Commons Sitting of 5 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Southampton Harbour Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Chester Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third reading deferred till Friday.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:
Northampton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to appropriate certain lands for the purposes of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to make provision with respect to certain Crown lands forming part of or adjacent to St. James's Park.—[National Gallery and St. James's Park Bill [Lords.]

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing the names, addresses, and occupations or descriptions of the persons appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since the
1108
preparation of the last Return, giving for each county and borough a summary of religions of those so appointed, a summary of religions of all now holding the Commission of the Peace in each county and borough, and the numbers of each religious denomination in the different counties and boroughs according to the last Census (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1910)."— [Mr. Mac Veagh.]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "setting forth the name, age, length of service, and official position of all salaried officials in the various Government Departments in Ireland who have been appointed (a) by nomination without examination; (b) by nomination with limited competition; (c) by nomination with qualifying examination (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 8, of Session 1907)."—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland on the l7th day of July, 1911, showing their names, ages when appointed, former vocation, districts where they now exercise jurisdiction, salaries on appointment and at present, and the dates of appointment (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 149, of Session 1909.)"—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Arrest of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that it was over three months since Miss Malecka was arrested by the Russian authorities, and that she has not up to the present been brought to trial; and if he would bring pressure to bear upon the Russian Government so that her trial may not be further delayed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am aware of the facts alluded to. The hon. Member will have seen from the replies returned to previous questions on the subject that all the steps which His

  1109
  Majesty's Government were entitled to take have been taken to expedite Miss Malecka's trial, and that the Russian Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has promised to do his best to ensure that this shall be done.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the Foreign Office endeavoured to ascertain particulars of the charges against this lady, that is to say, when, with whom and how she is alleged to have conspired?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The British Consul at Warsaw, as has already been stated, has seen the lady.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has my right hon. Friend obtained a report from the British Consul at Warsaw yet on these points?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not on these particular points.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will he endeavour to get that information?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If he is aware of it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How long has this lady been kept in prison without trial?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Three months.

  Persia (Bunder Abbas-Kerman Route).
  Colonel YATEasked what is the present condition of the Bunder Abbas-Kerman trade route in Persia; whether any caravans on the route have been recently robbed; if so, whether compensation has been obtained by the owners from the Persian Government; and what steps have been taken for the safeguarding of the route?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A telegraphic report from His Majesty's Minister at Tehran, dated 28th May, stated that caravans were passing along the Bunder-Abbas-Kerman road, though its safety was doubtful. No later report regarding this road has been received, which indicates that no robberies have occurred on it. The latest robbery reported in which British interests were concerned took place in April. For this compensation has been demanded, but has not yet been paid.

  Argentine (Embargo on British Live Stock).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether representations have been made to the Argentine Government with the object of removing the embargo placed upon the importation of British livestock
  1110
  in consequence of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey in March last, which was immediately stamped out by prompt action on the part of the Board of Agriculture, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The decision of the Argentine Government has not yet been made known.

  Jerusalem (Treasure).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked whether, in consequence of the action of certain British subjects who have been seeking for treasure in Jerusalem, the Sheikh of the Harm and one or more others have been imprisoned, and, if so, with what crime are they charged; whether the British Consul at Jerusalem has made any report upon what has occurred; and, if so, whether it can be presented to Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The last reports which I have received show that a Commission was appointed by the Turkish Government to inquire into the circumstances connected with excavations made by certain British subjects at the Mosque of Omar. The Commission submitted a report to the Turkish Government, in consequence of which the Governor of Jerusalem was recalled, the Commandant of Gendarmerie handed over to the Military Council, and others sent for trial to Beyrout. The matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government can properly intervene, as it is a question of internal administration.

  Morocco.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has addressed a remonstrance to the German Government on their recent action in Morocco?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer the Noble Lord to the answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.

  Protected and Unprotected Cruisers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the official distinction between protected and unprotected cruisers as applied both to British and Foreign ships?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Protected cruisers are those in which a substantial amount of

  1111
  weight is devoted to protective purposes, while in unprotected cruisers there is no protective material other than, perhaps, a small conning tower or some gun shields.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the amount of this protective armament is? Their must be some rule laid down.
  Mr. McKENNA: No. It varies very much.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the same rule apply in classifying the ships to British as to foreign ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. In classifying the ships the same rule applies, but the amount of protective armour varies.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom and Germany each possess twenty-four protected and unprotected cruisers not launched more than twelve years, he will consider the advisability of proposing the immediate construction of further vessels of these classes?
  Mr. McKENNA: All material considerations were taken into account in framing the programme of shipbuilding for the year, and the facts stated by the hon. Member disclose no ground for increasing the programme. He has omitted to take into account the great preponderance of British cruisers launched more than twelve years ago, but still of considerable fighting value.
  Mr. ASHLEY: In view of the fact that our cruisers have infinitely greater duties to perform, ought not we to have more cruisers?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I have stated in my answer that all the considerations present to the mind of the hon. Gentleman were equally present to the mind of the Admiralty Board when drawing up their programme.

  Torpedo-Boat Destroyers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many torpedo-boat destroyers were launched for the British and German fleets, respectively, in the seven years from 1894 to 1900, inclusive, and how many in the seven years from 1904 to 1910, inclusive?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures for the British fleet are:—Launched from 1894 to 1900 inclusive, 106; launched from 1904 to 1910 inclusive, 68. The latter figure does
  1112
  not include the two destroyers, "Parramatta" and "Yarra," launched in 1910, and building for the Australian Commonwealth, nor does it include the thirty-six torpedo-boats of the class which was originally called Coastal destroyers. The number of destroyers launched for the German fleet in the calendar years 1894 to 1900 inclusive, was eleven, and from 1904 to 1910 inclusive, sixty-seven, excluding four which have been sold to Turkey.

  Effective List (Royal Navy).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked what ships it was proposed to remove from the effective list during the current financial year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The names of the ships will be published in due course, but it would be premature to make any statement now.

  Far Eastern Squadron.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether it is intended to augment the armoured strength of the Far Eastern Squadron during the present year, and, if so, what ships it is proposed to send to that station?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to make statements in advance as to intended changes in the disposition of ships.

  Naval Airship No. 1.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty can now name a date when Naval Airship No. 1 is to commence her trials by flight?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not possible to name a date at present, but it is hoped to commence them in the course of this month.

  Destroyers (Designed Speed).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked what are the designed speeds of the destroyers laid down in this country and in Germany under the past three programmes?
  Mr. McKENNA: The designed speeds of the destroyers for the British Navy referred to are as follows:—Programme 1908-9, "Beagle" class, 27 knots; 1909-10, "Acorn" class, 27 knots; 1910-11, new "Acorn" class, Admiralty design, 27 knots; special, "Archer" and "Attack," 28 knots; special, "Acheron" and "Ariel," 29 knots; special, "Badger" and "Beaver," 30 knots; and special "Fire-drake," "Lurcher," and "Oak," 32 knots. With regard to the destroyers laid down in

  1113
  Germany the designed speeds are to be found in "Nauticus" for 1911. We have no official information concerning them.

  Submarine Vessels (E Type).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked when it is expected the first submarine vessels of the E type will be completed for service; whether they will carry guns; and are they to be fitted with a system of wireless telegraphy?
  Mr. McKENNA: The first vessels of the E type will probably be ready about the middle of next year. As to the second and third parts of the question, it is not in the public interest to furnish such information as requested for vessels under construction.

  Osborne Naval College (Swimming Bath).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the construction of a swimming bath for the cadets at Osborne Naval College has as yet been undertaken?
  Mr. McKENNA: Provision is made in Navy Estimates, Vote 10, for the current year, for this work. The designs are in course of preparation, and the work has not yet been commenced.

  Bight of Capture Convention in maritime War, 1909.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the Board of Admiralty were consulted, and whether they approved before ratification, of the Convention on Restriction 6n Right of Capture in Maritime War, ratified at The Hague on the 27th November, 1909, which convention states that official correspondence found on board an enemy ship is inviolable and must be forwarded with the least possible delay?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Armed Foreign Liners.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has any official information showing that the Norddeutscher Lloyd and Hamburg America lines have carried guns and ammunition since 1900 and also trained gunners; that Austria-Hungary has now adopted a like plan; and that Italy has required all large vessels of the principal lines to carry permanently a war armament, consisting of one 4.7-inch gun and six 3-inch 12-pounder guns for each ship; and, if so, whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no official information on the subject.

  Proportion of Cruisers to Battleships.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what, in the opinion of the Admiralty, should be the numerical proportion of cruisers to battleships in a properly constituted fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends on the strength and position of the enemy, and the object of the war.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: The right hon. Gentleman misapprehends my question. I am speaking of battleships, and therefore of battle fleets. In regard to the constitution of battleships, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the great authority Nelson that the proportion should be three cruisers to one battleship, or, as was stated in the House the other day, five cruisers to two battleships?
  Mr. McKENNA: When such great authorities as Lord Nelson and the Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), disagree on the subject, I should prefer not to express an opinion.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: If the right hon. Gentleman has a standard, can he state it?
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me notice of that question.

  Sale of Advowsons.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been called to the case of the two advowsons of St. Mary, Prestwich, and St. Mary, Radcliffe, which eleven years ago were returned as of no value for Death Duties, and are now being sold for £14,000; whether he will consider the propriety of taxing the unearned increment in the value of advowsons; and whether he will propose taxation on these lines in his next Budget?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): As regards the first part of the question, the hon. Member is apparently under a misapprehension. Advowsons are not chargeable with Death Duties unless and until sold, whatever their value may be. Any claims for duty which may have arisen by reason of the present sales will be duly followed. In reply to the second and third parts, I am not prepared to give any undertaking as to future Budget proposals.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the advis-

  1115
  ability at the earliest opportunity of raising the Stamp Duties payable on the transfer by sale of advowsons to such a level as to penalise those engaging in this traffic?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not prepared to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to accept the suggestion as to the available means of raising taxation such as we offer?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not until the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands in need of money. At the present moment he is not, fortunately.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SANATORIA.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the figures in column 5 (Sanatoria) of Table X, page 27, of the Actuaries' Report on the National Insurance Bill include only the 1d. referred to in Clause 15, Subsection (2) (6), of the Bill; and whether two-ninths (men) and one-fourth (women) of the Is. 3d. referred to in Clause 15, Sub-section (2) (a), is included in the figures in the other columns of that table, or whether the whole of the said 1s. 3d. is to be paid out of contributions in respect of insured persons and not as two-ninths (men) and one-fourth (women) out of moneys provided by Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figures in the column headed "Sanatoria" of Table X include only the penny referred to in Clause 15 (2) (b). The annual sum of 1s. 3d. per head provided for Sanatorium benefit includes the usual proportion from the Exchequer under Clause 4, and the sums payable on this account are included in the other columns of Table X.

