the income. It was a purely artificial matter, and the whole question of profits under the Income-Tax Act was strictly regulated by Parliament. His own view was that they should leave the Bill us it stood. They would have Excise officers in the different districts setting up different standards of income and deductions, and in the end they would probably have to come back to the Local Government Board, the President of which would ultimately become the legislator in regard to the matter. The net conclusion of the whole argument came to this, that by leaving the word "income" as it was, without either the word "net" or the word "clear," they did not know what they were voting for.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said that he agreed with every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He did not wish it to be supposed that he had said or suggested that in determining what was income, either the pension committee, the excise officers, or ultimately the Local Government Board should feel themselves bound to determine the matter by the artificial provisions of the Income Tax Act. The only reason he lad referred to it was to show that the problem under the Act was to ascertain hat part of a man's profits which was 601 really income; that was, the absolute profit, after all deductions which the Income Tax Act allowed from profits had been made for the purpose of ascertaining that which, from the point of view of the State, should be regarded as income and assessable under the Income-Tax Act. That was the problem presented by the Income-Tax Act, and he referred to that, not as laying down a rule, but as showing a useful precedent. He quite agreed that it would be better that the word "income" should appear simply without an epithet prefixed. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the only way of really working the thing out would be, not to prefix a vague epithet like "clear" or "net," but to have a schedule allowing statutable deductions. But however carefully that schedule was drawn they would find that they had omitted something which ought to be included, and included something which ought to have been omitted. There was a well-known legal maxim that the mention of one thing meant the exclusion of another, and would introduce an endless chaos of interpretation. Was it not, therefore, far better to leave the interpretation of a particular case to the conjoint opinion of the pension authorities, or to the Excise officers, and in the case of differences, to leave it to the patriarchal control and jurisdiction of the President of the Local Government Board to determine the matter.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)
said he agreed with the last two speakers in this matter, but he suggested that the better way to deal with the question was to have a general reference to what was the past year's income. In that way they would get a distinct figure to deal with, after the deductions in respect of payments to friendly societies, rent, etc., whereas to deal with the income of the coming year would be entirely speculative. Dealing with the past year, the receipts could be produced, and he submitted that if they desired to give the pension authorities and officers some indication as to how the income was to be arrived at, it would be more suitably done by specifying friendly society payments, and all outgoings of one sort or another, doing this at the end of the subsection rather than in the part they were now considering.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
thought the word "income" as it stood in the Bill was clearly not sufficient to meet the case raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, which the Prime Minister, as he understood, had expressed the desire and the intention of the Government to include. Therefore, he proposed, when they reached the proper point, to move, after the word "excluding," to insert the words, "any sums payable on premiums of insurance against sickness, death, or funeral expenses." That would specifically meet the case, which was a very exceptional one, and would not, he thought, be open to the objection raised by the Prime Minister, namely, that if they mentioned one thing they would exclude others. This was a case which stood by itself, and was altogether apart from the ordinary outgoings which had been spoken of. He thought it right to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice of his intention to move.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)
suggested that after the word "income," the words might be inserted, "clear of all necessary outgoings."
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
said he would suggest another way in which the matter might be met, and which might not be open to the objection raised by his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University. He would like to know the view of the Solicitor-General as to the use of the word "available" income, after deduction of reasonable payments and expenses. If they did not get a decision on this point to-day, it was one of the matters on which the Bill might perhaps be recommitted on Monday.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
said they were being asked to decide this point on very insufficient information. The First Commissioner of Works had told them that if they left the word "income" alone it showed clearly what was meant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he rather thought that an allowance would be 603 made by the pension officer in respect of insurance payments, but was not quite certain, and that an allowance might be made in respect of repairs to the old man's cottage, but he was not quite certain of that either. Then the Prime Minister had told them, in the first instance, that the rules and regulations which affected income-tax would probably be taken into account by the pension officer; but when he rose again the right hon. Gentleman took that back, and said the rules and regulations as to income-tax had nothing to do with this point. He thought they were reasonably entitled to have some leading from the Government. The Prime Minister had concluded by practically saying that the Government insisted on the word "income" being left alone, and that neither the word "clear" nor "net" should be put in. Yet it was admitted by the three Ministers who had spoken that the subject was being left in the greatest possible confusion. The answer of the Prime Minister had rather indicated to them that it would be in the discretion of the pension officers, of whom there would be some hundreds all over the country, to deal with some of these points. In view of the Bill having been so loosely drawn, in view of the different statements of Ministers, and in view of the vague state in which this point had been left, he thought they were entitled to protest, and to say that they were, at all events, clearly of opinion that the income should be "net," after those reasonable deductions which a poor old man or woman should be allowed to make in ascertaining the amount of income for the purpose of this clause, namely, payments to friendly societies, the weekly payments to a burial fund, and so forth. They were entitled to ask that the word "net" should be accepted, or in the alternative that the Minister in charge of the Bill should undertake that on Report some words would be put in which would clearly define what the income was that was to be taken into account, and how it was to be arrived at, what elements were to be included, and how the deductions were to be allowed. Unless something of that kind were done, they would be perpetrating a piece of injustice calculated to 604 raise the greatest possible inconvenience and trouble all over the country. If, however, the Government, undertook to deal with this question properly on Report they might be able to make clear what income it was intended should be taken into account. Unless the Government were prepared to give one or other of these two assurances, he should certainly vote with his hon. friend opposite.
§ SIR JOHN RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)
said the one thing most clear about this matter was its obscurity, and if the Committee could not make clear the situation he did not see how the pension committees and Excise officers were to see their way through the fog. The word "available" had been suggested by his hon. friend, and that possibly might not be open to the objection of want of clearness. Not being a lawyer he was not able to make the point clearer, but he thought that some words might be introduced which would make the position less obscure. Somebody would have to decide it and if the committee did not it would be shelved, and the burden placed on somebody else's shoulders. Refusal to accept the Amendment did not end the difficulty. The pension committee would have to come to a conclusion on the matter if the House of Commons did not, and it was by no means an easy matter to come to a clear conclusion. Tot homines tot sententiœ. Almost as many opinions had been expressed as there had been speakers. "Net income " had a different meaning according to the tribunal that might have to decide the matter. "Clear" also had no definite meaning. He was rather driven to the conclusion which had been suggested that they ought to define either by way of exception or by introducing a schedule and putting into it exactly what they intended it to mean. The Prime Minister, he knew, said the schedule would introduce endless chaos of interpretation, but he thought the contrary would be the fact, and that there would be endless chaos if they did not do something. He could not see the difficulty himself of introducing exceptions or elaborating a schedule. He knew it meant trouble, and what the Secretary for War called clear 605 thinking, but it was the bounden duty of the House of Commons to put the matter as clearly as possible for the benefit of the pension committees, otherwise very grave injustice might be done. It would make all the difference into what category a pensioner fell, whether they did or did not carve out certain outgoings from his income. Payments to friendly societies for death funds had been instanced. If they were not allowed to carve those out of the income it might cut a man out of an old-age pension altogether, and he hoped even now, almost at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute, the Government would help the committee. It was not a matter of party disputation or recrimination. They all wanted to do the best with the Bill as it had been put before them.
§ To leave "income" would not do. It would leave it to someone else to work a way out of the fog, which the House was not able to do.
§ MR. SMEATON
said that after the debate that had taken place, if he could get an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some regulations would be issued for the guidance of the pension officers, so as to allow them to make a liberal reduction on the lines suggested, he was prepared to withdraw the Amendment. If not, he should go to a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 310. (Division List No. 147.)609
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F||Fell, Arthur||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Forster, Henry William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gardner, Ernest||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Haddock, George B.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Helmsley, Viscount||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Sir Clement||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hunt, Rowland||Stanier, Beville|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Joynson-Hicks, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kimber, Sir Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Arthur, Charles||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Smeaton and Mr. Watson|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Moore, William||Rutherford.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Bennett, E. N.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Berridge, T. H. D.|
|Agnew, George William||Barnard, E. B.||Bertram, Julius|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barnes, G. N.||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd|
|Alden, Percy||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Black, Arthur W.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Beale, W. P.||Boland, John|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Beauchamp, E.||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Beck, A. Cecil||Brigg, John|
|Barker, John||Bell, Richard||Bright, J. A.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Gulland, John W.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir. J. T (Cheshire)||Hall, Frederick||Marnham, F. J.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Halpin, J.||Massie, J.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mond, A.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hart-Davies, T.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cameron, Robert||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morrell, Philip|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Harwood, George||Muldoon, John|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Murnaghan, George|
|Chance, Frederick William||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Haworth, Arthur A.||Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Murray, Capt. Hn A.C. (Kincard|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hazleton, Richard||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Healy, Timothy Michael||Myer, Horatio|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hedges, A. Paget||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clough, William||Helme, Norval Watson||Nicholls, George|
|Clynes, J. R.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Higham, John Sharp||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hodge, John||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Hogan, Michael||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hooper, A. G.||O'Dowd, John|
|Crean, Eugene||Hope, John Dean (Fife, West)||O'Grady, J.|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Horniman, Emslie John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Hudson, Walter||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Crossley, William J.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Cullinan, J.||Idris, T. H. W.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Jardine, Sir J.||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jowett, F. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kekewich, Sir George||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kelley, George D.||Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)|
|Dillon, John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Radford, G. H.|
|Duckworth, James||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Duffy, William J.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Laidlaw, Robert||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Lambert, George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Lamont, Norman||Reddy, M.|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Erskine, David C.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Essex, R. W.||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Rees, J. D.|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lehmann, R. C.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwick)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Ferens, T. R.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lupton, Arnold||Robinson, S.|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lyell, Charles Henry||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Lynch, H. B.||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Gill, A. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Rowlands, J.|
|Ginnell, L.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Callum, John M.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Glover, Thomas||M'Crae, George||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Micking, Major G.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Maddison, Frederick||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Mallet, Charles E.||Sears, J. E.|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Sheehy, David||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Weir, James (Galloway)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Thomasson, Franklin||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Thorne, William (West Ham)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Tomkinson, James||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Toulmin, George||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Snowden, P.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wiles, Thomas|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Verney, F. W.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Vivian, Henry||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Winfrey, R.|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walsh, Stephen||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Walton, Joseph|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Summerbell, T.||Wardle, George J.||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Waring, Walter||Elibank.|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan|
§ MR. CHIOZZA MONEY (Paddington, N.)
moved to insert in the first line of subsection (a) the word "unearned" so that, in calculating the means of a person for the purposes of this Act, it should be the unearned income only that should be considered. He said his object was to save the applicants from the tender mercies of the pension committees. He looked upon those committees with some alarm, and anyone who read the various sections of Clause 4 would conclude that when these incomes had to be decided, in accordance with the sliding scale, the task would be difficult indeed. He desired to exclude from the provisions of this Clause all those persons who were earning their incomes. Subsection (a) was worded—The income which that person may reasonably expect to receive.He submitted that an old man of seventy to seventy-one could not be reasonably expected to earn any income for any considerable length of time, and this, taken in conjunction with the proviso that—That income in the absence of other means of ascertaining the income, being taken to be the income actually received during the preceding year"—would be very unfair to the old men earning a few shillings a week. Obviously the power to earn income decreased very rapidly after seventy, and if an old man was earning 9s. or 10s. a week in 1908, he could not reasonably be expected to earn as much in 1909. The pension committee under 610 this clause would have to take it that he would be able to earn that income in the succeeding year. He invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to compare the respective positions of an old man of seventy, possessing a house worth£200, bringing in 6s. a week, and an old man of seventy earning 11s. a week. The latter would receive 3s. under the sliding scale, whereas the owner of the house would receive 5s. a week. Therefore the property owner would be in a superior position as compared with the man earning his income. The object of this measure was to have regard to the past services of a man to the community. The man earning his income was still performing services to the community, and he ought to receive his pension over and above any amount he might be earning. That man ought to receive the 5s. a week, quite apart from the 10s. or 11s. he received as wages. He would be quite willing to accept some definition of "unearned," although that had not been considered necessary in the case of the income-tax. He was also willing to accept a limitation as to the incomes of those to whom this particular provision should apply. As an alternative he suggested that instead of saying "the unearned income" they should Say "the income in the form of rent or interest which that person may reasonably expect to receive."
In page 3, line 6, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'unearned.'"—(Mr. Chiozza Money.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'unearned' be there inserted."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that obviously it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He rather complained that it had been moved without any estimate being given as to what it would cost. He thought the Government was entitled to ask hon. Members who moved Amendments of this sort what, in their judgment, would be the cost, because if they did not give that information the Committee was not in possession of all the case. He wondered whether the hon. Member had the slightest idea of what it would cost to accept this Amendment without any limitation.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he had to consider the Amendment on the Paper. The Lord Chancellor might receive a pension of 5s. a week, or the Attorney-General, so long as they spent all their earnings. A man in business might be earning as much at seventy years of age as at fifty, because his business might have developed. A workman, if he worked hard and broke down in health after managing to save enough money to build a house, was to be penalised under the Amendment. That was so unfair that he did not think it was necessary to dwell any further upon it. Again, the Amendment would not only add at least another £750,000 to the cost of the Act, but it would be chiefly for the benefit of the well-to-do. He hoped the Committee would confine the Bill to the more destitute instead of to those who were better off.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
agreed that it would be impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Member who moved it, however, had called attention to a very real difficulty, and had he confined his observations to that point his case would have been a good deal stronger. As an illustration, the hon. Member inquired how a pension authority would calculate under this Bill the income of an old man 612 who had in the past year been able to earn a few shillings a week, and had secured an average wage during the year of 8s. a week. The continuance of that would be dependent upon the goodwill of an employer, because such wages would probably be paid, not merely for present services, but in recognition of a long life spent on an estate or an old connection with the works. Consequently such an income would be largely dependent upon the continued existence of the person from whom it was received and also upon the continued good health of the recipient. The hon. Member would avoid any difficulty by excluding that case altogether.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said he wished to point out a serious difficulty that would arise if the Amendment were not accepted. Supposing an old man of sixty-nine was earning wages amounting to a few pence less than 10s. Instead of continuing to work that man under this Bill would deliberately give up his job in order that on reaching seventy he should not have an income of 10s. a week, whereas if the word "unearned" were inserted he would go on earning that money. It was very desirable that he should be encouraged to do that, and be allowed to continue to receive his pension. Why should such an Amendment not be considered on the ground that the cost had not been worked out? If the Bill were passed in its present shape every person approaching seventy years of age would immediately give up any little occupation he might be carrying on and in which he was earning a few shillings a week, and society generally would be all the poorer for the loss of that useful labour which old people should be encouraged to perform. He thought they should have had more encouragement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Amendment had been accepted, it would have been made clear that if a man in the country was earning half-a-crown a week as a scarecrow, or something of that sort—[Laughter]. There were people in society who were not earning half-a-crown a week, and he thought the Committee might have some respect for the old man who was earning half-a-crown a week in a humble occupation of that kind. Why should he be 613 precluded from receiving a pension, and thereby penalised because he was doing a little work? If the Amendment was pressed to a division, he would vote for it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
moved to amend subsection (a) by inserting after "the income which that person may reasonably expect to receive" the words "as of right." The first difficulty he had in his mind was that in the case of a man who was receiving 10s. or 12s. a week as a pension, or from other sources. Unless some such words as he proposed were inserted—he was not sure that the words he proposed were the best for the purpose—the result would be that the State would be making a present to the employer of the difference between 10s. or 12s. a week and 8s. a week. If a man was receiving 12s. a week before this scheme came into operation, his total income under the sliding scale would be 13s. That was clear from the sliding scale, and unless they made an Amendment of this kind it appeared to him that it would be the interest of all those people, whoever they were, whether employers of labour or charitable agencies, to reduce the payments to 8s., so that their pensioners would be in precisely the same position as now. That was a difficulty which must be met in one way or another. There was another difficulty if this clause remained as it was. So far as he could see the unhappy pensioner would have to bring into account every little present he received. If he got 10s. as a Christmas box that would have to come into the account; and, if he was allowed a little tea and sugar by an old employer, that also would have to come into the account. He did not think the framers of the clause had any idea of the stringency of its terms. Every conceivable thing was brought into account by the Bill. He was not exaggerating, as hon. Members would find if they turned to the Bill. Subsection (a), which they were discussing at present, merely dealt with cash, and it would bring in the Christmas-box. Subsection (b)—The yearly value of any advantage accruing to that person from the use or enjoyment of 614 any property belonging to him which was personally used or enjoyed by him."—would his the person who was living in a house of his own. Subsection (c)—The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him"—meant that if he had£5 in a stocking, it would have to be brought into the account. Subsection (d)—The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person"—would include tea, sugar and milk. That was a very severe clause indeed, and he suggested that the Government must do something to limit it, otherwise if the unhappy pensioner did not make a return of all these things, he would come under the penalties of the Act, which were very severe. Clause 9 provided that any person who, for the purpose of obtaining an old-age pension, made a false statement or a false representation would be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with hard labour. He did not believe the Government intended that, but at the same time that was the proposal of the Bill. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 7, after the word 'receive, to insert the words' as of right.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said it was perfectly clear from the speech of the noble Lord that this Amendment was not at all relevant to subsection (a), but to the subsections which came later in the clause. The noble Lord's criticism was not directed to the subsection with which they were now dealing as to income, but to the subsections dealing with benefits and privileges. If that was the case, the Amendment ought to be moved at a later stage. He could not follow the noble Lord in his criticism of the later subsections. He did not think it was a convenient method to discuss subsection (b) when dealing with an Amendment to subsection (a), If they did so they would 615 get into such a state that it would be absolutely impossible to get on with business. They would be able to discuss the whole matter if they would only discuss it a little more concisely. He thought the Committee could have discussed the whole of this clause in the seven or eight hours they had at their disposal. He agreed that the points raised by the noble Lord would have to be discussed, and he would give explanations when the later subsections came on. There were only two or three points of substance in the clause, and with the assistance of the noble Lord and of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen they were fair matters for clearing up, but if he started to clear up subsections (b), (c), and (d), before they disposed of subsection (a)——
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
That is 10s. in cash, and I do not agree that that comes under subsection (a). As a matter of fact it would not come under subsection (b) either.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said it would not in his opinion. If a man made his income from tips, he would include that. But that was a matter for discussion. There were some who were really paid in tips. There were waiters who were supposed to pay for being allowed to enter certain restaurants, because they looked to the tips for their income. All that sort of thing had to be considered by the pension officer and the pension committee. That was why it would be absolutely impossible to deal with every specific case in a clause of this kind. These matters would have to be left—he would not say to the discretion of the officer, but to the consideration of the officer, and that was why he could not accept the words of the Amendment. He had taken the trouble that morning to take four or five of the earlier Amendments on the Paper and to count what the additional cost would be if they were carried. He thought the Committee would be interested to know——
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The right hon. Gentleman is now proceeding to refer to other Amendments. Is that in order?
I think the right hon. Gentleman would be very well advised not to give these figures, because it is exactly that kind of information which widens the area of discussion and makes it impossible for me to keep it within proper limits.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said his point was this. The difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to find the money. When he was confronted with these Amendments which involved additional cost he was bound to point out to the Committee, subject to the Chairman's ruling, that it was impossible to say what all these accumulated additions would amount to, but it was certain that they would amount to such a preposterous sum that it would be quite impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to face the task of finding the money. He would deal with the later Amendments when they came to them. The first Amendment would have demanded£750,000; and here was another amendment by the noble Lord which asked for£500,000 to meet the case of some 40,000 persons—not very poor persons at that—who were receiving 10s. or 11s. a week pensions as old labourers on estates. The Committee would see that these two Amendments, which involved an additional £1,250,000 to the charge on the Exchequer, were moved not even with any confidence, because, as his hon. friend the Member for Paddington said: "Any other sort of words would do; it is not the words I ask the Committee to adopt." The noble Lord asked the same thing: "I do not think these words are very well expressed; the Government may take another form of words." But when it was proposed to add an additional £1,250,000 to the national expenditure hon. Members ought to be a little more careful. These were the kind of drawbacks to such Amendments; they went on by stages at something like £500,000 per Amendment. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon)
said he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was extremely inconvenient to discuss the Bill in Committee under the existing methods. But whose fault was that? It was certainly not the fault of those on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the course taken by hon. Gentlemen in moving Amendments by which they could make their voices heard on a subject of special and particular interest to them, or, it might be, on subjects differing from that dealt with by his noble friend which would cause great hardship and cruelty to many people in the country. Hon. Members ought not to be condemned for so doing, because that was the only possible chance they had of getting a hearing at all in defence of these poor people. If there was any trouble at all in this matter it arose from the course the Government decided to take from the first and before they had oven seen an Amendment on the Paper.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is not germane to the Amendment before the Committee. It is out of order to question the decision of the House.
That is the old excuse. The House has passed the Resolution, and it is not competent for the Committee to reflect on it.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said that when the right hon. Gentleman challenged the procedure of hon. Members on that side of the House, he thought he was within his right in defending them against the charge made against them. He did not intend to discuss this particular Amendment on that occasion. As to the estimates which the right hon. Gentleman had made in regard to the cost of this and further Amendments——
§ MR. CHAPLIN
Well, in regard to the Amendment they were discussing 618 now. If the right hon. Gentleman found himself in difficulty because Amendments were moved entailing further cost on the Treasury and further provision to be made by the Government, again who was to blame? Not hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. Their complaint had been from the outset that the Bill had not been thought out as it ought to have been. If it had been, the right hon. Gentleman would have foreseen the necessity of making provision for these cases of hardship about which great complaints were made. The justice of his observation had been proved over and over again, because the right hon. Gentleman had given way. and willingly given way, to them in the course of the debates.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge Univeristy)
said he had abstained from taking part in these discussions, for he felt that no legal right was given under the Bill at all at present and therefore the discussions were merely of words. The pension was to be given by means of a relieving officer or pensions committee, just as poor relief was now given by the boards of guardians; therefore the discussions on legal points were perfectly out of place. But the Amendment moved by his noble friend raised a most important point—looked at from the point of view of this very extraordinary section about ascertaining a man's income and the concrete instance given by the noble Lord. Supposing by some sort of fortune or good luck a man had a legacy left him in one year of, say, £25, or that he happened to have had a benefactor, or a friendly old employer, who had given him a dole of£20 or£30; if the benefactor died and it was well known that that man would never again receive a legacy or dole, under this extraordinarily drawn scheme that man would be excluded from the benefit of the pension, because they would be bound to take his income as the exact amount of money actually received during the preceding year. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not have meant that. That was not merely a legal technicality; the point went to the root of the meaning of the section. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not mean that any absolutely 619 voluntary payment made to a man during the year 1908 would exclude that man from receiving a pension in 1909. If that was not meant, then the words proposed by the hon. Member must be inserted in this line, and also in line 11. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's shaking his head that that was not, in his view, the meaning of the section, but he pressed to have some words put in to make it clear that any voluntary payment made during the year would not prevent a man getting his pension in the following year.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said he thought his hon. and learned friend had not given his usually vigilant care and attention to the section under review. He agreed that "income" was a very vague word. It occurred in many statutes for different objects. It had received a rather different scope in such statutes as the Insolvent Debtors Act and other Acts, where "income" had to be construed in each case according to the general purpose of the statute. "Income" under the Income Tax Act would not cover voluntary payments unless they were of the character of a clergyman's Easter offerings or a waiter's tips. In each particular case it was left to the assessor to say what was the character of a particular payment which was to be treated as income. In this case they could not give a perfectly precise and accurate definition of the word. All that they could do was to define the tribunal, and to say that in this case they were going to have a particular person, the pension officer, who was to be entrusted with a wide discretion governed by the general meaning of the clause. What was the general meaning of the clause in so far as the Amendment was concerned? A great deal had been said about voluntary payments which might be made in one year and next year be taken as part of the income; but if one looked at the clause as it was they would arrive at substantial agreement that where there was a legacy it would not be treated as income. There were undoubtedly some cases in which it might be argued that a voluntary payment should be treated as income— "the income which a person might reasonably expect to 620 receive." That again covered some of the cases mentioned by the noble Lord. As to the case of a mere casual tip, that would not necessarily enter into the anticipated income for the succeeding year.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he agreed that he was putting the case of a casual gift. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knew, there were a large number of cases where it was the custom to give a small sum regularly at Christmas.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that matters of that kind, having regard to the complexity of human relations, could not be dealt with to a degree of precision. They should be left to the discretion of the pension officer. Then by steps and stages they arrived at the income which might reasonably be expected next year. A mode of ascertaining the income in the absence of other means would be by taking the amount of the previous year, and if he as Excise officer had to construe the section he would exclude voluntary gifts unless there was reasonable likelihood of their recurring. Absolute uniformity could not be obtained or provided for. In the succeeding subsections property was dealt with, and in the last the yearly value of any benefit or privilege, and there was quite enough to indicate to the pension officer the way in which he should set about ascertaining income apart from voluntary and casual payments.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said there could not be a greater contrast than between the speech they had just heard and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee was indebted to the Attorney-General for arguing upon the different sections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had waived aside with an obiter dictum as irrelevant, and, indeed, suggesting that his noble friend had introduced them into the discussion for the purpose of wasting time.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the right hon. Gentleman, with some 621 show of irritation, had said there would be plenty of time to discuss this point if hon. Members did not waste time by discussing subsections which were not relevant. The Attorney-General invited the Committee to look at subsections (b), (c), and (d). He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer before administering undeserved rebukes would consult the Attorney-General as to the meaning of the Bill he had in charge. He desired to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the effect of his arguments on a large class of benefactions enjoyed by people who might expect to benefit under the Bill. He agreed with the Attorney-General that it was impossible to meet every case by exact definition, but there should be certain guiding principles showing a clear idea of what was intended. It was quite true that the Excise officer was subject to the control of the President of the Local Government Board, and that that gentleman in turn was subject to the control of Parliament, but it would certainly be undesirable to have an annual discussion on the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the exact interpretation which he had or should have put on the words of the Act. Should there be taken into account for estimate of income such doles or gifts as were given by charitable institutions or individuals? It was probable that an old person would receive gifts for successive years to which he had no right, and for which he could make no claim. He did not quite know the attitude of the Government on this point. The Attorney-General, speaking of a casual gift, such as a Christmas-box, said he should not himself take into account anything unless there was a reasonable likelihood of the same thing occurring in the subsequent year. That was clear under the terms of the Bill. But ought it to be taken into account if there was a reasonable likelihood of its occurring. Ought they to take into account charitable gifts, either from individuals, friendly societies, endowed charities, or any source of that kind? In his opinion they ought not. Let them suppose that at the present time there was a charity which gave an old-age pension. Some societies did give pensions, and 622 others money grants and doles at certain stated intervals in the year. It was probable that the persons who received those gifts last year would receive them this year, and as long as they lived. The probability being admitted, ought those charitable gifts from those charitable funds and benefactions from private individuals to be taken into account. Surely they ought to be in addition to and not in subvention of anything the State might give. It was quite clear that there were cases in which such societies as he spoke of would desire to supplement the allowance given by the State. If such subventions brought the man within the limits of the sliding scale, were they at once to reduce the pension? They certainly ought not. The case in favour of not reducing the pension in the case of private benefactions was even greater. It was quite possible that though people might continue to make these charitable grants after the pension was given, they certainly would not do so if the only result was to relieve the Exchequer. Even if those gifts were taken into account there would not be the escape from the additional expenditure of£500,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, because people would cease to make gifts if they were made the grounds of reducing or refusing a pension. He should certainly support the Amendment.
§ MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)
said there was an extraordinary contrast between the speech of the Attorney-General and the attitude taken up by the Government a couple of days before. The Attorney-General gave as a reason for rejecting the Amendment that all these matters must be left to the pension committee, and in their discretion they must decide what an income was. As the Government had adopted a sliding scale, that meant that the committee was to decide what pension a person was to have. A couple of days ago an Amendment was proposed to give discretion to the committee, an Amendment which he supported on grounds of humanity. The Government refused to accept that because they said no discretion ought to be left to the pension committee; but now, according to the Attorney-General, 623 everything was to be left to the pension committee. That seemed a very important admission. They now knew the mind of the Government. These pensions were not to be given as a right, and they were only charitable pensions to be given by pension committees instead of boards of guardians.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the formidableness of this proposal could be measured by the fact that it would involve £500,000 a year. He did not think that they could escape that £500,000 a year. Instead of allowing the House to decide whether that £500,000 a year should be placed on the backs of the taxpayers, they were going to leave it to the chance selection of pension committees and pension officers, with the prospect, as the Attorney-General had reminded them, that was experienced in the case of the clergyman's Easter offering, which, like a shuttlecock, passed between the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeal, and eventually was decided on a final appeal to the highest Court of the Empire. The Attorney-General might revel in that prospect, but the humble pensioner would not regard it with the same delight, because what he required was a scientific way of deciding the question. These varying payments took the form of cash payments, and it would have to be settled some time or other how they were to be dealt with; but if they did not decide how they were to be dealt with for the purpose of calculating pensions, they would not only be throwing the duties of that House on to the shoulders of irresponsible subordinate officers, but they would be going further and putting power in the hands of the donors of these merely revocable and precarious payments to place this burden on the Exchequer. He hoped the House would make up its mind to settle this question once for all.
§ LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)
said the clause as it stood would give an infinity of trouble, and lead to a good deal of injustice when the Imperial officer came to attend to the matter. He could not understand 624 the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said the Amendment would add 40,000 people to the pension list. He could not conceive that there would be any poor persons at all in the country over seventy years of age whose income would be over 7s. or 8s., and then they were to get 4s. or 5s., as a graduated scale had been adopted. His belief was that the working of the Act in country districts would show that everyone's hand would be against the Imperial officer of the pension committee, and that everyone would be in league to defeat the Exchequer. They could picture an old man of seventy, probably very hard of hearing, and not having the benefit of a very good board school education, such as was now given, being called before the Imperial officer, or pension committee, to make out what his income was last year, and what his income might reasonably be expected to be next year. Would he remember the few extra days he had been employed threshing, or the time when he went out with a battue? It would not be to the old man's interest to remind the authorities of the facts, and how were they or the Imperial officer to find out? When they came to the question of the Poor Law the whole question was absolutely different. The greater number of the guardians were fairly large ratepayers, and it was in their interests, when a man applied for relief, to find out all about him, to see whether he was really destitute, so that they might not spend the ratepayers' money wrongly. But in this case every man who came before the pension authorities would have his hand against them; every hand in the district would against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Certainly in the country districts the number of people with incomes of 8s. 6d. or 9s. would be nil, and they would find plenty with incomes of 7s. 6d. of 8s. in order to get the 5s. He could not conceive how they were to arrive at the amount of a poor old man's income when he was called up to give evidence of what money he had earned. He might have forgotten that he had been employed two or three months in the year previous, and the end of it would be that the old man would have given a false return, for which he would be liable to six months imprisonment, although 625 it was perfectly certain that no magistrate and no jury would convict. He could not conceive that the Government had given proper attention to the subject, and he would be surprised if the Imperial officer was able to decide points in dispute to the satisfaction of both parties—the old man of seventy and the representative of the taxpayers.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)
said that this point was of such importance that they would like to have the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon it. In Ireland a large section of the population were assisted by their friends in America. In some cases they sent a few pounds, perhaps£5, and the remittances came fitfully. Under this scheme it would be difficult to arrive at an understanding of what the pension officers were to do in the matter. The Attorney-General had said that such a sum as£5 coming to a person in Ireland from America would not be taken into account as part of the income. If that was the view of the Attorney-General, he thought it was necessary that the Government should put something to that effect in the Bill. Sometimes as much as £100 was sent from America to poor families in Ireland, and, according to a later subsection of this clause, if it was to be read literally, the sum which was received last year as income was to be taken as foreshadowing what the income would be next year. Of course, the pensioner would then be precluded from receiving his pension. The man who received the £100 might invest it in securities at home, and if he received only 3 per cent. it would be classed as income and he would be precluded from receiving the pension in the succeeding year. He thought the Government ought to face the problem of charitable contributions and be done with it. Were they to pass this clause without any definition whatever, or were they to accept an Amendment such as was suggested by the noble Lord, who wished to put in the words "as of right," which at all events would do something to place a limitation as to what a person's income was? This subsection, like many other parts of the Bill, was a mystery. It had been so hurriedly drafted that the Government 626 themselves could not explain it. It was left to the Opposition to make the Bill workable, and when they did their best to correct mistakes in drafting they were told that they were wasting the time of the House. He though that if they wanted to pass this subsection the words suggested by his noble friend ought to be inserted.