    RESTRICTIONS OR BENEFITS (CLAUSE 8).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what would be the estimated additional cost if the restrictions or benefits contained in Sub-section (7) of Clause 8 of the National Insurance Bill were respectively removed altogether or removed as regards insured persons who were members on 4th May, 1911, of a society qualified to become an approved society; and, if it is not possible to answer the latter part of the question as on the date mentioned, then as on any convenient date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member's suggestion would not have the effect of increasing the cost, but of increasing the deficiency to be extinguished under Clause 8 (8) by the amount of the reserve values to be credited under Clause 40 in respect of all the persons who could become insured in approved societies in consequence of the withdrawal of the restrictions to which he refers. The period of fifteen and a-half years after which the additional benefits could be given would be thereby very materially lengthened and the younger insured persons would have to bear in the form of a postponement of these additional benefits the cost of insuring the persons who are unable to pay any substantial number of contributions.

    STATE CONTRIBUTION (COST or ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the State's contribution to benefits and the cost, of administration thereof under the National Insurance Bill is equivalent to a contribution of 2d. a week; and, if not, whether its equivalent is as follows: for 1912–13 less than ¾d., for 1917–28 about l½d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The State contribution to the National Health Insurance including the contribution after the increase of benefits which will become possible under Clause 8 (8) on the extinction of the initial deficit, is in the long run the equivalent of 2d., but as the contribution takes the form of a proportion of the benefits the contribution in the early years will always be less than 2d.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in answer to the question what the amount of the equivalent contribution will be in 1912–13 and 1917–28?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member's calculations in the question, are substantially correct in both cases.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what the estimated cost per annum would be of granting to all sailors, marines, and soldiers during their service the following benefits, stating the cost of each separately, and giving the numbers of men in each class for which the estimate is made, namely, sickness benefit equivalent to hospital stoppage, when hospital stoppage is made, and sanatorium and maternity benefits as if they were members of an approved society under the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A report dealing with the position of soldiers and sailors is in preparation, but it will not cover the precise points to which the hon. Member refers. In regard to them, I will remind him of the invitation which I gave yesterday to hon. Members who desire to obtain further actuarial information to confer with me privately on the subject.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give some report as to the actuarial information asked for in this question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is an additional suggestion which the hon. Member is making. It may be found that the reply given by the actuaries actually covers what is asked for.
    Mr. WARINGwas understood to ask whether the information could not be obtained from the actuaries.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The actuaries, I know, were very much pressed this morning in dealing with other questions and suggestions, but I think the information will be ready long before this question is reached.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does not the data already exist, as supplied by the War Office and the Admiralty, and can we not have it now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The data is ready, but not in the form in which the questions ask for it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the information be printed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought it would have been very much better if I could get a number of questions which the House as a whole would like an answer upon. Then I could have published the answers in the form of a supplement to the actuarial report. I really think it would be very much better for the House of Commons itself to get the information in that kind of way rather than get it in a scrappy and sporadic manner like this by question and answer. I can only submit that suggestion. If that were agreed to then I would be able to print a supplementary report.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer be relieved from giving the information asked for?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord is quite mistaken. Certainly I have
    1118
    shown no disposition to be relieved; and I again throw myself upon the House as a whole. I have given every possible information, and not only that, but, as the Noble Lord knows, I have invited questions outside the House as well as inside. I have gone out of my way to meet experts like those connected with friendly societies, who have sat for cross-examination, in regard to these matters for hours.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether it is proposed, under Clause 36 (4) of the National Insurance Bill, that a soldier or sailor whoso health has broken down during service is to receive sick benefit at a lower rate than that given to a man whose health has not suffered?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The sickness benefit under Clause 36 (4) is at a lower rate than for soldiers arid sailors who have good enough health to be able to join societies, or who before discharge were already members of societies. Perhaps I should point out that the Clause will apply to a class of persons for whom disablement benefit is likely to be much, more important than sickness benefit, and that full disablement benefit of 5s. a week is secured to them; moreover, temporary sickness up to the time of discharge is already provided for at the expense of the State.

    MEDICAL AND SANATORIUM TREATMENT (COST).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how the respective sums of 4s. 8d. and 4a. 6d. in Clause 38 have been arrived at; whether the only benefits covered by these amounts are medical aid and sanatorium treatment; and how the amounts in question are to be apportioned in order to provide for the benefits named and the cost of administration thereof?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is estimated that when the contribution under Clause 15 to sanatorium benefit has been paid over, the balance of the contributions under Clause 38 will be sufficient to cover the comparatively trifling expenditure on benefits in respect of contributors under the age of sixteen.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the case that the cost is 3s. per head in the case of persons under sixteen?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I prefer that the hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures as to the 4s. 8d. and the 4s. 6d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; they are as follows:—

    —

    Boys.

    Two-ninths from the State.

    Total.

    Girls.

    One-fourth from the State.

    Total.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Contributions

    4

    8

    1

    4

    6

    0

    4

    6

    1

    6

    6

    0

    Sanatorium

    0

    11⅔

    0

    3⅓

    1

    3

    0

    11¼

    0

    3¾

    1

    3

    Balance

    3

    8⅓

    1

    0⅔

    4

    9

    3

    6¾

    1

    2¼

    4

    9

    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Would it not be a sensible course to "unstar" these questions?

    REDUCTIONS IN BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any experimental calculations have been made by the Government actuaries to show the possible reductions of benefit in various circumstances under Section 1, Sub-section (b), paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5, of Clause 31; and, if so, whether the results of such calculations can be published for the information of the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No such calculations have been made, and I fear that the variety of possible circumstances is such that it would not be very profitable to undertake them.

    POSITION OF HELPERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked who is to be considered the employer, for the purposes of the National Insurance Bill, when workmen engage young persons as helpers, as is common in some trades?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the j hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on Monday.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pointer) did not put his question on Monday, and there were many who wanted to hear the answer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that is the case I will read it now:—
    "In such a case, by paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule, the workman's employer could be treated, under appropriate regulations, as the employer of the helper."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1911, col. 934.]

    IRISH CASES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in the case of an Irish occupying tenant or owner of a holding worth more than £20 per annum and who is aided by the labour of
    any child or young person under sixteen to whom no wages are paid, he can state the immediate benefits that such children or young people will obtain in respect of the 7d. or 6d. to be paid by their employer, seeing that they already enjoy a free medical service; and whether, in the case of those subsequently emigrating on reaching adolescence, any sum that stands to their credit will be retained for the benefit of Irish contributors and approved members, or will it be pooled in the national fund to be administered from the central office in London?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Except so far as medical attendance and sanatorium benefit are concerned the Bill does not aim at providing immediate benefits for persons under sixteen. To exempt them from contributions would, of course, give a preference to the employment of child-labour, a preference which public sentiment would certainly not approve. It should be remembered that their contributions, so far as not required for immediate benefits, will be accumulated towards the extinction of the initial deficit; and I may point out that the youngest contributors will ultimately profit most by the increased benefits that can be given when the deficit is extinguished. The disposal of the transfer values paid over on the emigration of a contributor is to be prescribed by regulations, and it would be within the power of the Insurance Commissioners to take either of the courses indicated in the latter portion of the question.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Can we see the regulations before the Bill goes through?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter I am quite willing to consider. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise it at the appropriate moment.

    OFFICIALS.
    Mr. ASTORasked how many officers, inspectors, referees, and servants it is estimated will be required under Clause 41 of the National Insurance Bill during the first year that the Act is put in operation, and what sum it is estimated will be required for their salaries?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the sum required for salaries, I will refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division yesterday. The estimate of £75,000 to £100,000 I then gave is necessarily at the present state very conjectural, and I do not think anything would be gained by making a detailed estimate of numbers.

    POSITION OF WIDOWS.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether, under the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, a woman who, before marriage, was a member of an approved society, will be subject to rejection by the society on the ground of ill-health when, on her husband's death, she again becomes an employed person?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A society would no more reject a woman in that position than any other person who, after being a member for a series of years imposes a liability on the funds of the society for disablement benefit.