SIR F. BANBUEY
said he was afraid that he could not support the Amendment of his noble friend. The hon. Member for Preston had shown that the Government were inconsistent in refusing his Amendment a day or two ago, and now they were going for a different reason to refuse the Amendment of his noble friend. He did not expect consistency from the Government, and he therefore listened to the arguments advanced on each Amendment, and did not bother to consider whether they were consistent with what had been said previously. He had come to the conclusion that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unanswerable. There were many cases in which 15s., 17s., 18s., or a £1 a week was given to old servants or old employees. There was no legal liability on the part of the donors, who could withdraw the payments, and the recipients had no legal means of enforcing them. If his noble friend's Amendment were carried, all these people would be included, and they would be receiving in addition to 15s., 17s., 18s., or a£1 a week another 5s. a week. That was a very serious burden to place on the taxpayer, and he did not think the people themselves were in a sufficiently necessitous position to call for their having the extra 5s. Take the case of a person receiving 13s. a week. His noble friend said that the man's income would be reduced to 8s. in order that the balance might be made up with the 5s. paid by the State. Generally speaking, he agreed with his noble friend, but on this occasion he really must support the Government. He found himself in a curious position. He had voted twice for the Government on the previous day, and apparently he was to do so again. He really thought, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would excuse his saying so, that his argument ought to have some weight with the House. They could not go on piling up these additional sums of 627 money. He stood there endeavouring to do his duty by the nation as a whole.
§ SIR E. CARSON
asked whether, in the computation of incomes, purely voluntary allowances would be included. He understood the Attorney-General thought they would not, and he would have assumed that himself from the word "income." He should assume that if he told a man he might rely on his giving him 10s. a week for the rest of his life, that was not within the meaning of the section.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he had dealt with the subject somewhat fully before. He thought in the great bulk of cases voluntary payments would not be treated as income. But the Committee would hardly expect him to go over the same ground again. There were some voluntary payments which he could well imagine would be treated as income where they came within the wording of the Bill as being reasonably likely to recur. But he refrained from laying down any universal proposition with regard to voluntary payments.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that in view of the failure of the Government to answer the two points that he had put, he would have no alternative but to proceed to a division. Let him just re-state those two points, so as to make it quite clear. The first was that unless they had some such provision as this they would be exposing any pensioner who did not disclose the fact that he received 10s. as a Christmas gift, not only to imprisonment, but to repayment of the money. It was simply to protect the pensioner from a harassing prosecution, it might be, by a village enemy. He was satisfied that some such words must be put in to deal with that case, unless they were going to run the risk of grave injustice. The second point was that unless they put in some such words they were in effect making a grant not to the old and poverty-stricken industrial labourers, as they were called, but to those who were paying at this moment pensions to those men. He agreed that his words might go a little too far, but as the Government 628 were evidently not disposed to meet them at all in the matter, he would have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the noble Lord had inadvertently used phraseology which might give rise to some misapprehension with regard to the application of penalties under the Bill. He had said that if an applicant for a pension made a false return he would be liable to this, that, and the other. But he was not called on under the Bill to make a return. What he was called upon to do was to refrain from making false representations. There was a very material difference. The penalty was not for failure to make a return. It attached only to a positive mis-statement
§ LORD R. CECIL
If he says his income is so much a year, and does not include in it the 10s., or whatever it may be, it will be a false statement.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
wanted to make perfectly clear the point they were at now. The Attorney-General had said that voluntary payments which were reasonably likely to recur would be treated as a man's income. The case which he had in his mind was that of a man who was receiving three sums of 4s. each from his three sons. What he wanted to make perfectly clear was that the Bill meant to treat that as income and the Amendment proposed that it should not be treated as income, and that the applicant should be entitled to his pension just as if his sons were not making these onerous contributions.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
pointed out that the clause stated that in the absence of other means of ascertaining income, it should be taken to be the income actually received during the preceding year. In this case the 12s. would be taken as being his income for the next year.
§ Question put.630
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 298. (Division List No.148.)633
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F||Guinness, Walter Edward||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Haddock, George B.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Ashley, W. W.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balcarres, Lord||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Helmsley, Viscount||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Hill, Sir Clement||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hills, J. W.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hodge, John||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesal|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Houston, Robert Paterson||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hudson, Walter||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Jowett, F. W.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Joynson-Hicks, William||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kelley, George D.||Seddon, J.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Kerry, Earl of||Shackleton, David James|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Snowden, P.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Stanier, Beville|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Stanley Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Cave, George||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Summerbell, T.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Clynes, J. R.||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Arthur, Charles||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||Walrond, Hon Lionel|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Mason, James S. (Windsor)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Duffy, William J.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wardle, George J.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Moore, William||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Younger, George|
|Fell, Arthur||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Gill, A. H.||Nield, Herbert||Viscount Valentia and Mr.|
|Glover, Thomas||O'Grady, J.||Forster|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Benn, W. (T'W'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Agnew, George William||Bennett, E. N.||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Alden, Percy||Bertram, Julius||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Ambrose, Robert||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Byles, William Pollard|
|Armitage, R.||Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine||Cameron, Robert|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Black, Arthur W.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Boland, John||Chance, Frederick William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bramsdon, T. A.||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Brigg, John||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Barker, John||Bright, J. A.||Clough, William|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Cobbold, Felix Thornley|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brodie, H. C.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Brooke, Stopford||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (SPancras, W.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Bryce, J. Annan||Cooper, G. J.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Idris, T. H. W.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Cox, Harold||Jackson, R. S.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Crean, Eugene||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Dowd, John|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Crossley, William J.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||O'Shee, James John|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Kekewich, Sir George||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Laidlaw, Robert||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lambert, George||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lamont, Norman||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Dillon, John||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Duckworth, James||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Radford, G. H.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Lehmann, R. C.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Dunne Major E. Martin (Walsall||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lewis, John Herbert||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro|
|Erskine, David C.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Reddy, M.|
|Essex, R. W.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lundon, W.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lupton, Arnold||Rees, J. D.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Ferguson, R.C. Munro||Lyell, Charles Henry||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Ffrench, Peter||Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Maclean, Donald||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Robinson, S.|
|Foster, Rt Hon. Sir Walter||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||M'Callum, John M.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Crae, George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||M'Micking, Major G.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Maddison, Frederick||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Ginnell, L.||Mallet, Charles E.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Scaris brick, T. T. L.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Marnham, F. J.||Sears, J. E.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Massie, J.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Masterman, C. F. G.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Meagher, Michael||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Hall, Frederick||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Halpin, J.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale||Middlebrook, William||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Mond, A.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Mooney, J. J.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Harvey W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Harwood, George||Morrell, Philip||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morse, L. L.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Muldoon, John||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Murnaghan, George||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Myer, Horatio||Tennant, H J. (Berwickshire)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Napier, T. B.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nicholls, George||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nolan, Joseph||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Norman, Sir Henry||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Tillett Louis John|
|Hogan Michael||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Tomkinson, James|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nuttall, Harry||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)||Toulmin, George|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Verney, F. W.|
|Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Weir, James Galloway||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Vivian, Henry||White, Sir George (Norfolk)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||White, J. D. (Dum bartonshire)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Walton, Joseph||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Winfrey, R|
|Waring, Walter||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer||TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wiles, Thomas||Joseph Pease and Master|
|Watt, Henry A.||Williamson, A.||of Elibank.|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
§ MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire, Totnes)
moved to amend the clause by excluding from the calculation of means "any sums of a less annual value than £40 received in consideration of previous contributions to a registered friendly society or trade union." He said that some time since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted through the Chief Registrar to ascertain what were the views of great friendly societies with regard to various points in connection with the introduction of a scheme of old-age pensions. The Registrar put certain questions to the societies, and with regard to the bulk of those questions the societies were unwilling to commit their members in view of the divergent views of the same. On one point only did those applied to feel at liberty to express a strong and decided opinion. On one point only were they absolutely unanimous. They were agreed as to the great harm which would result to the cause of thrift if it were enacted that the receipt of a weekly allowance from a friendly society should wholly or in part disentitle an individual to the receipt of a pension, and very rightly so, for how was it possible more effectually to discourage thrift amongst the poor than by providing that by their very efforts to be thrifty, by their very self-denial, exercised probably at the cost of their own comfort, a poor man should penalise himself, should deprive himself of the pension to which he would otherwise be entitled? The Bill as drafted was the very reverse of an incentive to thrift. It penalised thrift. If the Government thought fit to accept his Amendment, the Bill would then give the poor every incentive to thrift, every incentive to add by contributing to a friendly society to the 5s. that would come to him in old age, and which after all was but a small pittance. Allusion had been frequently made to case of New Zealand, where the 634 pension scheme was already in existence What was the provision in the New Zealand Act? It was as follows—Income shall be deemed to include personal earnings, but not any payment by way of sick allowance or funeral benefit from any friendly society.In consequence of this provision old-age pensions had not prejudiced the position of the friendly societies. In New Zealand the Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows was just as active as it was at home, and what said their Report? It was to the effect that—Since the carrying of an Old-Age Pension Act the operations of the Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows have increased at a rate of five times as great as in any other country.It might be asked why thrift through a friendly society should be specially guarded. Why should not individual thrift be guarded in the same way? That criticism had been made by those sitting around him, but he held that the communal thrift inculcated by a friendly society, based on the mutual interests of members, was entitled to even more consideration than the thrift which was stimulated solely by the interests of the individual. And, moreover, they had already conceded this principle in the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act, which had been passed some years since, and by which guardians of the poor were enabled to neglect any sums up to 5s. received weekly from a friendly society. He now came to the Amendment. Why had he fixed £40 as the limit? He had been informed that there were a large number of members of friendly societies who had contributed for a sickness benefit of over 12s. per week, receipt of which would, of course, debar them from a pension. It might be said, why not lay down that the limitation of income should not take into account any sums received as sick pay or superannuation pay from a friendly 635 society or a trade union? In view, however, of their declarations, the Government would probably be unwilling to go thus far. They would insist upon some limit. Some trade unions, he believed, gave a superannuation grant of 10s. to 15s. a week. Fifteen shillings per week meant£39 per annum, so that his limit of£40 admitted of the individual receiving 15s. a week from a friendly society without penalisation. He had sufficiently detained the Committee. Be it remembered that putting aside trade unions, with regard to which other members would speak, the work of friendly societies was enormous, he might almost say wonderful. Their membership amounted to 6,000,000; their funds were £50,000,000 sterling; the payment of annual benefits amounted to £5,000,000. How important it was in the interests, not only of friendly societies, but of the State that this good work should not be hampered! Still more important was it that the thrift which a man practiced to provide for himself in times of sickness or old age should not be made the excuse for depriving him of a pension which would be paid to a less thrifty man. And now with regard to expense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the day before that no Amendments of this kind ought to be proposed without calculation of the cost, but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, it was impossible for them without expert aid to calculate the cost. But with regard to the expense, speaking for himself, he (Mr. Mildmay) would rather see some reduction in the general amount of pension voted: he would rather see this, distasteful as it would be to him, than he would see such unjust, such unequal, he might say such impossible provisions in the Bill as had been passed by the House of Commons the day before. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said on the previous Wednesday that further concessions were impossible, but he was hoping that they had been pondering over the dictum of the hon. Member below the gangway sitting upon the Labour Benches, to the effect that consistency was but a scurvy virtue. Indeed the Government had often given them cause by their actions to think 636 that they were not averse to taking that view at times. Seriously the whole House, and he was certain the whole country, were anxious for some such concessions as were foreshadowed in this Amendment, and he most sincerely hoped that the Government would consider the possibility of acceding to it.
In page 3, line 7, after the word 'cash,' to insert the words 'excluding any sums of a less annual value than forty pounds received in consideration of previous contributions to a registered friendly society, or trade union, and.'"—(Mr. Mildmay.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. L. HARCOURT
said he would explain why the Government could hardly be expected to accept this Amendment. In their opinion they could not exclude from the income test only those societies mentioned in the Amendment. If they did so they would be driving thrift into a narrow and specified channel—he did not say it was a bad channel—and would there by be discouraging small investments in industries of all kinds. To distinguish income derived from thrift, or savings, or whatever they liked to call it, from other income was almost impossible in many cases. He would give a rough example. How were they to decide what were savings in the case of a mail who inherited some years ago, say from his father, £150, who had saved another £150, and put both sums into a house or a cottage, or an investment of that kind? How were they to decide how much of that was due to his own savings or thrift, and how much was due to what he had inherited from his father? Were they going to decide off-hand that the £150 which was inherited was in no sense savings? It might be regarded as savings because he had not spent it.
§ MR. L. HARCOURT
said he was sorry if he had wandered outside of the Amendment. If the hon. Member's Amendment was accepted, it was clear that other Amendments must be passed to extend to all investments. It was impossible 637 to make out a selected schedule for this purpose. It would have to be extended to building societies and to many other societies of that kind, including saving-banks and co-operative societies, and even to investments in gold mines. People's ideas as to thrift in the matter of investments might vary, and if this was extended to sums received from friendly societies and trade unions, it would have to be extended to other concerns beyond what in the ordinary sense were termed provident institutions. It might reasonably take the form of putting money into the stock-in-trade of a small business from which a person earned his income. A man might have his savings invested in a small cottage, or he might have put them into something which would help him to earn enough to live upon. Contributions to the societies mentioned were taken in the Bill as proof of thrift, where it was necessary that an applicant for a pension should produce proof of his thrift; but to exclude those societies from the income test and not to exempt also investments of savings in building societies and co-operative societies would be an unreasonable thing. He was informed that if the Amendment was accepted 20,000 additional persons would become eligible for pensions at the cost of a quarter of a million sterling.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he did not intend to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, to exclude sums received "from any investment made out of the savings of that person."