    St. Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he has considered the pledge given to the House that the St. Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill shall be so amended that the advowson of St. Mary, Prestwich, shall remain in the hands of a trust on which the lay element shall have a majority; and whether the Bill will now be withdrawn, seeing that any such amendment is precluded by the title of the Bill, which provides for the transfer of the advowson to the See of Manchester?
    Mr. CHARLES N. NICHOLSON: Amendments will be proposed when the Bill comes before the Committee by which provision will be made for vesting the advowson of the Rectory of St. Mary, Prestwich, in a body of trustees answering the description given by the hon. Member, and it will be for the authorities of the House to decided whether the Standing Orders have in any way been violated by such an amendment.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who usually presides at the meetings and who is the chairman of the Estates Committee; what are the names of the Commissioners who receive salaries and what is the amount of each; how many of the Commissioners are Bishops; and in what manner are the laymen elected or appointed?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: The Archbishop of Canterbury is by statute chairman of every general meeting at which he is present and in fact he usually presides. The First Church Estates Commissioner is by statute chairman of the Estates Committee. Sir Lewis Dibdin is First Church Estates Commissioner, salary £1,200 per annum. Mr. Stuart-Wortley is the other paid Church Estates Commissioner, salary £1,000 per annum: the Episcopal Members of the Board number thirty-six; the laymen consist of five Ministers, four Judges, three Church Estates Commissioners (the first and second appointed by the Crown, the other by the Archbishop of Canterbury) and nine other gentlemen, of whom seven are appointed by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are the Ministers referred to Ministers of the Crown, and, if so, do they ever attend these meetings?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: They are attended by some of them. They do not always attend.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do they ever attend?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: Yes.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are they Ministers of the Crown?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: Some of them are Ministers of the Crown.
    Mr. BOOTHrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to put a further question he should give notice.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether the Mr. Stuart-Wortley to whom the hon. Member has referred as drawing a large salary is the same Mr. Stuart-Wortley who is a Member of this House?
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Yes; that is so.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

    Education (School and Continuation Class Attendance) Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has formed an estimate of the increased accommodation in elementary schools that will be necessary if the Education (School and Continuation Class Attendance) Bill passes into law; whether it will add to the expenditure of education authorities in any special districts, or in any large degree; and whether he has received any representations from local authorities in connection with these matters?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The effect of the Bill as regards the need for increased accommodation will be governed to a great extent by the action taken under it by the local education authorities, which may take various forms. No reliable estimates can be framed until the intentions of the various authorities have been made known. Whatever action the authorities take the financial effect of the Bill will vary in their respective areas in relation to the prevailing educational and industrial conditions. In some areas increased expenditure would certainly be involved. It is not practicable to discuss the matter in detail within the limits of a reply to a question in this House. Four local education authorities have made representations to the Board on the subject of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether those local authorities that have made communications are large and representative ones, or only small ones?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will give me notice of the question I will give him the names, and he can judge for himself.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to be put down for Second Reading?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement as to business, as the hon. Member knows.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether the Bill is to be pressed forward this Session?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give any statement as regards business. As he knows, the business of the Session is very much congested.

    Illegal Trawling (Barra Coast).
    Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Lord Advocate on how many occasions a Fishery Board cruiser has visited the coast of Barra between 1st November, 1910, and 1st April, 1911; and whether, in view of the injury to the line fishing industry on this coast through illegal trawling, he will give instructions for the coast to be carefully watched, especially between the months of October and April, during which period illegal trawling is in almost daily operation.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Fishery cruisers have visited the Barra coast on thirteen occasions within the period referred to by the honourable Baronet. The stretch of coast in question receives its full share of supervision, and any complaints of illegal trawling, of which only one has been received by the Fishery Board since the 1st November last will be duly investigated.

    Scottish Teachers' Superannuation.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the teachers' superannuation scheme has been postponed because of the interposition of another beneficent scheme, not specially applicable to Scotland and excluding teachers from is scope, he will consider the advisability of inserting such a date in Clause 4 of the draft scheme dealing with the date of commencement as would protect Scottish teachers from the effect, that postponement would otherwise entail and secure to them the full advantage that the Act of 1908 entitled them to expect?
    Mr. URE: The matter will be duly considered should occasion for such action, arise.

    New Postage Stamps.
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether the new issue of penny and halfpenny stamps was submitted to any artists of repute before the design was approved; if so, who were the artists who approved this design; and whether he will consult the same or other artists in any further issues of new stamps; and (2) whether he has seen and considered the postage stamps now in use in France and Bavaria, which are in design and quality admitted to be superior to those of most other countries, especially to those now being issued in this country; and whether he will, so soon as may be, substitute for the present issue

    1125
    of penny and halfpenny stamps an issue at once more artistic and worthy of the nation?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Several artists of repute, selected after consultation with high authorities, were asked to submit, in competition, designs for the new issue of postage stamps. None of the designs sent in were, however, considered suitable for the Id. and ½d. stamps. Mr. Bertram Mackennal was then commissioned to produce designs for the frames of the stamps, which, after certain modifications to render them suitable for engraving, were considered satisfactory and were adopted. Dies and plates were produced by the Royal Mint, and were passed by the technical officers of the Board of Inland Revenue. The prints from the plates fell short of the standard anticipated from the proofs of the dies submitted by the Royal Mint. Allowance must be made, as I have suggested in answer to a previous question, for a firm newly taking up work of this kind, especially as they were working at high pressure in order to produce the stamps by Coronation Day. I am in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue, who are by Statute the authority controlling the printing and supply of stamps. Some improvement has already been made in the printing, and I believe that it will be found possible to arrive at a considerable further improvement in the appearance of stamps of the designs already issued, and to avoid similar defects in those yet to be issued, so that the saving of £40,000 a year which has been effected in the cost of printing the stamps shall not be gained at the expense of inferiority in their appearance. I would add that the process of surface printing employed in the production of these stamps is the same as that used in all the great countries of Europe for all postage stamps except in some cases for stamps of high denominations. The alternative process of recess printing, while allowing a better appearance, is not only five or six times as costly, but lends itself to the fraudulent use of cancelled stamps, and was abandoned many years ago in this country for that reason. I do not think any useful analogy can be drawn between the printing of the postage stamps of Bavaria and of those of this country, as the output of Bavarian stamps is, I am informed, comparatively small. Nor can a comparison he usefully made with the French stamps, as they contain no portrait, and I feel sure that the country would strongly dis-
    1126
    approve any proposal to omit from our postage stamps the effigy of the Sovereign.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it intended to go on manufacturing stamps at Somerset House in addition to the manufacture by the contractors?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that Somerset House will manufacture sixpenny stamps, which are largely used for revenue purposes.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that Somerset House have already manufactured penny stamps to the face value of £11,000, and that these have to be withdrawn?
    Mr. HERBERT 'SAMUEL: I do not think that that is the fact.
    Lord BALCARRES: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the designs of the penny and halfpenny stamps were now being revised?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.

    Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing work and importance of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, he would consider the advisability of placing the Board upon a level with other Government Departments of the first importance in respect of salaries?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As at present advised I see no sufficient reason for the change proposed.

    Declaration of London.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether the ratification of the Declaration of London would be delayed until the Naval Prize Bill, without which the convention establishing the international Prize Court could not be carried into effect, had been passed by both Houses of Parliament; and whether it was intended to ratify the Declaration of London even if the Naval Prize Bill did not become law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If and when the contingency referred to in the concluding sentence of the question arises His Majesty's Government will consider what action it will be in the public interest to take.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything further.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at all events that the Government will not ratify the Declaration until the Bill had been read a third time in the House of Commons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the question on the Paper, but undoubtedly that will be the case.

    Great Britain and Ireland (Financial Relations).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister if the Actuarial Committee appointed by the Cabinet to report on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland had been taking the evidence of witnesses from Ireland; and, if so, by whom and on what principle the witnesses had been selected for examination, and would the names of the witnesses and reports of their evidence be communicated to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the evidence of some witnesses from Ireland has already been taken, and it is proposed to take further Irish evidence. So far, the selection of persons to be asked to give evidence has been left to the Committee itself, whose sole object has been the gaining of information from persons most likely to have it in their possession. Anyone who wishes to give evidence can suggest himself to the Secretary. Having regard to the nature of the inquiry, already frequently explained, there seems no reason for publishing the reports of the evidence; but the names of the witnesses, when the list is complete, can be given if asked for.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is this the Committee which the Chief Secretary declared would have to decide whether Home Rule would be a "tight fit" financially?
    The PRIME MINISTER: He said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Then the newspapers have treated him very badly. Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) had publicly declared that he will hold himself free to reject the findings of this Committee, and, under the circumstances, is it reasonable that the financial destinies of the country should be entrusted to a Committee which no section of the Irish
    1128
    representatives acknowledge to be responsible and whose proceedings are being conducted entirely in the dark?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is a great deal of argumentative matter in the question. The hon. Member has completely misconceived the object of the Committee. It is a body formed to procure information for the guidance of the Government, and it has no power to decide-any question at all.

    Mr. Justice Grantham.
    Mr. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been directed to reflections cast by Mr. Justice Grantham in a speech at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 28th ultimo on Ministers of the Crown; and whether the Government proposed to take any, and, if so, what, action in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called, otherwise than by this question, to the speech referred to. I do not propose to take any notice of it.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it not worth notice?

    Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill.
    Viscount WOLMERasked when the Government intended to proceed with the Committee stage of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to fix a date for the Committee stage of this Bill.

    Bexhill Post Office (Status).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increasing importance and growing population of Bexhill and the volume of postal work now passing through the post office of that town, he would consider the advisability of promoting the Bexhill office to the status of a head office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have recently reviewed the question of the status of the Bexhill post office in the light of arguments advanced by a deputation on the subject. In view, however, of the facts that Bexhill possesses exactly the same postal facilities as it would possess if the office were a head office, and that there are serious administrative objections to making it a head office, I have found myself unable to sanction any alteration in the present arrangements.

    Registered Letter (Alleged Wrongful Delivery).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been drawn to the delivery, on 28th March, to a wrong address of a registered letter addressed Messrs. C. Clarke and Company, High Street, Chasetown; whether he was aware that this letter contained a formal notice abandoning a county court action brought against them, and that owing to their not receiving the same Messrs. Clarke attended at the court, and on the non-appearance of plaintiffs, who had sent the letter, were awarded costs amounting to £2 11s. l0d.; and, seeing that the non-receipt of such registered letter was entirely owing to the carelessness of his own officials, whether he would provide for the parties who had been mulcted in damages as a consequence being reimbursed from the public funds?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This letter was duly taken to the right address, but no one's attention could be gained there. It was then handed to a tradesman next door, understood to be a brother of the addressees. It ought to have been taken back to the Chasetown Office, and sent out again at the next delivery, if not called for meanwhile. I am sorry the rule was not adhered to, though it was broken in order to meet what was thought to be the convenience of both senders and addressees. I am unable to accept liability for the costs which were awarded against the senders.
    Mr. NEWMAN: What advantage does an individual get for registering a letter which does not contain money or valuables?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Security in transmission.
    Mr. NEWMAN: But in this case he the not get security in transmission.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The letter was delivered to the correct address, but no one was there to receive it.