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said the only substantial objection which the First Commissioner of Works took to the Amendment was that it was so limited. That was a difficulty which could easily be got over. The Amendment might easily be widened, and before he concluded he would move to insert words which would remove the objection which the right hon. Gentleman entertained. He would propose to enlarge the scope of the Amendment by moving to omit all the words after "friendly" in order to insert "provident or other society or trade union, or from such other approved provision against old age, sickness, or infirmity as may be recognised as proper 638 provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act." He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could take exception to these words, because they were the words of an Amendment which the Government moved and carried last night after the guillotine had fallen. It was quite true that the Amendment was moved last night in regard to another matter, but he thought that rather strengthened his position. The Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night introduced words by which the disqualification of the idler for a pension was upheld, but the right hon. Gentleman made the concession that if a man in that position had contributed for ten years to a friendly or other society, or had given other proof of thrift, he was to obtain the benefit of the old-age pension scheme. The First Commissioner of Works had now informed the Committee that contributions to a friendly society were to be taken as proof that a man might be entitled to a pension.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer went a great deal further than that the other day, and, therefore, he could not see how the Government could refuse to accept this Amendment. On 19th June a deputation from friendly societies waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was the last man in the world to lack appreciation of the services rendered to the community by friendly societies; on the contrary, he was making membership a qualification, for a friendly society would be able to put on their notice paper: "Membership of this society is a certificate for old-age pensions." Under these circumstances he did not understand on what ground the Government offered any hostility to the enlargement of the Amendment by the addition of the words which he was going to move. The object his hon. friend and himself had in view was to remove the discouragement of thrift which was so manifest in the Bill, and which, if allowed to stand, must have the most injurious effect on the community. The First Commissioner of Works calculated the cost of the Amendment at a quarter of a million sterling.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
That only confirms what we have said over and over again, that this Bill has never been thought out by the Exchequer.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said that even so the loss of revenue would be far less injurious to the community than the harm that would be done to the friendly societies by the direct discouragement of thrift contained in the Bill. Upon that there was evidence to any extent they pleased. The statements with regard to the views of the friendly societies on this point were put before the House. What was the drift of their opinion on the question of thrift? Taking them all through, according to the best calculation he had been able to make, they were more than two to one of opinion that the Bill, in its unamended form at all events—for he insisted that very little improvement had been made since on the subject of thrift—was extremely injurious in that aspect. He had been told that although the large majority of the friendly societies were of that opinion, on the other hand if the number of members were counted the majority were in favour of a non-contributory scheme, and that that was a matter that ought to be taken into consideration, and that that would make this reference less unfavourable to the Government. But the largest friendly society in the United Kingdom, the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, gave no answer to that return. It was not needed, because the Grand Master at their recent annual conference—and silence gave consent to his words—stated as clearly and definitely as he could that a non-contributory Bill was as mischievous as could be, and that he was entirely opposed to the plan of the Government. He could quote any number of other cases if necessary. He had quoted a good many on the Second Reading of this Bill; but he did not think it was necessary to say more in support of his hon. friend's Amendment. He proposed himself, with the permission of the Committee, to 640 move as an Amendment to the Amendment of his noble friend, "To leave out after the word 'friendly' the rest of the Amendment, and to insert 'provident or other society or trade union or from such other body provision against old age, sickness or infirmity as may be recognised as a proper provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act.'" He begged to move.
said he would have to alter the form of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment so as to exclude "trade union."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To add at the end, the words 'provident or other society, or from such other approved provision against old age, sickness, or infirmity, as may be recognised as proper provision for this purpose by regulations under this Act, and'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said it was rather surprising to him that the Government, which only the previous day proposed and carried an Amendment to the effect that investments in friendly societies should be taken as a sign of thrift, should object to this Amendment. His right hon. friend had referred to the returns made by the different friendly societies, and he would read to the Committee the resolution which since the return had been unanimously passed by the conference of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows—That this annual conference of the Manchester Unity Friendly Society, while approving the proposal to provide State pensions for aged and necessitous workers, strongly urges upon the Government and the House of Commons the desirability of ensuring that no person who would otherwise be eligible for the State allowance shall be deprived thereof because of the receipt of sickness or superannuation benefit from a friendly society.That was in substance the proposal of his right hon. friend. The case really lay in a nutshell. They were all in favour of encouraging thrift; and the majority of the friendly societies were agreed that if the income received from them by members was included as income 641 under the Bill thrift would be discouraged. If a man felt that his contributions to his society and the income which would result from these might deprive him of a pension he would be very likely to think it useless to save money in that way. The result of the Government scheme, as it stood, would therefore be to discourage that form of thrift which consisted in becoming a member of a friendly society. The only serious argument against the Amendment was that if they protected that kind of saving there was no reason why they should not protect other kinds. The answer was clear. Investment in a friendly society was the particular form of saving most prevalent among the people whom this Bill was intended to help; and the Amendment said that if a man saved in that way he should not be penalised. Further, the exception proposed depended on facts which could be readily ascertained, it involved no prying into a man's personal means, and if carried it would help the friendly societies. A similar provision had had the effect in New Zealand of very substantially increasing the membership of the friendly societies; and he felt that if the Amendment were not carried the membership of the friendly societies in the United Kingdom would be likely to go down. The Government were in some danger of putting a penalty on thrift which the Amendment would, to some extent, avoid, and he was sure the public would consider it a great improvement on the Bill.
§ MR. SUMMERBELL (Sunderland)
said he was very glad to hear the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen above the gangway in favour of old-age pensions, but he wondered how it was that they had not had an old-age pension scheme before them during the long years they were in office. Although they might regret the past, it was quite evident that when their friends were in power again they were going to have the very best scheme of old-age pensions ever heard of. All the same he felt that he must support the Amendment. As one who had been connected with friendly societies and a trade union all his mature life he believed there was some justification for the demand for the exemption of the income derived from them in calculating income for the receipt 642 of an old-age pension. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if exemption was given to members of friendly societies, why not also give exemption to the income of a man in a small way of business or who had invested his savings in a house? There was all the difference in the world between the two cases. Take his own case. Before he could draw his superannuation allowance he had to pay into his society or trade union for forty years and could not in all that time make use of his money. But a man in a small way of business got the use of his money all the time. He did not profess to speak for the party to which he belonged, but only as an old member of a friendly society, and he thought the Government should as far as possible meet their views.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,
on a point of order, said that the Amendment which was last put from the Chair was an Amendment to an Amendment dealing with friendly societies. It was very inconvenient to discuss friendly societies on an Amendment of a totally different character. His suggestion was that his words should be added to the Bill and that then they should discuss the whole subject. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was an extension to other forms of thrift.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
asked whether it was not common, even usual, and certainly favourable to debate, when an Amendment was moved to the original proposition, to discuss both the Amendment and the original proposition, so that the debate should cover the whole ground.
said that this was a matter in which he could meet the convenience of the Committee if he could find out what was desired. He had no objection to the Amendment to the Amendment being discussed with the original Amendment provided the decision was taken at the same time. [Cries of dissent.] If that did not meet with the convenience of the Committee they must take the strict course, and when they had decided upon the Amendment to the Amendment they could discuss whatever was left.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex Epping)
asked whether it would be in order now to discuss the Amendment of his right hon. friend.
said the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman wished to add certain other words. The first thing to be decided, if the Committee objected to discuss the two things together, was whether the words were to be added or not. If they were added, the whole thing could be discussed.
§ MR. GOULDING (Worcester)
appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and let the Committee take a decision upon the great issue of trade unions and friendly societies, which many of them desired to see tacked on to the Bill.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said the answer to that appeal was that the Government had stated that as to the original Amendment moved there could be only one reply: that it could not possibly be accepted because then other societies would have to be added.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)
supported the appeal of his hon. friend that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment. He contended that the great friendly societies and trade unions were in a totally different category from the other organisations to which his right hon. friend had referred. The hold which the trade unions and great friendly societies had over the workmen of the country was that in making their contributions the workmen knew they were not only making contributions in their own interests, but that, side by side with the mutual provident arrangement for themselves, they were able to help their comrades in other directions. It was because his right hon. friend had placed these in the same category as the other forms of thrift that he objected to the Amendment. They ought not to be included with others of a selfish nature.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that, as he understood the matter, if his right hon. friend did not withdraw the Amendment it would be impossible to have a discussion 644 on the real issue, the great friendly societies, and that, to many Members on both sides of the House, would be a matter of regret. He suggested, therefore, to his right hon. friend that he might bring up this separate proposition in a separate form. If the Committee permitted him to withdraw his Amendment now he could bring it up again on the Report stage. He therefore suggested that the Committee should allow his right hon friend to withdraw. [Cries of dissent.] He perceived that the House did not wish to take the discussion on the real issue. If that were the case two or three Members could prevent the discussion if they chose. If that course was taken, his right hon. friend, if he accepted the suggestion, should endeavour to have the two questions divided, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of discussing the other. The responsibility for failure would not rest with him, but with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with the Government who raised obstacles when the Bill was recommitted. He suggested to his right hon. friend that he should throw the responsibility on the Committee for preventing a decision being taken on these two issues, and that he should now ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said he was most anxious to meet what appeared to meet the general view of the Committee, and, above all, the wishes of his right hon. friend. He might just repeat that he would never have dreamt of tacking his Amendment on to this if it had not been that all the methods of the procedure of the House had been upset. In these days they were driven to move Amendments in a totally different form from that in which they would have moved them if free speech had not been restricted. He had moved the Amendment in this form because he had no guarantee that if he did not move it now he would ever be able to move it at all. Under these circumstances he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
said he was filled with admiration at the conduct of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon and his magnanimity in 645 withdrawing his Amendment, not in deference to the opinion of his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, but in deference to the appeal of his colleague the Member for tariff reform and Worcester. He was reluctant to intervene to emphasise the hon. Member's appeal, but the spectacle of the rift between Wimbledon and Worcester was simply heart-rending.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
hoped the right hon. Member would not withdraw his Amendment. He himself was anxious to have the opportunity of supporting the Amendment. As a member of both a trade union and a friendly society he did not ask for a special privilege for these societies. There were hundreds of thousands of people in this country who had not the opportunity suggested in the first Amendment. There were thousands of women who never had the opportunity of joining a friendly society or trade union. What was the position? Two organisations or two methods of investment had become popular, especially among women. Where there was no opportunity of joining a trade union they put their money into a co-operative society, and when the small dividend accrued it was left to accumulate to make provision for their age. Were they to be debarred from the privilege enjoyed by a man with £3 a week who had joined a trade or friendly society? Another method of investment had been provided by some municipalities, who gave labouring men and women an opportunity of investing in the municipal funds by accepting small weekly sums. The Committee should be very careful not to make exceptions of people who could afford more, and he hoped they would vote on the Amendment, and take the test upon that point. In their zeal and energy to amend this their new friends on the Opposition Benches were deserving of support. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stick to his guns. He had a good course in hand now.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
asked whether they ought not to have some reply from the 646 Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman's supporters whether or not they were in favour of the Amendment. It was quite clear that every one who had invested in the form stated would be disqualified, and therefore, it remained with hon. Members opposite to say whether or not they would accept the Amendment.
§ MR. MADDISON (Burnley)
said the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension altogether. He said he wanted an answer. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had given him an answer. The Leader of the Opposition wanted a clear issue, but he could not have that unless the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon was passed. That was the whole point. The original Amendment confined itself to two points, and his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe had shown that they could not have a clear issue until they had an Amendment which did not merely include two forms of thrift but all kindred forms of thrift. Just imagine the mute friends of friendly societies, these new-found enthusiasts for old-age pensions, these champions of thrift—[An HON. MEMBER: We are as old as you are]—had actually forgotten the various forms of thrift, and their memory only took them to two until they were joined by the hon. Member for Clitheroe. Up and down the country there were tens of thousands of people who did not get into trade unions, but who invested their little savings in co-operative societies, and were still promoting the best interests of industry by so doing. If they were to have a clear issue they could not have the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon withdrawn.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the Committee was in rather a difficult position. The Government did not think it necessary to defend their attitude or to explain it. They left their case to be argued by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on one side or the other. Hon. Members sitting around him on those benches had been attacked by the hon. Member for Burnley, who said that they were now interested for the first time in 647 the subject of old-age pensions and friendly societies. There was not a shadow of foundation for the hon. Gentleman's statement, which it was difficult to criticise in Parliamentary language. Though the hon. Gentlemen had offered some provocation by the language which he had employed, he would pass on to deal with what he had attempted in the way of argument. The hon. Member had said that they could not get a clear issue if they withdrew his right hon. friend's Amendment. He knew that the House was not going to allow his right hon. friend to withdraw it, but, if the House permitted him to do so, they could take a separate vote on the two propositions which were now before them. They could divide first on the Amendment of his hon. friend behind him, which confined the exemption to thrift which had taken the form of contributions to friendly societies and trade unions, and they could divide subsequently on the separate proposition which his right hon. friend the Member for Wimbledon was anxious to make. Was there any reason why a distinction should be made between these two kinds of thrift? The hon. Gentleman below the gangway and the hon. Gentleman opposite said there was none. But already the House had repeatedly made the distinction which his hon. friend the Member for Devonshire was now seeking to introduce. The distinction was embodied in the law of the country when they were dealing with the present Poor Law relief, and it was embodied in this Bill by the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. As to the original Amendment the Government had announced that they would not accept that Amendment. His right hon. friend had moved the Amendment which made the ground of the argument of the First Commissioner of Works and of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who had just spoken, that the original Amendment was limited and restricted, and that, therefore, they ought to take every form of thrift, whatever it might be. That was a perfectly reasonable proposition. It was one in regard to which there was a great deal to be said, and which was well worth arguing in that House. But was it because they might accept the proposal 648 that the Government insisted on so amending the original Amendment that they refused the right to his right hon. friend to withdraw his proposal? No; it was because they could reject the whole Amendment as amended more easily than they could reject the original Amendment if it stood alone. And they were going to see Members of the Government and their followers go into the lobby in support of the proposition of his right hon. friend, not because they desired to accept it, but in order to deprive the House of an opportunity of voting on another Motion which they were actually unwilling to accept, but still more unable to resist.
§ MR. GOULDING
said they had been repeatedly told by the Government that when any Amendment was moved extending the Bill, those moving it ought to put themselves in a position to state what their course was going to be. Now they had a right to ask the Government, who had all the machinery at their backs, what they estimated would be the cost of the extension which would be made to the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Devonshire with the addition made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. They wanted to know what was going to be the actual cost, because the First Commissioner of Works had made a bungle of the figures. The moderate Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonshire dealt with the specific cases of individuals who had exercised thrift and had saved the country hundreds and thousands of pounds in rates. The right hon. Gentleman had turned and said that he could not support this moderate proposal because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon had extended the proposition by including a vast number of other people, and that the expenditure would consequently be too prodigious; therefore, he was going to ride off on that issue. The right hon. Gentleman was a keen campaigner in the country, but he did not think that the working classes would be led away by a mockery of that kind. The people of the country who had exercised thrift, and the friendly societies without exception, had asked that their efforts should be rewarded by the recognition of their 649 right to the old-age pension. No amount of subterfuge or of talking on the Amendment of his right hon. friend would release the Government or hon. Members below the gangway from the charge of having deliberately ignored the unanimous re request of the great friendly societies throughout the country. He had risen to ask a question to which he thought he had a right to a specific answer from the Government, and that was what was the accurate estimate of cost they made on the original Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Devonshire.
The hon. Member's speech is largely out of order. We have now only to consider whether these words are to be added. The hon. Member has no right to ask what will be the expense of the original Amendment.
§ MR. GOULDING
Am I not entitled to ask what is the estimated expenditure on the original Amendment, and what will be the total expenditure with the Amendment of my right hon. friend added to the original Amendment?
Strictly speaking, we are on the point as to adding these words, and the only question which arises is what is the extra cost of that addition.
§ MR. GOULDING
That is my request. What will be the total expenditure on the Amendment if amended by the addition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon? I would like to point out to you that we are in this difficulty. The Government, through the First Commissioner of Works, distinctly stated in this House that inaccurate figures had been given with regard to the Amendment.
The hon. Member cannot discuss that. We must settle this matter first. We cannot dispose of that question until we have settled this one.
§ MR. GOULDING
If the Amendment of my right hon. friend is added to that of my hon. friend the Member for Devonshire, shall we not then be in a position to get an accurate statement of the cost of 650 the original Amendment, and am I not entitled to ask what is the cost of the joint Amendment?
Not now. Thai question might be asked later, but I have no means of enforcing an answer. It will be a perfectly relevant and proper question when we have settled whether these words should be added or not, whatever the result of the decision may be.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Committee might have imagined from the indignation of the last two speakers that this was some proposition of the Government. They would hardly believe that their anger was because the suggested words were moved by one of the leaders of the Opposition. This was not the Government's Amendment at all. It was the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, and simply because it had been suggested that these words should not be withdrawn, but that they should be added, all the vials of the wrath of the Member for Worcester, of both the Members for Worcester, had been poured upon the Government. An Amendment was moved which sought to set up some sort of preference for two specific forms of thrift to the exclusion of others. Banks, building societies, co-operative societies—every form of thrift was to be discouraged except the two which were so near the hearts of hon. Members opposite.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I rise to order. I wish to ask whether, after your ruling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to discuss the original Amendment.
I do not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be discussing the original Amendment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was imply giving a plain narrative of the facts. That was the proposition. Then came his right hon. friend, who answered on behalf of the Government and pointed all this out—that it discouraged every other form of thrift. Then the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman saw the force of that argument. He wanted 651 to be fair and just—and justice was justice to all, not merely to those privileged communities which his hon. friend was so much in love with. He was convinced, and instantly moved an Amendment that included them all. That was the position. It was due to the logic of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. Why should they be abused because the right hon. Gentleman had a clear and fair mind? Of course, they knew perfectly well why the Amendment was moved, and why all this indignation was expressed. It was because they thought they had got the Government in a hole, and it was in pursuance of the policy which had been pursued from the start of moving wild, illogical, irrational Amendments without any sense of responsibility, or any regard at all to the cost to the revenue, in order to be able to say to every class in turn, "We voted for you, and those wicked Radicals voted against you." All he could say was that it served them right, because it was purely a manœuvre. The right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly angry with the hon. Member for Burnley because, he said, he had rather taunted them with what they had done in the matter of old-age pensions. He would like to know what they had done, except to talk about them at bye-elections. That was the position. They were entirely responsible. If they were going to vote at all, let them vote for a clear principle. The noble Lord, he knew, was very anxious and eager to push these logical principles home, but he thought it would be a difficulty for the Government. Here was a test. Did he really say it was fair to discriminate in favour of trade unions against friendly societies and co-operative societies and every other form of thrift? Yet he would vote for it. Why? Not because he was a greater believer in trade unions than in other forms of thrift, but because it was putting the Radicals in a difficulty.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the principles they were now called upon to vote for, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, who 652 had the courage of his convictions, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, who had so consistently supported the Government——
§ SIR F. BANBURY
May I point out that I voted with the right hon. Gentleman once to-day, twice yesterday, and I am going to vote with him on this Amendment as well?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that was the sort of support that one liked to get. Now there was a clear and definite principle before the Committee, that every form of thrift, without any exception, and every saving should be exempted. The moment they added the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon to this proposition, he would be in a position to point out to the Committee what that really meant. But let them see clearly what they were voting for, and vote for some definite principle and not for a mutilated suggestion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said there was one advantage in closure by guillotine which he had never suspected before. It had given them the opportunity of hearing from the Minister in charge of the Bill the kind of speech and the kind of temper which those in charge of a Bill usually restrained from fear of prolonging debate, but which the right hon. Gentleman opposite knew he could indulge in with absolute impunity. It mattered not in the least how he stoked the fires of controversy; in fact, the more the debate was prolonged the better for him, and the fewer the difficulties in which the Government found themselves. His amazement at the performance they had just listened to was redoubled by the fact that unless his eyes wholly deceived him it was the same right hon. Gentleman who had just delivered an inflammatory oration who had asked him to move the closure on the debate ten minutes ago.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he might have been mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had got a passion for clear issues, and it was for that reason that 653 he declined to have the first proposition put with regard to friendly societies and trade unions, and subsequently the Amendment of his right hon. friend He was not content with explaining what he called his object. They all knew what was his object. He need not go through all those oratorical figures in order to disguise the result. But why should the right hon. Gentleman indulge in perfectly unfounded attacks upon the Opposition, following the example of less responsible persons on both sides of the House below the gangway? "Who are these people," said the right hon. Gentleman, "who now profess some regard for trade unions?" He would tell him who they were. They were the people who had passed all the best legislation for trade unions. [Cries of "The Trade Disputes Bill."] He said all the best legislation. Every Labour man in the House knew that what he was saying was correct. "Who are these people," the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "who expressed this new-found regard for thrift?" Had they ever been behind hand in showing their interest in friendly societies and in helping thrift? A more foolish, inappropriate, untrue, and irrelevant charge never was brought by a Minister anxious to advance business before the House at a moment like that. And then as a climax the right hon. Gentleman, borrowing the thunder of two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, said: "Who are these people who desire to extend the provisions of a pension scheme? They are the people who have never produced a pension scheme." It was perfectly true that since, largely under the guidance of his right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham, the pension question came to the front, during the remaining years of the Unionist Government no pension scheme was brought forward. They were perfectly aware that they had not the money to carry it out, and he presumed that for three years after they left office, hon. Gentlemen opposite had not the money to carry it out. If they had, why did not they do it? Why did they frame their Bill in terms which notoriously inflicted enormous hardship on people on the margin, if they had the money? Had they got the money now? He admitted he belonged 654 to a party which did not bring forward schemes for old-age pensions which they had not the money to pay for. But why that should be dragged in to smooth the path of debate utterly surpassed his power of understanding. The simple facts of the case were these. There were two propositions with which the House was now concerned, the Amendment of his right hon. friend and the original Amendment. It would be, he thought, better if they could divide upon those two propositions separately. The Government, for obvious purposes of manœuvre, were determined to divide upon them together. They might have money—and let those who professed this wonderful friendship for the friendly societies note this—they probably had money to deal with the Amendment of his hon. friend behind him. They believed they had not money for the larger proposal of his right hon. friend. They were, therefore, determined to do nothing for the friendly societies, and they thought they could escape an obligation, which they could not escape if that proposition was dealt with alone, under cover of the financial difficulties which the larger proposition imposed on them. This new-born love of logical symmetry, which had never oppressed the Government at any previous stage of the Bill—this passion for driving every proposition to its extreme logical consequences—which now beset them, was really a plan for not making their money go as far as it would go. Let the friendly societies thoroughly understand the position. Apparently, the Government thought they had a case for saying it would not go the length of his hon. friend's proposition. The Government were determined to sacrifice the friendly societies upon the altar of logic; and upon the altar of logic alone they were prepared to deal a blow at the great friendly societies which under the pension scheme existing in New Zealand flourished. [Cries of "Order."] That was what the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to do. They had money enough for the members of friendly societies, but had not, or thought they had not, enough to go the whole length of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman he Member for Wimbledon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he could 655 show that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon involved such a great expenditure of money that the House would be forced to reject it. The refusal of the Government to allow these two questions to be voted upon separately was simply a dodge by which the interests of the friendly societies might be sacrificed under cover of the financial necessities of the country.
§ MR. MILDMAY
asked if he was in order in asking that the cost of his Amendment might be given. He thought they should have that information before they were asked to vote. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman merely as a matter of courtesy, and he could not see any reason why he should decline to accede to his request.
§ Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he could not give them an estimate of the cost of the Amendment. Perhaps he could give them an estimate of the cost of the original Amendment. It was most important that they should have the correct figure, because the First Commissioner of Works had put it at£250,000, and he stated subsequently that he had made a mistake and had given the wrong figures. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the right figures in his possession.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that he went through the Amendments with such information as he had at his disposal, and he had received an estimate from the Treasury. The Treasury estimated that the first Amendment would increase the number of pensioners by 100,000 people. That would make a very serious addition to the cost of the Act. It would mean another £1,300,000. But when he came to the addition that would be made by 656 accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, the cost was absolutely prohibitive. The Amendment of that right hon. Gentleman was practically unlimited. It was estimated that some 400,000 people would come in under the ten-shilling test, and it would be a most moderate estimate to say that the Amendment as a whole now before the Committee meant an additional £2,600,000, Of course, he had to trust very largely to guesswork on the part of the officials. But he could not possibly accept the Amendment, either in its original form or in the more logical and equitable form in which it had been placed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon.
§ MR. JOWETT (Bradford, W.)
said it appeared to him to be a most reprehensible proceeding for a member of the Government to prevent a vote being taken on the more restricted issue, and himself compel the wider issue alone to be divided upon, knowing all the time that he did not intend to support the wider issue. The right hon. Gentleman had purposely taken that course in order to keep the other issue from being put. It had been alleged that the Amendments from the Labour Benches were not bona fide.] [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He might say that the intentions of those present wore bona fide, and they wished to support them with all the power they could bring to bear. With regard to the action of the hon. Member for Clitheroe, he understood that the hon. Member intended to vote for the wider issue now raised and not the narrow issue.
I think we have now got beyond whether the wider or the narrower issue was to be taken.
The hon. Member was dealing with the action of the Government on the Amendment which is settled.
§ MR. JOWETT
asked what else could he deal with. As a private Member he 657 wished to protest against the way the business was being conducted. Surely they had a right to vote on any issue which was put before them, and he was now being deprived of that right by the action of the Government for the deliberate purpose of saving hon. Members
§ opposite the trouble of going through the division lobby.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 149.)659
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.||Gill, A. H.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Glover, Thomas||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gretton, John||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Walter Edward||Renton, Leslie|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Haddock, George B.||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, A.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Helmsley, Viscount||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hill, Sir Clement||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hodge, John||Seddon, J.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Shackleton, David James|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hudson, Walter||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Cave, George||Hunt, Rowland||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jowett, F. W.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Summerbell, T.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Kimber, Sir Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Arthur, Charles||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||Walsh, Stephen|
|Crooks, William||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Moore, William||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Nield, Herbert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||O'Grady, J.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Fell, Arthur||Parker, James (Halifax)||Mildmay and Mr. Hills.|
|Forster, Henry William||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Bell, Richard||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Agnew, George William||Bellairs, Carlyon||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bennett, E. N.||Byles, William Pollard|
|Armitage, R.||Berridge, T. H. D.||Cameron, Robert|
|Ashley, W. W.||Bertram, Julius||Cawley, Sir Frederick|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bethel, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Chance, Frederick William|
|Astbury, John Meir||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Black, Arthur W.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bramsdon, T. A.||Clough, William|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Brigg, John||Cobbold, Felix Thornley|
|Barker, John||Bright, J. A.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brodie, H. C.||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Brooke, Stopford||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd|
|Barnes, G. N.||Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Bryce, J. Annan||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Lament, Norman||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lehmann, R. C.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Schawnn, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Sears, J. E.|
|Duckworth, James||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Lupton, Arnold||Seely, Colonel|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Lyell, Charles Henry||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Essex, R. W.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Maclean, Donald||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Callum, John M.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Findlay, Alexander||M'Crae, George||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Micking, Major G.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Maddison, Frederick||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Mallet, Charles E.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Massie, J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Gulland, John W.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton||Micklem, Nathaniel||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Hill, Frederick||Middlebrook, William||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Molteno, Percy Alport||Tillett, Louis John|
|Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||Mond, A.||Tomkinson, James|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Toulmin, George|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Morse, L. L.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdae)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Verney, F. W.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Myer, Horatio||Vivian, Henry|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Napier, T. B.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Wardle, George J.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Nicholls, George||Waring, Walter|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Norman, Sir Henry||Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nuttall, Harry||Watt, Henry A.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Partington, Oswald||Weir, James Galloway|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Paulton, James Mellor||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hooper, A. G.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Pirie, Duncan V.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pollard, Dr.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Williams, Osmend (Merioneth)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Priestley, W. K. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Jackson, R. S.||Pullar, Sir Robert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Radford, G. H.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wilson, J. W. Worcestersh, N.)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rees, J. D.||Winfrey, R.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rendall, Athelstan||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Roberts, Charles H. (Linclon)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Kelley, George D.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Robinson, S.||Elibank.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Lambert, George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
moved an Amendment to provide that in the calculation of a person's means there should be excluded any sum not exceeding £26 5s. a year received 660 from the Crown as a pension for services in the Imperial forces of the Crown. He said that the arguments which had been used that afternoon in support of other Amendments 661 applied with, equal force to this Amendment. Soldiers and sailors who were in receipt of pensions should not have those pensions taken into consideration when they were claiming old-age pensions. There were two special arguments in support of the Amendment which he wished to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first was that a soldier's pension was really part of his daily pay. He enlisted for a certain period at so much per day, and the State said to him that at the end of that period he would receive so much by way of pension for the rest of his life. He thought it was rather unfair to take into account in this connection the money which a soldier was entitled to receive in respect of services which he had rendered to the country. That was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment, but there was a stronger, and that was that every English man or woman, according to the views of every hon. Member, was entitled to a pension of 5s. a week at seventy years of age. What did the soldier or sailor do? He undertook the liability of meeting dangers and discomforts far in excess of those which the ordinary citizen had to face. He undertook to fight the battles of his country, to serve for long periods in unhealthy climates, to undergo irksome discipline, and to risk his life in the service of his country. Therefore, he was entitled, over and above what civilians were entitled to, to have some extra remuneration for those services which he rendered to the State. He imagined that under the Bill as it stood any pension which a soldier or sailor received for the loss of an arm or a leg in the service of his country would be taken into consideration in estimating whether he should have an old-age pension or not. That would really be a very hard case if he was to be debarred from receiving a portion, if not all, of the old-age pension which other citizens were entitled to receive. They were constantly hearing of soldiers and sailors going into the workhouse. This year a large sum of money had been raised privately to take old soldiers and sailors out of the workhouse. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept the Amendment in its entirety, he would urge him to give some indication that 662 he would meet the case of the men who received extra pension in respect of the loss of an arm or a leg in the service of the country. At the present moment very great difficulty indeed was found in recruiting for the Army and Navy, and if it were made widely known throughout the country that a man who had served his country well would receive a money compensation for the loss of a limb and that the whole of the benefits would not be taken away when he reached seventy years of age, but that he would receive a pension of 5s. a week, it would not only remove a sense of injustice but would have a beneficial effect on recruiting. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 7, after the word 'cash,' to insert the words 'excluding any sum not exceeding £26 5s. a year received from the Crown as a pension for services in the Imperial forces of the Crown.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the hon. Member had spoken as if this was a Bill to deprive old soldiers of an old-age pension. On the contrary, this Bill gave to those old soldiers, or a vast majority of them, the opportunity of receiving a pension of 5s. a week. There would not be many of them who would be excluded owing to having an income of 12s. a week. He had no desire to disparage the services of our soldiers and sailors, or the manner in which they risked their lives for the honour of the flag; but miners and sailors in the mercantile marine also risked and sometimes lost their lives in the service of their country. Fortunately the loss was the exception, and he hoped it would become more and more the exception.