    Telephone Transfer Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether there were any, and, if so, how many original members of the pension fund of the National Telephone Company who would not be placed on transfer upon pensionable classes, and what would be their position?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are in the service of the National Telephone Company officers on the pension fund who, if employed in the Civil Service on similar duties, would, under the ordinary regulations, rank as un established officers, and consequently would not be entitled to pensions. I am unable to say exactly what the number is, but it is not large. Members of the pension fund of the company who are not placed upon a pensionable class will receive an addition to their salary of not less than the total annual contribution at the time of the transfer paid by themselves and by the company into the pension fund.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General when he hoped to complete the classification of the National Telephone Company's staff on transfer for the purpose of determining how many of the company's servants would be placed in pensionable classes in the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The inquiries which are being made into the question of the classification of the staff of the National Telephone Company on transfer to the Post Office are being pursued with the least possible delay. The problems to be solved, however, are numerous, and I am unable to make a definite statement as regards the date on which the inquiries will be completed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the inquiries be completed before the Committee stage of the Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am pressing them on as rapidly as possible; I hope the greater part of them will be completed before then.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree not to put the Bill down until the inquiries are completed, so that any necessary Amendments may be made?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know that the matter really affects Amendments to the Bill, or that any legislation will be required, whatever is decided in regard to these particular clerks.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General how many servants of the National Telephone Company were in receipt of salaries of upwards of £700 per annum, and what was their average length of service; and whether he had approached any of them with regard to their taking service with the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are twelve officers employed by the National Telephone Company who are in receipt of salaries of more than £700 a year. I have no information as to the length of their service with the company. As I informed the hon. Member for the Pudsey Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire on 30th June in answer to a question in this House, I shall carefully consider any proposals the officers in question may make to me to enter the Post Office at salaries bearing proper relation to those drawn by senior officers already serving in the Department.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does that reply cancel the letter which the right hon. Gentleman caused to be sent about a week ago?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; they are not inconsistent.

    Great Northern Telegraph Company.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General whether he would state the financial terms under which the Great Northern Telegraph Company were allowed to work the State cable between this country and Norway, and when the formal agreement was likely to be completed and laid before the House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The payment to the Great Northern Telegraph Company for working the Anglo-Norwegian Telegraph service is at the rate of 1¾ centimes a word for every word transmitted, together with a sum of l½d. per telegram in the case of those telegrams which are collected and delivered by the company. The formal agreement on the subject will cover the general relations between the Post Office and the company which are still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to say when it will be completed.
    Mr. POINTER: Is it intended to lay the information before the House when the matter is completed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was asked a question on that subject before, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I then gave.

    Dublin Telegraph Office (Employment of Soldiers).
    Mr. BRADYasked the Postmaster-General if he was aware that a corporal of
    1132
    the Connaught Rangers was at present employed on manipulative duties in the Dublin Telegraph Office; was he further aware that, as a result of a protest by the Dublin staff some months ago, the soldiers then employed on telegraph duties were withdrawn and that Sir Matthew Nathan, London secretary, assured a deputation in October last at Dublin that they would not again be employed on manipulative duties; and, further, could he say by whose authority Sir Matthew Nathan's instructions had been overruled?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In October last certain boys belonging to the Royal Engineers were receiving part of their training in telegraphy on public wires in the Dublin post office, and the Secretary to the Post Office gave instructions for other arrangements to be made for the completion of the training of these boys. The case to which reference is made in the question stands on a different footing. It is that of a soldier skilled in telegraphy, who has been recommended by the War Office for employment as a season substitute, under an arrangement which I explained in this House in answer to a question on 23rd November of last year. I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to refer to that answer.

    Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill.
    Mr. PEELasked the Prime Minister whether he would direct that the conventions referred to in the Preamble to the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill be set out in the Schedule to the said Bill?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): May I reply on behalf of the Foreign Secretary? All the Conventions with which the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill deals were laid before the House in a convenient form in Cd. 1175 (Blue Book No. 6 Miscellaneous of 1908), and there does not seem to be any adequate reason for reprinting them in a Schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. PEEL: Will the hon. Member ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will not follow the precedent of the Naval Prize Bill? In that case the convention in reference to the establishment of an International Court was set out in the Bill. It would be much more convenient for hon. Members to discuss the matter if that were done.
    Mr. GULLAND: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the Foreign Secretary.

    New Posts Created (Return).
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when he will lay upon the Table the Return of New Posts created since 1906 moved for by the hon. Member for Taunton?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Return is in the press, and will be issued as soon as possible.
    Mr. PEEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was three months ago when this return was first asked for? Are the number of new posts referred to so large as to make it impossible to collect the information in the time?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; nothing of the sort.

    Development Act (Treasury and Board of Agriculture).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have received from the Board of Agriculture a Report upon an application made by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee for a grant under the Development Act; whether they have yet forwarded that report to the Development Commissioners; and when its terms will be made known?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, an application when referred by the Treasury to the Government Department concerned is forwarded direct by the Department with their report thereon to the Development Commissioners. I understand that the Development Commissioners have not yet received the report.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the procedure of the Development Commissioners when they receive a report? Will they hear further evidence upon the application, or will they act directly upon the report?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They will, I suppose, follow their usual practice, and I take it, receive any further information that they think desirable. I should not like to lay down their procedure; they will follow the general practice.

    Milk and Dairies Bill.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Local Government Board when the Milk and Dairies Bill will be introduced?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I hope to introduce the Bill in the course of next week.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the right hon. Gentleman made arrangements, as before, for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to promulgate simultaneously the Order relating to tuberculosis?
    Mr. BURNS: We have considered that matter, but we have not definitely decided.

    Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (House Refuse).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to cart house refuse to a refuse-tip in the district of High Brooms, which is a nuisance to the people of the locality, the majority of whom have signed a petition against its continuance; whether he is aware that the Kent medical officer of health and the Southborough medical officer of health have reported unfavourably upon the practice of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council; and whether he proposes to take any action to secure that the nuisance be abated by the construction, of a refuse destructor?
    Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the facts stated in the question, and I have been in communication with the town council. They have now made fresh arrangements with regard to the tip, which it is hoped will do away with any nuisance arising from it, and I do not think it necessary at present to press the provision of a destructor.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the increasing number of exemptions made under the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, and the consequent loss of fees to vaccination officers, the Board will consider the revision of payment of these officers so as to give some remuneration in respect of declarations of exemption?
    Mr. BURNS: The matter has been considered, but it has not been thought desirable to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that mainly in consequence of a practice that many people think desirable, many of these officers are being reduced to poverty?
    Mr. BURNS: These officers are officers of the boards of guardians. I have done my best to persuade the guardians in certain cases to act reasonably, in some to be generous, to these officers. At present I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. BLACK: In view of the number of exemption orders now granted, has not the time arrived when compulsory vaccination should be abolished?
    Mr. BURNS: I do not think that question arises here.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it not the fact that at the present time great numbers of boards of guardians have appointed their relieving officers to do this work, and that they find no difficulty whatever in doing it?
    Mr. BURNS: It is true, as the hon. Member implies, that the large majority of these officers have other duties and appointments beside that of vaccination officer?

    Agriculture and Soils.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the volume on the agriculture and soils of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, recently published by the Board; and whether steps are being taken to publish similar information for the assistance of agriculturists in other parts of the country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): May I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last to a similar question.

    Regulations of Inshore Sea Fisheries.
    Major WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) whether, seeing that provision is made by the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act of 1888 for the adequate policing of the inshore sea fisheries, and that in many districts sufficient protection already exists, he will explain why the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are applying to the Development Commissioners for a loan of £50,000 and an annual grant of £8,000 for the provision of vessels for patrolling those districts which have not taken advantage of
    1136
    the regulations of the Act of 1888, and particularly the first section of the same, which provides for combination of districts for this purpose? (2) Whether detailed information can be afforded as to the reasons which have led the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to apply to the Development Commissioners for a loan of £50,000 and an annual grant of £8,000 for the purpose of putting on vessels to patrol the inshore fisheries; and whether he is aware that the greater part of the inshore fisheries of England and Wales are already adequately patrolled by vessels provided for that purpose by the district fishery committees? and (3) why, in view of the fact that it has already been officially stated that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries were about to report on fishery claims as a whole to the Development Commissioners, the Board have applied to the Commissioners for a large grant to be administered by the Board for purposes for which adequate statutory provision already exists; and why they have delayed reporting on claims sent in to them by the local authorities appointed for the protection of the inshore fisheries, and, in particular, why there has been such a long delay in reporting on the claim sent in by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee to the Development Commisisoners in May, 1910, over thirteen months ago?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Sea Fisheries Committee have for many years past complained of the arrangement embodied in the Act of 1888, by which the whole cost of policing the fisheries is thrown upon the maritime counties, and they have asked that grants should be made from the Exchequer to assist them in defraying the expenditure required for the purpose. It was to meet this demand, and at the same time to promote the development of the fisheries, that the Board made the application to which the hon. Member refers. The money, if granted, will be applied to all districts equally in proportion to the amounts locally contributed, including, of course, the Lancashire and Western Committee, whose efficiency and energy in the discharge of their statutory duties the Board fully appreciate. Two or more Committees would be grouped for the purpose, where necessary, and it is proposed that an additional grant should be made where the steamers are available for scientific research. The delay in reporting upon the individual applications made to the Treasury has arisen from the neces-

    1137
    sity of preparing a general scheme which would provide for equality of treatment as between the various districts.
    Major WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is prepared to state what are the grievances of inshore fishermen which have led the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to apply to the Development Commissioners for funds to appoint a special commission to inquire into such grievances; and whether the need for such a commission is due to the fact that nothing has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Ichthyological Research of 1902 and the Committee on Fishery Investigations of 1908?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: It is not proposed to appoint a special commission of inquiry, but only to increase the staff of the Fishery Department by one or two temporary officers to assist in the preparation of proposals for the promotion of co-operation and other measures for the benefit of inshore fishermen.

    Diseases of Sheep.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in the opinion of the Board's veterinary advisers, the parasitic disease of the stomach and intestines of sheep and lambs which is causing great loss among sheep breeders in Huntingdonshire is identical with that which is becoming increasingly prevalent in Kent and other counties; whether this is caused fey the haemonchus contortus or by any other, and, if so, what, internal worm; to what extent research is being conducted into the origin, means of transmission, and cure of the disease; and whether any remedy is yet known to the Board?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Parasitic diseases in sheep have been very prevalent this year all over the country, and the trouble is not due to any one parasite in particular. No specific remedy for the disease is yet known to the Board. The Board are considering a scheme for the investigation of parasitic diseases.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Which of them?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: All.