§ MR. ASHLEY
said that the miner's wages and the soldier's pay could not be compared. The miner was paid several times as much as the soldier or the sailor.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the soldier and the sailor were guaranteed their wages and, in certain cases, a pension 663 throughout life; but he was not comparing the two cases at all. The miner was exposed to all sorts of accidents, but the State did not guarantee a pension to him for the rest of his life. He had always thought it a great scandal to this country that we should allow men who had fought on many a field of battle to die in the workhouse. He did not think that any Britisher could feel anything but a thrill of shame that the heroes of Balaclava, for instance, should be allowed to die in the workhouse. But this Bill would, at any rate, prevent that in the case of old soldiers in the future. There would be a guarantee of 5s. a week to the old soldier when he attained the age of seventy, in addition to his pension from the Army. Say that his pension was 1s. a day, that would be 7s. a week, and unless he received something from another source which made his income more than the limit, he would always get his old-age pension. He knew that there were cases of hardship, but while he would not for a moment disparage the services of the old soldier or sailor, it would be impossible for him to draw a distinction between him and the men who served the State in civilian occupations at the risk of their lives, such as miners, railway servants, and sailors in the mercantile marine, who had likewise to scramble for a renewal of their employment, it might be every six months, or who, if they met with an accident which disqualified them from work, secured in most cases only a little miserable allowance. Under these conditions he did not think he would be justified in accepting the Amendment.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he saw the difficulty in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed, but he did not think that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman had quite done justice to the old soldier or sailor of the Royal Navy. He would put to the right hon. Gentleman two considerations which he had entirely omitted from his view. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about the heavy casualties which certain trades involved, and had quoted as illustrations miners and seamen of the mercantile marine. But the State had provided in these cases that a man should receive compensation for injury, 664 or that his relatives should receive compensation for his death caused by such injury. Soldiers and sailors in the service of the Crown were, however, excluded from the provision which Parliament had thought necessary to make for civilians in such events. Again, did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself feel that the State owed something to those who worked directly for it? Parliament had already recognised higher obligations to those whose services had done something useful during their life-time to the country.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Quite so; but that destroyed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention that there was no distinction to be drawn between the members of the military and naval forces of the Crown and civilians, like miners and sailors of the mercantile marine, who ran equal risks and served the State indirectly in private employment. He was sorry that in connection with this Bill they could not do something special for those who served the State in the forces of the Crown, either in the way proposed by his hon. friend, or, as he should have preferred, in the direction of making the old-age pensions awardable to such people rather higher than those who had given no direct service to the State. This was not a matter on which he felt he could, under the circumstances, press the Government very hard; but he could not pass the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observations without saying that they had already recognised higher obligations to those who served the State directly than to those who served the State indirectly.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
wished to add to the appeal made by his hon. friend in favour of something being done, no matter how little, to differentiate between the ordinary classes of working men who reached the age of seventy, and those who served in the Army, Navy, and Marine Forces of the Crown. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he did not wish to draw any unfair comparison between those who served 665 their country directly, and those who served their country indirectly. But it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was making an unfair comparison between them all the time. The right hon. Gentleman's point was that miners accepted their employment on certain conditions, but these conditions generally were very favourable, because they received a higher rate of wages than any other class in the community, and they had therefore a chance of putting by money, or joining friendly societies. But in the case of soldiers and sailors serving with the colours, they were unable to put by for their old age. In the case of those who were recompensed after they had retired, that was not because they were destitute, but because a certain amount of pay was withheld from them during their service. Very few firms in civil life stopped from their men pay which they gave back in the shape of a money grant or bonus when the men left their employ. If the hon. Member carried the Amendment he would be the best recruiting officer in the kingdom, because if those who desired to join the military or naval forces knew that compensation for injuires received in active service would not be taken into consideration as part of their income for the old-age pension, a better class of men would come forward. If these words were added in favour of those who had performed a service for the country it would not only be a great incentive for them to join the colours or the Navy, but have a very material effect on those who had joined. He did not think the comparison made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between the men in the mercantile marine and the men in the Navy was a good one. The services were vastly different. The right hon. Member had said that the former had to scramble for existence, but, as a matter of fact, they had a choice which did not exist in the Navy. In the Navy a man was always under the command of the officers, but in the mercantile marine, if after a voyage, a man did not like his ship, he could choose another. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was the same as his objection to many others. It was that he was unable to say what the cost would be, but in 666 this case it would be very slight, and in any case a slight modification of the sugar duties would provide the funds. One-tenth of the£3,500,000 in question there would be sufficient to provide for the Amendment. The Government seemed to be afraid to make any exception whatever. All who had spoken from the Treasury Bench had said it was better to make no exception in this matter of calculating the means of those who were to receive a pension. But even from that standpoint a gracious concession on the part of the Government to this particular class would have a very great effect in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman now representing the Government took the responsibility of accepting the Amendment, which he was quite able to do, he was sure his action would meet with the highest approval of the great bulk of the community.
§ LORD BALCARRES
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really missed the point of the Amendment. He had compared the soldier and the sailor with the ordinary artisan, the man in the coal-pit and the factory, and the sailor in the mercantile marine, and had said that they had an equally good claim as had the soldier and the sailor. With that, however, he could not agree. If a man in a civil occupation lost his life, his heirs received a very substantial sum under the Compensation Acts. No such benefit was reaped by the relatives of a soldier or a sailor who lost his life in the service of the country. That in itself entirely vitiated the simile of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A still more cogent argument missed by the right hon. Gentleman was that these pensions were not pensions in the sense that an artisan received a pension from a man who had employed him for many years. Ninety per cent. of these pensions was deferred pay. The ordinary soldier was compelled to submit to a certain reduction of his daily pay for the purposes of the pension that was given to him, and the fact that he received deferred pay at the end of his life entitled him to be included in the category of thrifty, just as much as the man who derived his deferred pay from a friendly society. When the right hon. Gentleman said that a soldier, because 667 he had 1s. a day, was to have a reduced pension, he was unjust, because that man was only getting the money he had earned, which he would have earned, and could have spent, had he been in a civil occupation. It was an error to suppose that all soldiers received only 1s. a day pension, and would receive 5s. a week later on. There were a large number of non-commissioned officers and soldiers who had special compensation for disablement and wounds who received the sum mentioned in the Amendment. If this pension was of right a reward for services rendered to the community, then he submitted that these soldiers and sailors had served the community just as much as the man who had been in a civil avocation. He could not understand why this Amendment was refused, unless it was the serious underlying cost.
§ MR. ASHLEY
said that now the First Lord of the Admiralty was present he wished to put a particular point before him, as he was the person responsible for the Navy. He could conceive the Government refusing to accept his Amendment in its entirety for the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
§ which was that if he accepted it it would be difficult to refuse other Amendments. He did not agree with it, but he accepted that statement. But a great hardship was entailed on the man who received a weekly sum of money because he had lost a limb or had been incapacitated by wounds received in the service of his country. A man who had lost his leg in the Crimea would be arriving at the age when he would receive a pension under this Bill. But he was to get no advantage out of the money he received from the Government for his wound. That was to be taken into consideration by the Excise officer in allocating the pension. It was very hard that he should not have the old-age pension in addition to the amount received from the Government for the loss of a limb.
§ MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)
said the scheme of old-age pensions was for those who were unprovided for, and that was the Answer to that Question.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 278. (Division List No. 150.)671
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Guinness, Walter Edward||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hunt, Rowland||Stanier, Beville|
|Bull, Sir William James||Joynson-Hicks, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kerry, Earl of||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cave, George||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Wore.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Mac Caw, William J. Mac Geagh||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)||McCalmont, Colonel James||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset W)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W)|
|Courthope, G. Lloyd||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Moore, William||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-|
|Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Fell, Arthur||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Ashley and Captain Craig.|
|Forster, Henry William||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Agnew, George William||Armitage, R.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Barker, John|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Gill, A. H.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Glover, Thomas||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Massie, J.|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Meagher, Michael|
|Beale, W. P.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Meehan Patrick A. (Queen's Co.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Gulland, John W.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Bell, Richard||Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton||Middlebrook, William|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Benn, W. (T' w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Hall, Frederick||Mond, A.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Halpin, J.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Morse, L. L.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hardy, George A. (Suffork)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)||Murnaghan, George|
|Boland, John||Hart-Davies, T.||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.||Myer, Horatio|
|Brigg, John||Harwood, George||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Bright, J. A.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Napier, T. B.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Nicholls, George|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hedges, A. Paget||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Helme, Norval Watson||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T(Cheshire||Henderson, Arthur Duncan||Nuttall, Harry|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Henry, Charles S.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Higham, John Sharp||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Hodge, John||O'Dowd, John|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hogan, Michael||O'Grady, J.|
|Cameron, Robert||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hooper, A. G.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Horniman, Emslie John||Partington, Oswald|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hudson, Walter||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hyde, Clarendon||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Idris, T. H. W.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Clough, William||Jackson, R. S.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Pollard, D.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jardine, Sir J.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jowett, F. W.||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kekewich, Sir George||Radford, G. H.|
|Cox, Harold||Kelley, George D.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro|
|Crean, Eugene||Laidlaw, Robert||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Lamont, Norman||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Crooks, William||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rees, J. D.|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lehmann, R. C.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Crossley, William J.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Richardson, A.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lewis, John Herbert||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lundon, W.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Duckworth, James||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Robinson, S.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lynch, H. B.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Macdonald, J M (FalkirkB'ghs)||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Maclean, Donald||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Essex, R. W.||Macpherson, J. T.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)|
|Ffrench, Peter||McCallum, John M.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Findlay, Alexander||McCrae, George||Sears, J. E.|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||McKenna, Rt. Hon. (Reginald||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Seddon, J.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||McMicking, Major G.||Seely, Colonel|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Maddison, Frederick||Shackleton, David James|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Mallet, Charles E.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Thorne, G. K. (Wolverhampt'n||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Tomkinson, James||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Toulmin, George||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.||Verney, F. W.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Vivian, Henry||Wiles, Thomas|
|Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Steadman, W. C.||Walsh, Stephen||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wardle, George J.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Summerbell, T.||Waring, Walter||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Winfrey, R.|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Waterlow, D. S.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon.|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Weir, James Galloway||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||White, Sir George (Norfolk)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Thomasson, Franklin||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Elibank.|
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he rose to move an Amendment of which he had given notice earlier and which would place him in the peculiar position of making a proposition which would be accepted by the Government. He was sorry neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom were present at the earlier portion of the debate, was present now. He moved to exclude from the purview of the pension committee "any sums payable as a premium of insurance against sickness, death, or funeral expenses." The Amendment arose out of a discussion they had at the beginning of the afternoon on what constituted income. In rejecting the proposal to add the word "net" before "income," the Prime Minister, answering a point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, said that any premium paid by workmen for insurance against death would not be considered as part of a man's income for the purpose of this section. He based that argument upon the analogy of the reduction allowed for life insurance from income for the purpose of Income-Tax Assessment. Personally, he did not think the analogy of the Income-Tax Act could be imported into this Act because the Income-Tax Act had that exception under special statutory provision, which was not repeated in this Act. The most that could be said against that part of his proposal was that it was not necessary, but the Prime Minister would not and could not contend that the analogy of the Income-Tax Act could be extended to that large and more common case of the payment of some little weekly premium 672 in order to ensure the person against sickness or to cover funeral expenses. He said that it was the intention of the Government to exclude all those payments, and he (Mr. Chamberlain) therefore moved to put into the statute what was the intention of the Government.
In page 3, line 7, after the word 'excluding,' to insert the words 'any sums payable as a premium of insurance against sickness, death, or funeral expenses, etc.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MC-KENNA,) Monmouthshire, N.
said he was sorry to disagree with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. If this particular form of exception were included in the Bill the result would be to exclude from the consideration of the pension committees any other expenditure of a similar kind which ought properly to be taken into account and deducted from the total income of the recipient. There was, also, a particular objection to the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment on their merits. Take the case of a man who paid 3s., which was only a moderate sum, for insurance against death, funeral expenses and sickness.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
That is a man of seventy who has just 673 joined. I am talking of a man who had done it all along.
§ MR. MCKENNA
said an applicant who had for a long period of time insured against death had an asset of very considerable value—a realisable asset—and his case was certainly not one of hardship which should be dealt with under the Bill. He was a possessor of property. The realisable value at the age of seventy of an insurance against death in any insurance office was considerable.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAIN
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is giving a new interpretation to the clause. Does he mean that a policy of insurance against death, being, as he said, valuable property, is such property as was contemplated in subsection (c) as might bring in yearly income and would, therefore, have to be taken into account?
§ MR. MCKENNA
said he was not at the moment saying anything which had any relation to subsection (c), because they were not discussing subsection (c). Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman would be able to raise that point on subsection (c) and ask whether that would be an item of property, and no doubt his ingenuity would enable him to suggest many other difficult questions as to what did and what did not constitute property. But dealing with this particular Amendment, the case of the old applicant who must have at least 15s., was not a case calling for the special commiseration of the Committee, and they could not make reductions whereby he would be entitled to an additional 5s. An old applicant earning 15s. a week and paying so much for insurance, if he lost his power of earning through sickness, would instantly receive a pension.
§ MR. MCKENNA
said the Bill did not say that, except in the absence of other means of ascertaining the income. If he was able to obtain an income of over 15s. a week for the whole year he was not properly a subject, under the limitations 674 of the present Bill, to receive a pension. The right hon. Gentleman was asking that these pensions should be given to a class of persons who were much better off than many people who were excluded, and it brought them always back again to the same question that where they had a limited amount of money it was not fair to spend it upon persons who were less proper claimants, when they necessarily excluded those who had a greater claim. On these two grounds, that these words would be a direction to the pension committees which would exclude their power of making allowances in every case where allowances ought properly to be made, and that they affected a class of persons who, prima facie, ought not to receive pensions when others were necessarily excluded, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed further.
§ MR. GOULDING
said that during the whole of these discussions he had never heard such an extraordinary answer given to a reasonable proposal. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he had never had any access at all to friendly societies, and knew nothing about the class of men who joined them. He started with a person with 15s. a week, who would be excluded, in the first place, and then said he would be paying 3s. a week to a sick and death fund in a friendly society. To add to his ignorance of the whole thing, he said that this asset the individual could put up for sale by auction. It was a farce to treat the whole proposal in that way. Everyone knew perfectly well that when payments were discontinued the whole asset went back to the institution.
§ MR. GOULDING
said the right hon. Gentleman was playing with words. The class of persons who came under the Bill were not those who joined the great insurance companies that the right hon. Gentleman would join. They were talking of the insurance and friendly and thrift societies which were accessible to these individuals in the villages and towns with which they were connected. All these cases were of people who had contributed against 675 sickness and death for years before they reached the age of seventy. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to quote any case of an individual of seventy years of age joining a friendly society for the first time for sickness and for death insurance. The right hon. Gentleman had not treated this case at all fairly. Early in the evening an Amendment was moved from his own side of the House to insert "net" income. They were told that was too vague and uncertain, and would not be understood. Now his right hon. friend had picked out words which actually met and covered the identical case they were asking to meet, namely, that of individuals who had done everything in their power in the exercise of thrift so as to provide against sickness and death, and that the contributions they had made should be deducted and should not be classed as income. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some further answer. He had not touched at all the question of the sliding scale which had practically been adopted, though whether a pensioner was placed in the Is., 2s., 3s., 4s., or 5s. category depended on whether such a policy was accounted an asset. Unless they got some satisfactory answer he hoped his right hon. friend would go to a division.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he would like to deal with another aspect of the case. His hon. friend had treated it from the point of view of the smaller friendly society and insurance company, but he would like to meet the First Lord of the Admiralty on his own ground, because, as far as he could see, unless some such words as these were inserted in the section, it simply meant that every policy-holder would have to surrender his policy immediately the Bill came into force if he wished to benefit, because if a man had insured his life in one of the larger insurance companies and had paid premiums during the last thirty or forty years the Commissioners would immediately say: "I understand you have a policy on your life for£400. It is true you began when a boy, and only pay a small premium, but the value is£300 and we must put 4 per cent, on that, and deduct it from the 676 amount on which your pension is to be calculated." A more sorrowful state of things could not exist. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government had not the funds, and it would be far better if he had given that as his excuse rather than entered into details which did not hold water at all from any business point of view. If he had said his instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer——
The hon. Member has already referred to that on previous Amendments, and we are dealing here simply with the question of premiums on insurance.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he would immediately stop, only they had different Cabinet Ministers in charge of the Bill at every step they took, and not only that, but they had had different explanations of this particular clause from every Minister who took charge of it.
Yes, but the hon. Member must remember that we are not dealing with the clause but with the Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he had almost finished. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was at all satisfactory, and if his right hon. friend went to a division he should certainly follow him.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that after the announcement of the First Lord he must take a division. He was not wedded to his own words if the same result could be attained by other words which pleased the Government better, or if the Government gave a distinct promise that under the regulations which they had to frame this point should be covered. But the First Lord of the Admiralty refused to enter on its merits but merely on the words. If he meant that he would accept other words he did not say so.