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (New Offices).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the
    1138
    offices of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are still scattered over a wide area in a considerable number of different buildings; if so, for what reason work has been discontinued upon the new offices in course of erection for the Board; and whether he will take steps to expedite the completion of these offices?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The foundations and basement of the new offices have been finished; but the plans for the contract for the superstructure have been delayed by the heavy pressure in the Office of Works in connection with the preparations for the Coronation. The urgency is recognised, and the completion of the plans is being expedited.

    Provincial Police (Coronation Medals).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction caused amongst the provincial police by the reported decision not to grant them a medal for their exceptional services during the Coronation; and whether, if it is impracticable to grant a medal to all the provincial police, he will consider the desirability of recommending a decoration for those officers who have served in three reigns?
    Mr. GULLAND: The Home Secretary, who is attending a meeting of the Privy Council, has asked me to answer this question for him. The King has been graciously pleased to command that the police medal issued to commemorate their Majesties' Coronation should be granted to a certain number of the members of every police force in the United Kingdom. As a general rule, the medals will be given to men selected for long and meritorious service, in the proportion of one for every twenty members of a force; but in the case of places which His Majesty has paid or is about to pay official visits in connection with the Coronation, medals will be given to all police officers employed on the occasion whose record shows more than ten years of efficient and meritorious service.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Does that mean one in twenty of the whole force, or one in twenty of those who have had long service?
    Mr. GULLAND: I should think it will be one for every twenty members of the force.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the medal be the same as that granted to the Metropolitan Police, or will a new medal be issued?
    Mr. GULLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put that question on the Paper.

    Labour Exchanges (Pay of Clerks).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations with regard to the pay and conditions of service of the clerks employed in the Labour Exchanges; and, if so, whether he is now in a position to give his reply?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Representations have been made to the Board of Trade with regard to the pay and conditions of service of clerks in the Labour Exchange service, and the points raised are being considered; but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why no official reply has been sent to the communication received?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that no reply has been sent; but it is impossible to send a reply until the actual decision has been come to. I hope that decision will be very soon come to—I cannot exactly say when.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, as a condition of sanctioning the sale of an estate direct to tenants enforce the fulfilment of equitable terms whereby the landlord induced the tenants to sign, if those terms are omitted from the agreement forms prepared by the landlord's solicitor; whether they have enforced the condition of permanent turbary whereby Captain Smyth induced his Coole tenants in Westmeath to sign the purchase agreements prepared by his solicitor; and, if not, in view of the inducement, the prices found by the inspector to be excessive, and the abundance of bog on that estate, whether the agreements will be amended and enforced in accordance with the verbal inducement under which they were signed?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): As regards the first part of the question, sales of estates under the Irish Land Acts, 1903–9,
    1140
    are carried out in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. As regards the estate referred to in the second part of the question, the Estates Commissioners are at present in communication with the solicitors having carriage of the sale relative to the question of turbary.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, providing for the elimination of middlemen and for making sub-tenants purchasers of the holdings of which they are in exclusive occupation, if he will say on what grounds the Estates Commissioners refuse to do this; how many holdings of three acres and upwards, and how many of smaller size, exclusively occupied by sub-tenants, have the Commissioners vested in middlemen; and what arrangement, if any, do they make in such cases to bring the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts within the reach of the sub-tenants?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners exercise their powers under Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, in all cases where they consider it desirable and feasible to do so. The statistics of the Estates Commissioners do not give the information asked for in the second paragraph of the question. The cases of all sub-tenants are inquired into and considered when the estate on which they are situate is being dealt with by the Commissioners.
    Mr. GINNELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that subtenants with considerable farms when a sale is on expect to become purchasers, and they have never been consulted in these proceedings at all?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that discretion is given by Act of Parliament to the Commissioners in such cases.
    Mr. GINNELLasked how it is that twenty of the tenants on Captain Smyth's Coole estate, Westmeath, who have been paying interest as purchasers to the Land Commission, and whose holdings were stated last month to have been vested in them, are now called upon by the agent to resume payment of their old rents unless they pay an addition to the price which the Estates Commissioners find their holdings to be worth; if he will state the percentage of the excess in each of these cases; and, in view of the amount of these prices for which public money is

    1141
    advanced, he will say what action the Government propose to take in this case?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The present question of the hon. Member appears to refer to an estate of Captain Smyth, county Westmeath, which is being sold under the Irish Land Act, 1909. None of the holdings on this estate have yet been vested. In the case of certain of the holdings the Estates Commissioners have informed the owner that they are not prepared to advance the full amounts applied for, but they have not yet heard whether the owner is willing to sell at the Commissioners' estimated prices. The Commissioners are not aware that the owner is asking the tenants to lodge any portion of the difference in cash. The answer given in reply to a question of the hon. Member on 24th May related to another estate of the same owner, which was being sold under the Act of 1903.
    Mr. GINNELL: Pending the arrangements between the vendor and the Commissioners, will not the vendor be restrained from suing these tenants for the old rent—
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: That is not for the Commissioners.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has read a resolution, unanimously passed by the Cork County Council, calling attention to the number of evicted tenants' claims still undisposed of, and requesting that the Evicted Tenants Act be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and whether he has yet come to any decision on the subject?
    Mr. REDDY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask whether he is aware that the Plan of Campaign evicted tenants have been notoriously deserted by the hon. Member who has put the question?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend has read the resolution referred to. The Evicted Tenants Act will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

    Government of Ireland (Offices and Employments).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will give a return of all offices or employments created in Ireland since January, 1885, under the various Land Acts and
    1142
    Land Purchase Acts, under the Local Government Act of 1898, under the Act establishing the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, or in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act and the Budget of 1909, with the Commissioners of National Education, the Intermediate Board, the Local Government Board, the National Universities Act, the Department of Law and Police, or any other Department connected directly or indirectly with the government of Ireland and wholly or partly paid out of moneys provided by the Imperial Exchequer, together with the salaries or other emoluments attached to each office?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The return asked for is a very comprehensive one, and the time and labour involved in its preparation would be out of all proportion to its value. A comparison of the Estimates for the years 1884–5 and 1911–12 would give the hon. Member practically all the information he requires.

    Census Returns (Ireland).
    Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether ho is aware that Sir William J. Thompson, the Irish Registrar-General, in reply to a correspondent seeking information about names from Census Returns, wrote on the 30th May stating that the Census Returns of 1861 and 1871, being confidential documents, had been destroyed by Government authority, and that the latest Census Returns available for public reference were those of 1851; at what date were these Census Returns destroyed; what is the public authority at whose instance they were destroyed; what power is vested in that public authority for the destruction of documents prepared at great expense, presumably in the public interest; under what statutory provisions, if any, has this destruction taken place; why have the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851 been preserved, whereas the Census Returns of later date have been destroyed; on what grounds have the earlier Census Returns escaped destruction, though presumably confidential documents, and is their preservation due to their utilisation in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act as evidence for the withholding old age pensions from persons whose claim to old age pensions would otherwise have been unassailable; and whether, having regard to the effect which the destruction of public documents by Government authority is calculated to produce, an explanation of the circumstances under which this

    1143
    destruction took place and the grounds for the adoption of such a course will be given?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Registrar-General wrote as stated. The circumstances under which the Census Returns of 1861 and 1871 were destroyed have been fully explained in his reply to the question of the late hon. Member for South Belfast on this subject on the 29th September, 1909, to which I would refer the hon. Member. The preservation of the Returns of 1841 and 1851 is not due to their utilisation as evidence of age in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Why are you using the other forms to deprive people of old age pensions to which they are otherwise entitled?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Oh, no, not to deprive people of old age pensions.

    New Magazine Rifle.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked what progress has been made with the experiments preliminary to the adoption of a new magazine rifle; and whether he is yet in a position to give information to the House as to the breech action, bore, or sights of the new rifle?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Preliminary experiments have been made, and the further trials necessary before any definite conclusion can be arrived at are now in progress. I am not yet in a position to give any information on the points raised in the question.

    Defective Ammunition.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Undersecretary whether he is aware that small-arm ammunition returned from the South African War, and repacked in 1902, has been issued to the Territorial Force for use in the present year; how many rounds of this ammunition have been so issued; whether this ammunition has previously been issued to the auxiliary forces, and withdrawn from issue owing to complaints being made in the House of Commons of its inaccuracy; and whether the Secretary of State will at once call in this old and unreliable ammunition and order its destruction, so as to prevent the reissue of cartridges which are unfit for any military purpose. The year "1902" should read "1903."
    Colonel SEELY: I can only answer the question as it appears on the Paper. Orders for the withdrawal of all "re-made" 303 small-arm ammunition were given in 1908, and the War Office have no information as to any being in existence at the present time. If the hon. Member will supply details, enquiries will be made.

    Inspector-General of Cavalry in India.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the officer who has been appointed Inspector-General of Cavalry in India was passed over seventeen times for promotion?
    Colonel SEELY: Eight of this officer's juniors were promoted before he was selected for promotion.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Was he promoted because of his merits?
    Colonel SEELY: Oh, certainly; singular merit is always rewarded.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Then why was he passed over?
    Colonel SEELY: Well, I suppose because there were other people of more singular merit; but in all seriousness, anyone who knows the qualifications of the officer referred to knows he is a most distinguished officer, and has had a most distinguished career.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Why was he passed over then?
    Colonel SEELY: For the reasons I have given.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman study the duties of the office to which he has been appointed so recently?

    Small Arms Factories.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether a contract for a number of Lee-Enfield rifles was recently awarded by the Commonwealth Government to the Birmingham Small Arms Factory; whether private armament firms are at present running full and overtime; and whether, if so, the Royal Small Arms Factory should have had a preference in supplying the rifle that bears its name?
    Colonel SEELY: The Commonwealth Government has recently asked for a number of rifles. The manner in which the requirement shall be met is under consideration.

    Veteran Reserve (Uniform and Pay).
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the provision of uniform and some small pay as a retaining fee to the Veteran Reserve?
    Colonel SEELY: It has been decided not to provide uniform for the Veteran Reserve. As no liability is involved by registration in the Veteran Reserve the question of a retaining fee does not arise.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in time of war a man without uniform is liable to be shot?
    Colonel SEELY: I do mot think that is quite a correct statement of the law.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Franco-Ger man War?
    Colonel SEELY: Well, first of all, things have moved since then; and even so, the parallel is not exact. The question whether a man is or is not entitled to take up arms is not so easily settled as the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether anybody is liable to be shot if not in uniform?
    Colonel SEELY: I should not like to answer offhand all these technical questions, but it is undoubtedly not necessary that a man should be fully equipped with recognised uniform in order to take up arms for his country. Certain distinctive badges and other qualifications are recognised.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can give any information as to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Hounslow?
    Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: Since yesterday the disease has spread amongst the animals on the infected place. Several more pigs are stated to be showing symptoms of the disease, and, in addition, two heifers were found to be showing clinical symptoms of the disease in its earlier stages, and were killed yesterday. The valuation of the stock about to be slaughtered was completed yesterday, and the slaughter and disposal of the animals is commencing to-day. Owing to the fact
    1146
    that the burial of the animals is impossible on this farm on account of the nearness of the water to the surface, it will be necessary to remove the carcases of the slaughtered animals for cremation at an adjoining destructor. This will be done in water-tight carts that have been procured for the purpose. No further reports of foot-and-mouth disease have been received from this or any other district. A house-to-home veterinary examination of the stock in the immediate vicinity of the infected premises will commence to-day.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the Board succeeded in tracing the cause of the outbreak?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Board, in order to trace the origin of the disease, take steps to feed to sound animals oats and straw known to have been imported from an infected country.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has the cause of the disease been found out?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: At present the cause is unknown.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes that the House should sit late to-night, or does he only propose to finish the particular Amendment under discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not intended to sit late, but the Government cannot give a pledge to consider only a particular Amendment.

HOME SECRETARY AND THE JUDGES.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Would you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to put a question to you in reference to the practice and procedure of this House. I desire to know whether the Motion for the censure of the Home Secretary, which has been on the Paper of the House for the whole month is in order, and if it be not in order, whether, in the exercise of your power, as Speaker—there are various precedents—you will direct it to be removed? I submit the Motion is not in order, and that it is incapable of dis-

1147
cussion in the House of Commons for the following reasons: The substance of the Motion is that this House do censure the right hon. Gentleman for words pronounced in this House in reference to the judges in their judicial capacity. The House is alone the judge of words pronounced in it, and it is alone the judge of order in reference to those words. If exception be taken to the use of words, or if words of a disorderly character be used, they may be instantly visited with censure by the intervention of the Chair, or of some Member of the House who calls the attention of the Chair to them. I have looked into the precedents, and such a Motion as this was never at any time placed upon the Notice Paper of the House, and could not be discussed for this simple reason. First, it refers to language spoken in this House but not reprehended at the time, and as such it conveys censure, if any censure was incurred by the Home Secretary, upon the Chairman of Committees or whoever was in the Chair at the time. In the next place, these specific Motions in reference to personal character and conduct must be specifically framed. This is a Motion of a most general nature. If it came up for discussion, it would violate all the orders of this House, because no Speaker could, in a discussion of this kind, prevent a general criticism of the conduct of judges in their collective capacity, which is not allowed. I submit that this is a Motion which should not be on the Paper of the House, that it is irrelevant and vague, and contradicts the primary Motion of the order of debate in this House, and, above all, it interferes with that freedom of speech which we all so much value.
Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion was probably put down by the hon. Member for York in a moment of indignation about some language used here. I shall be very glad to use any influence I may have to persuade the hon. Member to take it off the Paper. I understand that he does not suggest that the Government should afford him a day for the discussion of it, and that being so I think it might disappear. At the same time I must point out that merely because it happens to be a vote of censure upon a distinguished official, that is no reason why it should not appear on the Paper. If the hon. Member will look at the next notice on the Paper he will find that it is a vote of censure upon the Lord Chancellor himself. I have a very distinct recollection that I suffered under this
1148
grievance for the space of about two months in 1902, as one hon. and distinguished Member put a Motion down censuring my conduct, and never took any opportunity of bringing it forward, but I did not complain.

AMENDMENTS (NEW RULE).
Mr. SPEAKER: There is one matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. Hon. Members will recollect that yesterday I referred to the change which had been made in the printing of amendments to the National Insurance Bill, and the new rule which was then instituted has received a somewhat startling development to-day. If hon. Members will look at pages 68, 69, and 70 of the Amendments to the National Insurance Bill, they will observe that no fewer than thirty-one hon. Members have handed in their names as proposing a particular Amendment. I think, if this practice is likely to be followed and extended the object with which we started the limitation of the Amendment paper will be entirely defeated. The object was to have a less bulky paper and save a certain amount of printing. I think it will be necessary to limit the number of names of Members fathering identical amendments by the same rule as that which now applies with regard to the handing in of notices for the rejection of a Bill, namely, six. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Nothing will prevent an hon. Member's name and notice appearing in the blue papers in the ordinary way the day after he has handed his notice in. For the convenience of Members who have to handle all this paper, I think if six names appear that ought to be sufficient bearing in mind that in Committee, if none of those six hon. Members are present, it is open to any hon. Member to get up without notice and move the Amendment on the paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL).
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 146.

Division No. 254.]

AYES.

[5.33 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Goldstone, Frank

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Adamson, William

Greig, Colonel J. W.

O'Doherty, Philip

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

O'Dowd, John

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Hackett, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

O'Shee, James John

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Hancock, John George

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Harmsworth, R. L.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Barnes, George N.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barton, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pointer, Joseph

Beale, W. P.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pollard, Sir George H.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Helme, Norval Watson

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bentham, George Jackson

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Higham, John Sharp

Pringle, William M. R.

Black, Arthur W.

Hinds, John

Radford, George Heynes

Boland, John Plus

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hodge, John

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Reddy, M.

Brace, William

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Burke, E Haviland-

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Robinson, Sidney

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Joyce, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Keating, Matthew

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roche, John (Calway, E.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

Kelly, Edward

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Chancellor, H. G.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Clough, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Scanlan, Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Leach, Charles

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lewis, John Herbert

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Craig, Herbert J (Tynemouth)

Logan, John William

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Crumley, Patrick

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Maclean, Donald

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Summers, James Woolley

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Sutherland, John E.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sutton, John E.

Dawes, J. A.

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Delany, William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Manfield, Harry

Tennant, Harold John

Devlin, Joseph

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dickinson, W. H.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Toulmin, Sir George

Doris, W.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duffy, William J.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Millar, James Duncan

Verney, Sir Harry

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Walters, John Tudor

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Mooney, John J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Morgan, George Hay

Wardle, George J.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Morrell, Philip

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Essex, Richard Walter

Munro, R.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Webb, H.

Falconer, J.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Needham, Christopher T.

Wiles, Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Neilson, Francis

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Norman, Sir Henry

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Glanville, H. J.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nuttall, Harry

1150

1151

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Goldman, C. S.

Newman, John R. P.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goulding, E. A.

Nield, Herbert

Astor, Waldorf

Grant, James Augustus

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

Greene, Walter Raymond

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Haddock, George B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridgg)

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Helmsley, Viscount

Peto, Basil Edward

Barnston, H.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bigland, Alfred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

Bird, Alfred

Hunt, Rowland

Spear, Sir John Ward

Boyton, James

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Stanier, Beville

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Starkey, John Ralph

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Joynson-Hicks, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Campion, W. R.

Kerr Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stewart, Gershom

Carlife, Sir Edward Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Swift, Rigby

Cassel, Felix

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Castlereagh, Viscount

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Cator, John

Lansbury, George

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Cautley, Henry Strother

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Lee, Arthur H.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lewisham, Viscount

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Welgall, Capt. A.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. t.-Col. A. H.

White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

Clyde, James Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Dairymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Martin, Joseph

Worthington-Evans, L.

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Younger, Sir George

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Courthope.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mount, William Arthur

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  Suggested Division Into Two Parts.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the subject of unemployment insurance and one dealing with sickness and invalidity insurance."
  I wish to take the earliest opportunity of pointing out that the Instruction is not antagonistic to the second or unemployment portion of the scheme. The fact that this Instruction will be seconded from the Labour Benches will, I think, dispose of that interpretation. It will be further observed that in dividing it into two Bills I am asking that the Bill relating to unemployment should be dealt with in the first place. There can be no question in
  1152
  the mind of anybody who has studied this-Bill carefully that there are two totally distinct questions or groups of questions. It was found most difficult. I think hon. Members in every part of the House will agree, on the Second Reading to get a general discussion. One hon. Member would take one section of the Bill and the hon. Member who followed him would take another section, and that criticism with regard to the Second Reading I intend to apply to the Treasury Bench as well as-to the back Benches. That is a clear proof it would be to the convenience of the House, and I believe it would also make for the safety of the measure—at any rate it would make for clarity of discussion—if the Bill were divided into two. There are a large number of questions mentioned in Part 1. I will not enumerate except some of the leading points of controversy. I total them to about fifty.