§ MR. MCKENNA
No, I cannot say I will accept other words until I see them, but I say on the merits of these words, which are not in the least confined to friendly societies but cover all cases of insurance by any person in 677 any society, that their acceptance could not be considered. I gave another ground for non-acceptance of these or similar words that they would be binding on the pension committee.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
doubted whether they would prevent the committee from making allowances which they certainly ought to make. They had discussed certain allowances which they ought to make on the question of net income, and these it was explained by the Prime Minister were not income at all. The outgoings on cottage property, for instance, were no part of the income from cottage property. If the Bill was left as it stood it would not be within the discretion of the pension authority to exclude those payments from their consideration of a man's means. That was quite clear. When a Government saw that a good point was raised, and they wished to meet it, although they were unable to accept the particular form of words, the usual course was for the Government to undertake to bring up words of their own, framed after consultation with the Government draughtsman. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these words were impossible, but he might produce as many possible alternatives as he liked, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would always say that he had no skill in drafting, and, therefore, he could not accept those alternatives. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was pleading for something more to be given to the people who must be comparatively well offhand on that ground he had objected to his Amendment. Now what was the proposal? It was simply what the Prime Minister himself had declared to be the intention of the Government. He did not want to be disagreeable to Ministers who were satisfying the needs of humanity, but it was intolerable that the First Lord of the Admiralty should come down now when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were temporarily absent, and not having heard what the Prime Minister had said earlier in the debate, practically rule out what the Prime Minister had deliberately stated was the intention of the Government. He, therefore, appealed to the Government to carry out the declared 678 intention of the Government as expressed by the Prime Minister. He put it to the Solicitor-General that if he meant to be helpful he could go to the Government draughtsman and get words which would carry out the intention without the objections to which it was said the Amendment was open. He appealed to the Solicitor-General who was present when the Prime Minister spoke earlier in the evening to confirm the statement he had made.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,) Glamorganshire, Mid.
thought the right hon. Gentleman would not be serving his purpose well by pressing for the inclusion of these words, because by a maxim well known to the law if they included one exception of this kind it would be the only exception they could make. He understood the Prime Minister to say that in his view in arriving at a man's income, premiums of this kind would be deducted on the analogy of the income-tax provisions. The danger of the Amendment would be that the pension society would be instructed that they must make this one deduction and that would exclude them from making any other deductions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment to a division.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said that in some respects the speech of the Solicitor-General was entirely satisfactory. If he could agree with him that the Bill allowed the deductions spoken of, then he thought the answer would be satisfactory. He could not see, however, where the Solicitor-General founded the right to allow these deductions in the words of the Bill. The Government said that this was to be excluded from the calculation of income, but they refused to put it in the Bill. Was that not a very small matter? What they had arrived at was that in calculating an income under the Bill they were to deduct this contribution for insurance against sickness and for funeral expenses, and why on earth should they not be able to put that into the Bill? That was all they asked for. Did the Solicitor-General mean to tell them that the resources of drafting were not equal to putting in a proviso allowing this deduction, and 679 at the same time allowing other matters to be deducted which ought to be deducted. He was not a draughtsman, but he knew there were many Acts of Parliament which gave them a lead in the Act. He suggested that the Amendment should read "excluding among other matters." Any person acquainted with the consideration of statutes would then see that it had an indication that not only were they to deduct premiums for insurance and funeral expenses, but any other matter of a like character that ought to be deducted. The matter was perfectly plain and simple. If they wanted to give a lead to this great Imperial officer who was to be a kind of appellant tribunal from the Law Officers and everybody else, then they should accept his suggestion. There was another objection which the First Lord of the Admiralty made to this proposal. He said that the words proposed by his right hon. friend were too wide, and were not confined to friendly societies. Only about an hour ago they had almost a scene in the House because something was too narrow. It would be far better for the Government to be candid and honest with the House of Commons and tell them plainly that they did not mean these things to be deducted. It would be far better for the Government to say: "We have only got a certain amount of money for the purposes of the Bill. We have never thought over all these difficulties, and we must stick to the Bill." Right hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well that if they wanted to make these matters clear on the face of the Bill, they could do so in five minutes by consulting the draughtsman.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that in order to meet the difficulty he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in order to move it in a new form.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 3, line 7, after the word 'excluding to insert the words 'among other matters any sums payable as a premium of insurance against sickness, death, funeral expenses, and.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."680
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said that nobody who read the subsection could doubt that insurance premiums would not be deducted from a man's income. The word "income" had been continually defined in legal matters as the amount of money that came into a person's pocket. Could anybody say that a man's income was so much a year unless there was a provision in the Bill allowing him to deduct the payments made for premiums against sickness or death? He ventured to say that the Bill would be unworkable without such a provision. If that was so, surely, if the Government meant these deductions to be made, words ought to be inserted in the Bill to that effect. He expressed no opinion as to whether these deductions should be made or not. All he wanted to make clear was that unless these words were put in, no pension officer would have the slightest right to make these deductions.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said it was clear from what his hon. and learned friend had said that on the words of the Bill no deductions could be made in respect of payments of insurance premiums. He was a layman, and he did not wish to go deeply into the question, for the contest in this matter was between two lawyers, but he thought the Solicitor-General might attempt to reply to his hon. and learned friend. There was obviously doubt and difficulty in the matter. The whole Committee were agreed that what they wanted to understand was what was the actual income which a man possessed, and which he was able to dispose of from week to week. When he suggested that the word "available" might be inserted the Solicitor-General was dumb on that point. In last Parliament when sitting in Opposition the hon and learned Gentleman was never wanting in arguments on any point.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said there was doubt as to the meaning of the words in the Bill. The Committee appeared to be unanimous that income should be clear available income for the purpose of week to week payments. In view of 681 that doubt, and of the fact that this matter could not be brought up on Report, he asked the Postmaster-General, the senior Minister present, to give an assurance that the first subsection which dealt with money matters would be considered on the recommittal of the Bill.
§ MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)
asked whether the pension committee would have to define what income was, or
§ whether there would be a standard by which they would define what income was.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 298. (Division List No. 151.)685
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fell, Arthur||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Ashley, W. W.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres Lord||Gretton, John||Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Balfour, RtHn, A. J. (City Lond.)||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Hills, J. W.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Houston, Robert Paterson||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hunt, Rowland||Stanier, Beville|
|Bull, Sir William James||Kennaway, RtHon. Sir John H.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kerry Earl of||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)||Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. Col. A. R.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cave, George||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||M'Arthur, Charles||Walsh, Stephen|
|Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A.(Worc.||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Collings, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm'gham)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Moore, William|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Nield, Herbert||Viscount Valentia and Mr.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Parkes, Ebenezer||Foster.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Black, Arthur W.||Clough, William|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Boland, John||Clynes, J. R.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Bowerman, C. W.||Cobbold, Felix Thornley|
|Agnew, George William||Bramsdon, T. A.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Brigg, John||Collins, Sir Wm. J(S. Pancras, W.|
|Armitage, R.||Bright, J. A.||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Brodie, H. C.||Corbett, C. H. (Suss'x, E. Grinst'd|
|Barker, John||Brooke, Stopford||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Cory, Sir Clifford John|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brunner, RtHnSirJ.T(Cheshire)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Bryce, J. Annan||Cowan, W. H.|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Cox, Harold|
|Beauchamp, E.||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles||Crean, Eugene|
|Bell, Richard||Byles, William Pollard||Cremer, Sir William Randal|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cameron, Robert||Crooks, William|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Crosfield, A. H.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Chance, Frederick William||Crossley, William J.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Bethell, SirJ.H(Essex, Romf'rd||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Clancy, John Joseph||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cleland, J. W||Devlin, Joseph|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lambert, George||Radford, G. H.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lamont, Norman||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Dillon, John||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Lehmann, R. C.||Rees, J. D.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Lewis, John Herbert||Richardson, A.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Essex, R. W.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lynch, H. B.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Maclean, Donald||Robinson, S.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Macpherson, J. T.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Flynn, James Christopher||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Callum, John M.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Crae, George||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||M'Killop, W.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Gill, A. H.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn||M'Micking, Major G.||Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)|
|Glover, Thomas||Maddison, Frederick||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Mallet, Charles E.||Sears, J. E.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Seddon, J.|
|Gulland, John W.||Massie, J.||Seely, Colonel|
|Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton||Meagher, Michael||Shackleton, David James|
|Hall, Frederick||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen'sCo.)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Harcourt, Rt.Hn.L(Rossendale||Micklem, Nathaniel||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Middlebrook, William||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Mond, A.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Stanley, Albert. (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Steadman, W. C.|
|Harwood, George||Murnaghan, George||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Murray, Capt. HnA.C.(Kincard.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Myer, Horatio||Summerbell, T.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Napier, T. B.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Nicholls, George||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)||Norman, Sir Henry||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Hodge, John||Nuttall, Harry||Tomkinson, James|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Toulmin, George|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Doherty, Philip||Vivian, Henry|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||O'Dowd, John||Walton, Joseph|
|Hyde, Clarendon||O'Grady, J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wardle, George J.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Partington, Oswald||Waring, Walter|
|Jackson, R. S.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pirie, Duncan V.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Pollard, Dr.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Power, Patrick Joseph||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Kelley, George D.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk E.)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Wills, Arthur Walters||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)||Elibank.|
|Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)||Winfrey, R.|
|Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
moved as an Amendment to substitute the word "receivable" for the word "payable" in the first subsection of the clause. He did so in order to make sense of the subsection and probably carry out what was intended, because it was obvious that the persons mentioned in the subsection would receive and not pay any sum on account of an old-age pension under the Bill. It was quite clear that a mistake had been made in regard to the word.
In page 3, line 8, to leave out the word 'payable,' and insert the word 'receivable.'— (Mr. W. Rutherford.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'payable' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. L. HARCOURT
said it might be interesting to the hon. Gentleman if he pointed out that a sum receivable by one man must be obviously payable by another. He saw no objection to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
moved an Amendment providing that account should be taken of the "average" income received. He thought that the subsection (b) as it stood would in some cases act rather unfairly. Suppose that owing to the receipt by a pensioner of a small windfall in one year, and perhaps the promise that something would be done for him the next year, the position of the pensioner might be endangered, and unless the word "average" was inserted he might be barred from receiving a pension altogether. The Attorney-General had said that a gift from an unexpected source would not be considered as part of a man's income, but that did not appear in the Bill, and the pensions committee might not give that interpretation to income in the case of a windfall in any one year, say, of£40. The pensioner would be protected from forfeiture 686 of his pension if the income was averaged over three years, as in the case of the Income-Tax Returns. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 11, after the word 'the," to insert the word 'average.' "—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'average' be there inserted."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the hon. Member had not put this Amendment on the Paper, and had certainly not thought it out. Supposing an old man who had been working for two and a half years earning fairly good wages suddenly broke down. He could come before the pensions committee and plead that he had earned nothing for that year, and would receive a pension. But if his earnings were to be averaged on the previous three years income he would be excluded from a pension. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he quite admitted that it would cut both ways, but he thought it would soften the hardship in many cases if the average of three years was taken.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SMEATON
moved to leave out subsection (c) of the clause, which refers to the account to be taken of the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to the person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him. The subsection seemed expressly designed to decrease the rapidly diminishing number of pensioners and to make a trap into which they might fall. It made pensions dependent on hypothetical profits which were to come from nebulous property. He could imagine persons who had an old horse which was past work and was pensioned off being asked by the pension officer why they did not put him to work. 687 Or a man might have a small shop in which a cheap class of articles was sold, and the pension officer arriving at a hypothetical income on the basis that if he charged more for his goods, the man would make a better income. Or, when an aged pair had had a little cottage given them by their children or grandchildren, in which to live during their declining years the pension officer might come and say "Why don't you let that cottage at a good rent and you live elsewhere?" In such cases the pension officer could make the income practically what he liked. He urged the Committee to wipe the sub-clause out altogether; it was not a sub-clause that did credit to the Government.
In page 3, line 16, to leave out subsection (c)."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
§ Question proposed, "That subsection (c) stand part of the clause."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said his hon. friend imagined every conceivable use for this subsection, except the one for which it was intended, and he should have thought obviously intended. The illustration of an old horse was rather a remote one. He did not think that that horse could be invested in such a way as to make a great income. The illustration of the shop, too, was almost ludicrous. The clause was intended to get at the man who hoarded up his money in an old stocking instead of investing it. A man who did that in preference to investing it, he thought, ought not to come in for an old-age pension. That was a case that had constantly to be dealt with now by boards of guardians. If he could discover that, the pension officer was quite right to say: "You are not the sort of person who should have a pension."
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)
regretted extremely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used that argument. There was not a shadow of proof that a board of guardians had ever refused relief because the man to be relieved had hoarded money.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said they did so after they had granted the relief. But the pension officer was going to refuse a pension 0n that ground. The power was to be exercised, not by elected local bodies, not even by the pension committee, but by the pension officer, who was to be an Imperial officer, not subject to the control of the local authority, but to the control of another Imperial officer. The whole of the investigations into a man's means were to be made by what was somewhat euphemistically called an Imperial officer. He was a revenue officer, and a man whose business it was to get blood out of a stone if possible. He was the man whom the Government was going to charge with the duty of ascertaining whether applicants for pensions had hoarded away sums of money. He doubted very much indeed whether the words of the clause would carry out the intention of the Government. Of course, if they did not, when they came to them, the Government, after the declarations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be compelled to amend them. The pension committee, therefore, would be a sort of fraud, simply existing to carry out the directions of the pension officer. No pension could be granted under subsection (c) unless the pension officer was satisfied the man had not hoarded away some source of income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the boards of guardians, and referred to the case most familiar and most difficult of all. Under the law as it stood, a board of guardians could only relieve a man if he proved to be destitute. There were many cases where a man in his better days had invested his savings in purchasing the house in which he lived. That house was letable and had a rental value. If the board of guardians administered the law as it stood, they ought to call upon that man to get rid of his property before they gave him relief. Some boards did this, but others did not, and the Local Government Board never, so far as he knew, interfered, although they did not carry out the letter of the law. These cases would occur over and over again. Would the Excise officer say to a man: "You have no right to a pension, because you have a cottage which you should rent 689 to somebody else?" If this inquiry were not to be made, the subsection ought not to be put in the Bill. It was perfectly clear that this was on all fours with the law which governed boards of guardians, and which in some cases they carried out. The Government might have other intentions, but that had nothing to do with an Act of Parliament. The pension officer and the pension committee would have to carry out the Act regardless altogether of the intentions of the Government, and if this subsection were in the Act, Excise officers could come down on the man who applied for a pension and who had saved enough money to buy the cottage in which he lived. In hundreds of villages near towns cottages could be let at rents far higher than those paid by the cottagers. Did this subsection mean that the Excise officer was to go to a man who owned a cottage and say: "You charge yourself the local rent,£3 10s. a year, but if you choose to let your cottage to an artisan out of the town, you can get£10 or£15 per year; why do not you do it?" The man had, perhaps, lived there all his life, all his children had been born there, and he wanted to live there till he died, and he had no means besides the cottage. If the subsection stood, and it was interpreted as other similar sections, the Excise officer would be compelled to say: "Until you realise your property and turn it to the best use, you are not eligible." He could not understand why the Government adhered to the subsection. What good was it going to do? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were men who had hoarded money. There were, of course, cases here and there, but they were isolated cases, and they might very well be neglected. Boards of guardians in such cases where they gave relief under the Poor Law were able to recover the cost of the maintenance of the individuals. He hoped the Government, in order to catch these few cases, were not going to impose a duty on the pension officer which, if he carried it out, would result in great hardship upon some of the most deserving. He did not believe they would save money. He regarded the subsection as mischievous and dangerous.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said there were thousands of old couples who had things in their cottages which, if they sold them, would realise£20,£30,£40, or£50. Any collectors would give these sums for them; but owing to their associations the old people would not part with them as long as they lived. Were these things to be capitalised and the interest taken into account before the old people were given their pension? They would find, for instance, an old clock, perhaps a hundred years old, for which collectors would give more and more money, or an old brass warming pan for which collectors in America and England would give£10 People would even give a good deal for old brass candlesticks, which originally cost perhaps 1s. In some cottages there was old china and many other things. A few months ago he was in a cottage in Devonshire, and there were things there which would realise£50 or£60 at least. Were they going, like an auctioneer, to appraise the saleable value of these things, and say to these poor women: "You might invest that for profitable use and if you do not we shall charge you so much per cent, on the capitalised value and reckon that as your income." He thought the Government had better leave that out altogether. He asked them not to inflict this hardship.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that this was a sample of the hypercriticism to which the Bill was subjected. Every conceivable case of possible hardship was first imagined, and then exaggerated a hundredfold. His right hon. friend conceived the case of a pension officer—a kind of Shylock—who went into a poor man's cottage and told him he had to sell a piece of furniture which had come down to him from his great-grandfather.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked the Members for Birmingham kindly to restrain themselves till he had finished. First of all this officer who was responsible to the House went scouring like an ogre through the country, visiting every little hovel and cottage, and said: "Sell out this valuable warming-pan; 691 no pension for you." Would hon. Gentlemen mind looking at the Bill? He was very glad the necessity for that had dawned on Gentleman opposite. This was simply a proposal which was in the most liberal scheme that had ever been devised for old-age pensions. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] Had hon. Members any notion what scheme that was? He was referring to New Zealand. They were cheering something else. In the New Zealand scheme they reckoned capital. The Government did not go as far as that.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the hon. Member really was not relevant in his interruption. Before a man could be excluded under this provision it must be proved that he had got, not a grandfather's clock which he could sell for£10, but at least£850.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman asking why. For the simple reason that his capital must be such as would produce 8s. a week, and all the Amendments put on the paper suggesting that they were going to compel the labourer to sell every stick of his furniture were not fair to the Committee or to the country. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin mean to tell him that the guardians, if they knew a man had£850 with property, which would produce in any reasonable investment£20 16s.——
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that Questions had been put to him by two right hon. Gentlemen, and he thought he was only acting civilly in responding. He had sat down to enable the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell him in what respects he had misrepresented him.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the intervention of the Chair had made it impossible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement was that there must be capital producing the gross income he had mentioned. He denied that, and he denied it still. The income fixed by the Bill might be derivable from several sources. Assuming that a man had a grant of 9s. a week, of which there were thousands of cases, from any particular source, especially from an employer, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the hoarded property would have to be£850? Two shillings a week or less than the estimated rental of a cottage would bring him over the margin.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that now the right hon. Gentleman had shifted his ground. It was not hoarding property at all, but income derived from other sources.