  1153
  There is the question of the treatment of women, there is the question of the treatment of the doctors, there is the question of the treatment of the great organisations at present in existence, and there are many other problems of that kind which are not in Section 2.
  The suggestion which I put before the Ministers in charge of the Bill in a friendly spirit is that the unemployment part should be put in a separate Bill and sent to a Grand Committee upstairs. It seems to me this is a question requiring the attention of experts, both on the employers' side and on the workmens' side, and I think a Grand Committee upstairs could deal with the unemployment section and with those peculiar problems relating to it. The question of unemployment has been before the country for many years. It has been pressed upon the attention of hon. Members of this House in various ways, and the probable solution of it may be present to many minds. The question of sickness and invalidity insurance is of more modern date. Controversy there is very keen. The various interests concerned are very nervous and restless, and the men concerned are in the same condition with regard to their future. It does seem to me, therefore, it would make for the progress of the Bill and for its successful perusal and close scrutiny in this House if it were divided into two distinct Bills. I would make an appeal to my Leaders that they should take this suggestion from one who has striven to make himself familiar with the opinion of the rank and file in this House. Most gloomy opinions are held throughout the House with regard to it being able to do full justice to this question in the present Session of Parliament, and in my opinion this is the only way—I speak with a certain amount of diffidence on that point as a young Parliamentary hand—that this Bill can be placed upon the Statute Book in this Session. I speak, of course, subject to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a much older Parliamentary hand than I am, may say, but it does seem to me that the way to get the best consideration of the measure in this House in order that it may become a workable Statute is that a Grand Committee should deal with the unemployment section of it upstairs, while we find our way through the sickness and invalidity insurance portion in this House. Up to the present the representations which have been made to us have been almost entirely confined to Part I. of the Bill. If
  1154
  you take the great friendly societies, they are chiefly concerned with Part I. of the Bill. If you speak of the various women's organisations, they chiefly refer to the first part of the Bill in their communications to hon. Members. If you take the great industrial insurance companies, with funds from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000, and a staff of 100,000, for whom it is my duty to speak in this House, they are chiefly concerned with Part I. of the Bill. I put it forward that, if it is wished to pass this as perfect as can be done in this Session, my suggestion is the way to do it.
  My Instruction is framed in accord with the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in this House. I am not quite sure that it is in the same accord with his Birmingham speech, but I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appeal to all parts of the House to cooperate with him in order to get a good measure. It is in that spirit I move my Instruction. If we co-operate in building the structure we can give him most assistance in the way it was most freely invited, but, if the view as expressed at Birmingham is to prevail, that this is a complete structure now, and that in Committee our province is to inspect the building, then I am afraid my Instruction is not quite in accord with that. I should have thought that in the Committee stage we were not merely to inspect the building, but to take care that the permanent officials do not occupy all the best rooms, that the women are not put in the back attic, and that the doctors have not their surgery in the basement. I conceive that in the Committee stage we must do a little more than simply look at the plans. There is, no doubt, a most excellent balcony from which to address the crowd, but I am not quite clear the building as it stands now and as the architect designed it would quite carry out all the wishes of the designer. I was one of the first to criticise this Bill, and to criticise it frankly, if I may say so, with what small amount of modesty I possess. I said, both on the First and Second Reading, that difficulties would arise, and that great controversies would ensue. Some hon. Members thought I was making a rash and wild prophecy, but they take a different view now. If the House is to give that assistance which was invited we must divide the Bill in this way and co-operate rather in the spirit of the original appeal.
  I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he first invited the co-operation of the House there was something in his mind like that which was in

  1155
  the mind of King Solomon when he built the Temple. There was to be no scene of party strife—no metallic ring of tools—the building was, of course, to be in perfect symmetry; and everything was to be in perfect accord. If the co-operation of the House is to be upon party lines, we can best get that if the issue is clarified by the separation of the unemployment portion from the sickness and invalidity insurance portion. It will largely depend upon the answer I get from the Treasury Bench whether I press my Instruction to a Division. I recognise that the Instruction will be in the hands of the House. I have no wish to become an obstructionist or to peevishly annoy the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is trying to carry out a great and good work, and I am not prepared to indulge in pin pricks or to become a little wasp buzzing round his neck. Therefore, in closing, I wish to say that in my opinion, for what it is worth, this is the best way to deal with the Bill before the House and to bring it to a successful issue. I should be very sorry indeed if, by bringing forward this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be led to think I am either antagonistic or obstructively inclined. I hope, indeed I am glad to think, the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that the Amendment is not brought forward from that standpoint at all, and I can only say I am thankful that we have a great statesman showing such a warm heart for the sick and suffering poor.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In seconding the Instruction I wish the House to understand that I am speaking personally, and not as representing the party with which I am associated. The Instruction I wish to move is, I am told, out of order. I should have preferred if the Bill could have been divided into three parts in the manner suggested in my proposal, but not being able, by the ruling of the Chairman, to lay that before the House, I will second the Instruction to divide it into two parts only. When the Bill was introduced everyone was struck with the chorus of praise showered upon it, and everyone must now be struck with the fact that it is subjected to so much criticism. Speaking as a new Member of this House, it appears to me that a Bill of this size, dealing with vital issues affecting the lives of the poor people, is one which should have the fullest possible consideration, and I do not think
  1156
  the mere fact that certain vested interests have made their peace, if I may say so, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is any reason why other views should not be adequately discussed. There is a higher interest than any other interest in the country, and that is the interest of the ordinary man and woman, and it is for that purpose I want the Bill divided. For instance, I think the Post Office contributors are dealt with most unfairly.
  When the Bill is put forward as a National Insurance scheme, I would remind the House that the great bulk of women are left out and that the great mass of children are also ignored. Any Bill to be national and preventive in character ought to deal with children in their very earliest days, and it should provide safeguards against the semi-starvation and destitution from which so many women and children suffer at the present time. To my mind it is rather extraordinary that a Bill of this character should be called national and preventive. Every one of us must know perfectly well the great masses of the poor and destitute will practically be left outside its scope, and, although men and women will have deducted from their wretched earnings a certain amount every week while they are at work, there are other points in connection with the Health Bill which demand a great deal more consideration than appears likely to be given them. There are some of us who are violently opposed to the sort of tyranny which the medical profession can and does set up on occasion, and we view with a very great deal of alarm the handing over of vast masses of the people to their control. There is the question of the sanatoria. I feel at least we ought at this time of the day to consider seriously whether we should build huge sanatoria and employ expensive doctors to deal with disease when it has arisen. Ought we not rather to take steps for the prevention of the disease. Everyone knows that no experiment in the cure of consumption and tubercular disease generally is not the scientific method of dealing with the question of prevention.
  Then also, in the health portion of this Bill there is another vested interest which arises, that of the insurance collectors, and many look upon its provisions in that regard with a very great deal of alarm. I think we ought to have time to consider their position and see whether, if we are going in for national insurance, we cannot make that portion of the Bill such that we can take over not merely insurance against

  1157
  sickness but also insurance against that other disease which comes to all of us, and endeavour to ensure the poor in a decent manner against that. I speak in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Pontefract. I do not want to detain the House at great length. There are many other points on the health side of the Bill but my main objection is that here again you are leaving out large masses of the very poorest part of the population and it is our duty surely to devise means of bringing them in. I fear we have not time to do that if the Government adhere to their present plan of dealing with this Bill.
  I should like also to say a few words on the question of unemployment. I think we ought to make our experiments on that subject on a better plan. We know perfectly well that by the time we get to the unemployed portion of this Bill—during the months of July and August—we shall be getting so tired, especially if we are to repeat the operation of this afternoon and suspend the 11 o'clock rule every night— that we shall not be in a condition to give adequate discussion to this portion of the Bill. What I want to emphasise is that the unemployed question has never in this country been tackled in a really scientific manner. If we are to have insurance against unemployment I think the lines along which this Bill has been laid are perhaps the best, but it would be much more important to turn the Bill round and deal with unemployment first, mainly, because we have absolutely no experience to guide us on this question. I would venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Germany can give him no help in this matter, because nowhere on the Continent, or anywhere else, have they attempted to insure against unemployment amongst unskilled labourers. For that reason I should like to see this House devote more of its time in this Session, or even in an autumn Session, to the question of unemployment.
  I join with the whole House in welcoming any steps that may be taken for dealing thoroughly and effectively with destitution arising from unemployment and sickness. We are witnessing just now a very great upheaval amongst working men up and down the country, and it is mainly owing to the fact that the progressive legislation which this House has passed has left the working classes worse off than before. Working men and women up and down the country are awakening to a fact which they are not very likely to forget, that while they have been getting poorer
  1158
  the Income Tax payer has been getting richer. They will take their own measure for redressing that. I want to point out that this House has no right to impose a poll tax, amounting in some cases to 6½d. per head per week, on some of the very poorest men and women in the land, without any of them having a chance of saying whether they want it or not. It is of no use saying that this Bill was before the country at the last election. I have heard a great deal about the people giving a mandate. We have no mandate to redress social wrongs by inflicting a poll tax of this kind, and, therefore, I want to see the Bill turned right round, and I want the House to have ample time to deal with the unemployment portion as well as with the health portion.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government appreciate fully the tone and spirit in which the hon. Member for Pontefract has moved this Amendment. He told us he had an objection to some parts of the Bill, while other parts had his hearty support, and he therefore did not desire to indulge in any policy calculated to injure it. I am sure the House will fully appreciate the attitude he has taken up. With regard to my hon. Friend, the seconder of the Amendment, he went into the merits of certain portions of the Bill which are not yet before the House. We are not discussing the merits of the Bill at the present moment; the point is whether the proposal to divide the Bill into two parts shall be accepted by the Government. The suggestion of my hon. Friend is that in order to leave the House full opportunity to deal with Part I., Part II. should be sent to a Grand Committee. That is a suggestion which I do not think we ought to accept.
  At the same time I will put this point to the House. There are a certain number of Clauses which are in the nature of contentious Clauses, and they can at any time be sent to a Grand Committee. The Government will not shut the door altogether against a proposal of that kind, as it might be advantageous to send certain portions of the Bill to a Grand Committee. But that is not the proposal before us now. The suggestion is that the whole of Part II. should be sent to a Grand Committee. I am not sure that if his proposal was accepted it would not be necessary to introduce it as a fresh Bill and send it to a Grand Committee. I do not