And, it being 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 Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That subsection (c) stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 327; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 152.)697
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Agnew, George William||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Alden, Percy||Armitage, R.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Armstrong, W. C. Heaton|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Kelley, George D.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Barker, John||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)||Erskine, David C.||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Essex, R. W.||Lambert, George|
|Barnard, E. B.||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lamont, Norman|
|Barnes, G. N.||Everett, R. Lacey||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Barran, Roland Hirst||Ferens, T. R.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Beale W P||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Beauchamp, E.||Findlay, Alexander||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bell, Richard||Fullerton, Hugh||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Beliairs, Carlyon||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Bennett E. N.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lupton, Arnold|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Gill, A. H.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Glover, Thomas||Lynch, H. B.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Maclean, Donald|
|Brigg John||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Bright J A||Gulland, John W.||McCallum, John M.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||McCrae, George|
|Brodie, H. C.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hall, Frederick||McMicking, Major G.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Harcourt, Rt. Hn L. (Rossendale||Maddison, Frederick|
|Brunner, Rt. HnSirJ. T (Cheshire||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Massie, J.|
|Byles William Pollard||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Cameron, Robert||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Menzies, Walter|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Harwood, George||Micklem, William|
|Cawley Sir Frederick||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Middlebrook, William|
|Chance, Frederick William||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Haworth, Arthur A.||Mond, A.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Healy, Timothy Michael||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.||Hedges, A. Paget||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Cleland J W||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Clough William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|clynes, J. R.||Henderson, J. M.(Abardeen, W.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Henry, Charles S.||Morse, L. L.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)||Morton Alpheus Cleophas|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S.Pancras, W||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Higham, John Sharp||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Cooper G. J.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Myer, Horatio|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hodge, John||Napier, T. B.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Nichols, George|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hooper, A. G. (Fife, West||Nicholson CharlesN.(Doncast'r)|
|Cotton Sir H. J. S.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Cowan, W. H.||Horniman, Emslie John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Nussey Thomas Willans|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nuttall, Harry|
|Crooks William||Hudson, Walter||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Crossley, William J.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Hyde, Clarendon||Partington, Oswald|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifin)||Idris, T. H. W.||Paulton James Mellor|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs Leek)|
|Davies Timothy (Fulham)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Davies W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jackson, R. S.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thamp'tn)|
|Dewar Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.||Jardine, Sir J.||Philipps, Owen C.(Pembroke)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancras, N.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Pine, Duncan V.|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Duckworth, James||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Shackleton, David James||Walters, John Tudor|
|Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Walton, Joseph|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford E.||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wardle, George J.|
|Radford, G. H.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Waring, Walter|
|Rainy, A. Holland||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Scares, Ernest J.||Wason Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmann'n|
|Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Rees, J. D.||Steadman, W. C.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wedgwood, Josiah. C.|
|Richards, F. (Wolverhampton)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Richardson, A.||Strachey, Sir Edward||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Summerbell, T.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Sutherland, J. E.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Robinson, S,||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Rowlands, J.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thomasson, Franklin||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.>|
|Scaris brick, T. T. L.||Tompkinson, James||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Winfrey, R.|
|Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Toulmin, George||Wodehouse, Lord|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Sears, J. E.||Verney, F. W.|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Vivian, Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Seddon, J.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Seely, Colonel||Walsh, Stephen||Elibank.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Ashley, W. W.||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Moore, William|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||O'Grady, J.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)||Gretton, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Haddock, George B.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hill, Sir Clement||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hills, J. W.||Renton, Leslie|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Houston, Robert Paterson||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hunt, Rowland||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Jowett, F. W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cave, George||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kerry, Earl of||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Keswick, William||Stanier, Beville|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Starkey, John R.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Arthur, Charles||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cross, Alexander||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George||Frederick Banbury and Mr.|
|Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||Younger, George||George D. Faber.|
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively 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 3, line 22, to leave out from the second word 'of,' to the end of line 25, and to insert the words 'a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)
On a point of order, I desire to say that the Amendment which you have put from the Chair is an Amendment of which notice has not been given.
§ MR. BOWLES
again rose to order, but as the Chairman also remained standing the hon. Member could not be heard amid the cries of "Order" and "Sit down."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Mr. Emmott, will you inform the Committee what is the Question which you have just put and which we could not hear? I understand it is not the Amendment as it appears upon the Notice Paper.
The question I have to put is Clause 4, line 22, to leave out from the second "of" to end of line 25, and insert "a married couple living together in the same house the† The form in which the Amendment appeared on the Paper was as follows:—In page 3, line 21, at end, to insert, (2) In calculating the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple.698 means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple." What the Government propose is on the Paper. They put in a new subsection and eliminate subsection 2. In the new subsection which they propose they use several of the initial words of subsection 2 and, therefore the correct form is as I have put it.
§ LORD R. CECIL
On a point of order. The words of the guillotine Resolution are perfectly clear. They are that the only Amendments which can be put are Amendments moved by the Government "of which notice has been given."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
On the point of order, may I call your attention to the words immediately succeeding those which have just been quoted by my noble friend? They are that "but no other Amendments."
The Amendment which I have put is an Amendment of which notice has been given. [Cries of "No" and "Yes."]
§ The Committee divided—
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said: Mr. Emmott, I call your attention to the fact that the doors were locked in the "No" Lobby, while the Members were still being permitted to go into the other Lobby. [Loud cries from the OPPOSITION Benches of "Farce, farce."]
said the doors could not be closed immediately if it was blocked with Members.
As the Tellers were advancing to the Table after the division—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I desire to call your attention to a fact on which I should 699 like to have your ruling, and I ask you if it does not upset the division which has just been taken. When you gave your order for the doors to be shut your order was obeyed for the "No" lobby, but not obeyed with regard to the "Aye" lobby. The result of this was that many Gentlemen who desired to vote "No" were prevented from doing so, while no similar disability was imposed on the Gentlemen who desired to vote "Aye." In these circumstances I would ask you whether it would not be proper that the division should again be called and carried out according to the rules of the House.
So far as the usual orders given from the Chair are concerned they were given in the ordinary
§ way. I understand that a complaint is made by the right hon. Gentleman that the doors of the "Aye" lobby were not closed as quickly as those of the "No" lobby. It is my desire that the attendants should close the doors as quickly as possible, but it was obviously impossible that the doors of the "Aye" lobby could be closed as quickly as the doors of the "No" lobby because of the crowd of Members. What has happened in this case does not invalidate the division. We cannot have it again. [OPPOSITION cries of "It is not a division at all," and "It is a farce."]
§ The Tellers then approached the Table, and the figures were announced:—Ayes, 378; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 153.)703
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Bryce, J. Annan||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Burke, E. Haviland-||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P..|
|Agnew, George William||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Alden, Percy||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Dillon, John|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch||Buxton, Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Allen, Chares P. (Stroud)||Byles, William Pollard||Duckworth, James|
|Armitage, R.||Cameron, Robert||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H'nry||Chance, Frederick William||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall|
|Astbury, John Meir||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Barker, John||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Erskine, David C.|
|Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)||Clancy, John Joseph||Essex, R. W.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cleland, J. W.||Evans, Sir Samuel T.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Clough, William||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Barnes, G. N.||Clynes, J. R.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Ffrench, Peter|
|Beale, W. P.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Beauchamp, E.||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Fndlay, Alexander|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cooper, G. J.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Bell, Richard||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Fuller, John Michaael F.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Bennett, E. N.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cowan, W. H.||Gill, A. H.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Romf'rd||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) j||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Crean, Eugene||Glover, Thomas|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Black, Arthur W.||Crooks, William||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Boland, John||Crosfield, A. H.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Crossley, William J.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Cullinan. J.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Brigg, John||Dalziel, James Henry||Gulland, John W.|
|Bright, J. A.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius|
|Brodie, H. C.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hall, Frederick|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Devlin, Joseph||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale|
|Brunner, Rt. HnSirJ.T(Cheshire||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd.)||McKillop, W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||McLaren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)||McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Rees, J. D.|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||McMicking, Major G.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Maddison, Frederick||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Mallet, Charles E.||Richardson, A.|
|Harwood, George||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Massie, J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Masterman, C. F. G.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Meagher, Michael||Robinson, S.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen'sCo.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Menzies, Walter||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Middlebrook, William||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Mond, A.||Rowlands, J.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Montague, Hon. E. S.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Hodge, John||Montgomery, H. G.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Hogan, Michael||Mooney, J. J.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Hooper, A. G.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Morrell, Philip||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Morse, L. L.||Sears, J. E.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Muldoon, John||Seddon, J.|
|Hudson, Walter||Murnaghan, George||Seely, Colonel|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Shackleton, David James|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick B|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Myer, Horatio||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Jackson, R. S.||Napier, T. B.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Nicholls, George||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||Nolan, Joseph||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Norman, Sir Henry||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stanley, Nn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Joyce, Michael||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Steadman, W. C.|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Nuttall, Harry||Stewart, Halley (Grennock)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Kelley, George D.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O'Doherty, Philip||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Lambert, George||O'Dowd, John||Summerbell, T.|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Grady, J.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Parker, James (Halifax)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Partington, Oswald||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Paulton, James Mellor||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Pirie, Duncan V.||Tomkinson, James|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Pollard, Dr.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Toulmin, George|
|Lynch, H. B.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Vivian, Henry|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Maclean, Donald||Radford, G. H.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Macpherson, J. T||Rainy, A. Rolland||Walters, John Tudor|
|Macveagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Walton, Joseph|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Raphael- Herbert H||Walton, Joseph|
|McCallum, John M.||Rea, Russe11 (Gloucester)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|McCrae, George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Wardle, George J.|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Reddy, M.||Waring, Walter|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Whitehead, Rowland||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N)|
|Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Wiles, Thomas||Winfrey, R.|
|Watt, Henry A.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||Wodehouse, Lord|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Weir, James Galloway||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|White, Sir George (Norfolk)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|White, J. D. (Dum bartonshire)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)||Elibank.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Nicholson, Wm, G.(Petersfield)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Helmsley, Viscount||Stanier, Beville|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hill, Sir Clement||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hunt, Rowland||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Younger, George|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc.||Keswick, William|
|Cross, Alexander||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Vis|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||count Valentia and Mr.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Foster|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)|
In page 3, line 28, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 381; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 154.)707
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Bennett, E. N.||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Berridge, T. H. D.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Agnew, George William||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cleland, J. W.|
|Alden, Percy||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Clough, William|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Black, Arthur W.||Clynes, J. R.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Boland, John||Cobbold, Felix Thornley|
|Armitage, R.||Bowerman, C. W.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Bramsdon, T. A.||Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brigg, John||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bright, J. A.||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Astbury, John Meir||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Cooper, G. J.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Brodie, H. C.||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Brooke, Stopford||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Barker, John||Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Cory, Sir Clifford John|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Brunner, Rt.HnSirJ.T (Cheshire||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bryce, J. Annan||Cowan, W. H.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Burke, E. Haviland-||Crean, Eugene|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Cremer, Sir William Randal|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Crooks, William|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Crosfield, A. H.|
|Beale, W. P.||Byles, William Pollard||Crossley, William J.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cameron, Robert||Cullinan, J.|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Bell, Richard||Chance, Frederick William||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Morse, L. L.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.||Hudson, Walter||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Muldoon, John|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N||Hyde, Clarendon||Murnaghan, George|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Idris, T. H. W.||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Dillon, John||Illingworth, Percy H.||Murray, Capt. HnA. C. (Kincard,|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Duckworth, James||Jackson, R. S.||Myer, Horatio|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jardine, Sir J.||Napier, T. B.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Nicholls, George|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Erskine, David C.||Jowett, F. W.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Essex, R. W.||Joyce, Michael||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Kekewich, Sir George||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Kelley, George D.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Laidlaw, Robert||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lambert, George||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lamont, Norman||O'Grady, J.|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Partington, Oswald|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Lehmann, R. C.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Gill, A. H.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Lewis, John Herbert||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Glover, Thomas||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke,|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Lupton, Arnold||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lynch, H. B.||Pollard, Dr.|
|Gulland, John W.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Maclean, Donald||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Hall, Frederick||Macpherson, J. T.||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Radford, G. H.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)||Rainy, A. Holland|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||M'Callum, John M.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Crae, George||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro|
|Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn'ss-sh||M'Killop, W.||Reddy, M.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Harwood, George||M'Micking, Major G.||Rees, J. D.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Maddison, Frederick||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mallet, Charles E.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Richardson, A.|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Massie, J.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.||Meagher, Michael||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Henry, Charles S.||Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen'sCo||Robinson, S.|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Menzies, Walter||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Middlebrook, William||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Molteno, Percy Alport||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Mond, A.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Hodge, John||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Rowlands, J.|
|Hogan, Michael||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Montgomery. H. G.||Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)|
|Hooper, A. G.||Mooney, J. J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Morrell, Philip||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Sears, J. E.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Seddon, J.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Seely, Colonel||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Shackleton, David James||Thomasson, Franklin||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Thorne, William (West Ham)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Tomkinson, James||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Toulmin, George||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Verney, F. W.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Vivian, Henry||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Walsh, Stephen||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Steadman, W. C.||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Walton, Joseph||Winfrey, R.|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Wodehouse, Lord|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Wardle, George J.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Waring, Walter|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E(Clackmannan||Joseph Pease and Master|
|Summerbell, T.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||of Elibank.|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Moore, William|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Faber, George Denison (York)||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Gretton, John||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Walter Edward||Renton, Leslie|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Haddock, George B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Helmsley, Viscount||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hill, Sir Clement||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hills, J. W.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Stanier, Beville|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Starkey, John R.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hint, Rowland||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kerry, Earl of||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cave, George||Keswick, William||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A. R.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset. W.)|
|Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Rt, Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Arthur, Charles||Younger, George|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Cross, Alexander||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Viscount Valentia and Mr.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Forster.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ Clause 5:—
In page 3, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'shall be deemed to accrue from day to day, and.'
In page 3, lines 33, after the word "weekly,' to insert the words 'in advance.'
In page 4, lines 1, to leave out subsection 3,"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6, agreed to.
§ 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.
§ MR. BOWLES
said he desired to ask Mr. Speaker s ruling for the guidance of the House on the following matter. In the Resolution passed by the House on 17th June, in regard to the Old-Age Pensions Bill, it was provided—That Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of these proceedings, put forthwith the question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the question of any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendment.He desired to ask whether, under that provision, it was open to the Chair to put to the Committee or to the House an Amendment in any form other than that which has been placed on the Paper by the Government.
§ MR. SPEAKER
When the question arises I shall be very glad to give my decision upon it. [OPPOSITION cries of "It has arisen."] If the question has arisen, then it is one for the Chairman of Committees to decide.