  1159
  think that would save much time to the House as a whole. It is essential, in our opinion, that the Bill should pass in the present Session. We gave our reasons for that on the Second Reading. The chief reason is that if you are going to deal with the question of unemployment at all, it is very essential to begin it if possible in time of prosperity, when unemployment is very low. Every year we can gain of good employment is an advantage in putting the scheme on a sound financial basis. My hon. Friend says his suggestion will lead to that result. I do not think it would lead to the two things which he desires, namely, that Part II. should go through and should receive adequate discussion and consideration at the hands of hon. Members. In the first place I do not think, in a Bill of this sort, in which to a large extent the two parts are interdependable, it would be at all expedient to divide it into two parts, and I do not see that actual time would be saved by sending it to a Grand Committee. On the contrary, I think the amount of time devoted to the Bill by the House as a whole would be much greater if it were sent to Grand Committee than if it remained in Committee of the Whole House.
  But quite apart from the question of merits or principle I suggest that this is not a workable proposal. The Grand Committee sits from eleven o'clock or half-past eleven till three or four. Practically speaking Members on both sides who are interested in Part II. are also interested in Part I., and I do not think hon. Members will be prepared day after day to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock or later at night, and if the Grand Committee does not sit on the same days as the House is to consider the matter in Committee it will only leave one day a week for its consideration. Another practical consideration is that I believe the Grand Committees are at present very full of work. But the real difficulty in the way of the proposal is that I believe Members on both sides of the House desire to have an opportunity of considering the various proposals put before them by the Government on Part II. as well as on Part I. After all, the Grand Committee consists not of 670 Members, but of seventy, and I cannot help thinking that a very large number of Members who are specially interested in the question would necessarily be excluded from being Members of the Grand Committee, and would therefore consider themselves under
  1160
  a very serious disadvantage if they had not a full opportunity of discussing Part II. Further, there is this objection, which is really fatal to the proposal. I suppose every Member of the House has had some experience of Grand Committees. I have had the advantage of the hon. Member's (Mr. Lansbury's) occasional support on the Copyright Bill. At all events, all Members who have attended meetings of Grand Committees know that they very often take a very different view from that which the House as a whole takes. Here you have two Bills which in general lines and on general principles are drawn in the same direction—compulsory contributions, contributions from employers, from the workmen, from the State, and so on. You have many details of machinery and other matters of that sort which are very similar, so that if the two Bills are to be passed and are to work they must be substantially on the same lines. They are interdependable in those respects.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is at all events the view of the Government. I cannot help feeling that if you have one part of the Bill kept in the House and the other part referred to a Grand Committee the upshot of it might be that you would have the two Bills instead of being, as we desire, entirely on the same lines, on different lines and founded on different principles. At all events, the views which I have placed before the House are the views which the Government hold in reference to the proposal of my hon. Friend. We do not think it is a practicable proposal; we do not quite believe it is one which hon. Members interested in the matter would desire. The House has already decided to keep the whole Bill in the House, and, subject to what I have said with reference to the possibility of sending certain portions of the Bill to a Grand Committee, we must oppose the proposal. As regards the other point as to how far an opportunity will be given in this House for the discussion of Part II., my hon. Friend takes an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the likelihood of the proceedings with reference to this Bill. The House generally has agreed to the principle, and I believe it is generally desired as far as possible that the details to be discussed shall be details of moment and of interest. That being so, I doubt if the time given to the Bill will be-so excessive as some hon. Members think. At all events, with regard to Part II., that is shorter and simpler; it has been substan-

  1161
  tially before the country for two years in its general principles, and we have discussed the matter with all the interests affected. We know their views fully. We have met them already by the proposals an the Bill, and we are prepared to meet them in many respects by Amendments, and I doubt if Part II. need really occupy a very large portion of time. On these grounds I trust my hon. Friend, in the interests of Part II., as well as of Part I., will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If I intervene it is because it seems to me that the proposal made by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite is one which really touches very closely the interests of the House of Commons as a legislative body. What are the Government now proposing to do? They are proposing to begin on 5th July the discussion of two measures which appear under one cover, which embody principles on which there may be broad general agreement but which notoriously have excited, wholly irrespective of party, a most unusual and almost unprecedented amount of difficulty and controversy in the country. The Government do not imagine, I expect, that when there is all this strong feeling in the country it should not find reflection in the House of Commons; in fact the House of Commons would not be doing its duty unless there was some reflection of this great external feeling. The Government themselves are conscious of the enormous task they are imposing on the House of Commons, considering the time of year, because they formally announced they were going to move closure by compartments, which would bring the whole of the proceedings of these two measures embodied in one Bill in twenty-five days. I suppose for Parliamentary reasons of great cogency they have abandoned that proposal. I only refer to it now because it is a practical proof that the Government are themselves conscious of the magnitude of the burden they are throwing upon this overworked House. The hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury), though not an old Member of the House, was absolutely right, and every old Member of the House will agree that after the prolonged labours which the House of Commons has gone through this year, last year, the preceding year, and the, year preceding that, and the whole succession of years in which we have been working for anything between nine and eleven months in the year, it is quite impossible to suppose that we shall be fit in the middle of August to deal with the details
  1162
  of a measure on which so much of the social welfare of the labouring classes in future is to depend. Would it not be wise of the Government in these circumstances somewhat to lighten the immense burden they are avowedly and plainly throwing upon us by confining their attention during the Session to one of the two proposals which they are asking us to deal with?
  The right hon. Gentleman said, "We really cannot support these measures, because they are interdependent." What on earth does he mean by saying they are interdependent? When pressed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) to say what he meant, all he could say was that they went upon the same principle, that there was compulsion in both and general contributions in both. Are the Government going to lay down the principle that whenever, in the pursuit of liberty and equality, they introduce compulsion into a Bill, all these Bills are to be embodied under one cover? The right hon. Gentleman must himself perceive how utterly inconclusive was the reason he laid before us for treating these Bills as one measure. The Second Reading Debate was a Debate on Part I. of the Bill, with two incursions from the Treasury Bench into Part II., one by the Home Secretary and the other by the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the second of these two measures. The whole attention and interest of the House was concentrated on the first, and it was practically impossible to ask the House really to consider upon one Debate on the Second Reading measures so widely differing in their character and their object, and the House never did. We have had no Second Reading Debate worthy of the name upon the second part of the Bill at all. They are prepared by different Ministers, worked out in different offices, and they carry out widely different objects. They were explained by two different Ministers, and were compressed technically into one Bill only at the last moment. We are asked when we are nearly approaching the end of a normal Session to begin the tremendous task of dealing contemporaneously with two great and separate measures. I would earnestly press upon the Government that that is not treating the House of Commons in the right way. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the first to admit that, in view of the feeling aroused in certain sections, rightly or wrongly, by this measure, the treatment he has received at the hands of the House

  1163
  of Commons has been a kindly one. It has been genuinely sympathetic. Surely under these circumstances the least the Government can do is not to throw upon us the work of carrying on a discussion which we really cannot usefully carry on upon a Bill which embodies two measures. While I quite agree that it would be wholly absurd to send one measure upstairs to a Grand Committee, and to have that Grand Committee sitting de die in diem when we are discussing the Clauses of the other Bill downstairs, I would point out that that does not cut at the root of the Instruction moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite to divide the Bill into two. The Bill is improperly described in the terms of the Instruction. It is not a case of dividing a Bill into two. It is a case of calling two Bills one Bill. Two Bills they are, and two Bills they must remain, whatever be the technical procedure of the House.
  All I ask is that the Government should adopt a business-like attitude and not ask this House to deal with the immensely complicated provisions of this immensely complicated subject with the knowledge that while they are working at one subject there is another subject wholly different waiting for their consideration, and that they will not require us, after we have laboured in no party spirit on the Clauses which are to be defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to tackle the unexhausted Clauses which are to be defended by the President of the Board of Trade. That is an entirely novel procedure. At any rate, my memory does not carry me back to any measure prepared by different Departments and defended by different Ministers which has been called one Bill. I say that is either wholly unexampled or the examples must be extremely rare and unimportant. I would appeal to the Government in the interest of their own legislation and in the interest of this House as a legislative machine, to turn a somewhat kinder ear to the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. That proposal is in no sense inimical to the proposal they are themselves laying before the House of Commons and the country, but on the contrary it is calculated above all to give us that elbow room and that power of dealing adequately with matters in which the country is so profoundly interested. If the Government insist on the two tremendous proposals in the Bill being regarded as one proposal, I shall certainly support the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Instruction.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly and very temperately put before the House the view of the Opposition in regard to the proposed division of the Bill. I will say at once, that I accept the statement which he made that the reception accorded to the Bill by the Opposition in the House of Commons entitles them not merely to fair consideration, but to sympathetic and favourable consideration at the hands of the Government in any appeal they make, and therefore I approach the Question now before the House from the point of view that we are desirous to meet any suggestions that come from the Opposition with the view of facilitating the passing of this Bill as a measure in the most perfect form in which the House of Commons can possibly fashion it. With regard to the suggestion about dividing the Bill, I cannot quite accept the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman that the two parts are not interwoven. I say so not merely because, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), the principle of compulsion is embodied in both parts. Most of the Bills, not merely in our time, but while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in office as well, embody that principle. But a Finance Bill is much more important than the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit. Supposing that one part of the Bill is sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, most of the Amendments to be moved with regard to the extension of the Bill and the readjustment of the finances affect the finances of the whole Bill. After all, the Government must take into account the money it has at its disposal in dealing with the whole of the proposals, and naturally we reckoned that before we assented to any part of the Bill. You could not have one part of the Bill dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and Amendments introduced which would require the Government to find an increased subsidy without having regard to the commitments on the other part of the Bill as well. The same thing applies to the contributions of the employers and the workmen. When the 2½d. was fixed as the limit for the workman and for the employer in the second part of the Bill we had to take into account the amount charged in respect of the first part of the Bill. Well, after all, the House of Commons can alter these figures if it chooses. The responsibility is entirely with the House of Commons, and we ought to be in a posi-

  1165
  tion to know what are the commitments of the employer and the workman, and also what are the commitments of the State on the first part of the Bill before we come to consider the second part of the Bill. It is obvious that you cannot consider the one apart from the other.
  I am putting this not merely by way of reply to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of Debate, but rather for his consideration, because I still adhere to the position I took originally. The suggestion was made by my hon. Friend that I departed from that position in the course of the speech I made at Birmingham. I am not conscious that I did so, but if I did. I revert to the original statement which I made, and I am still of opinion that it is a Bill which ought to be fashioned by the whole of the House. The only exception I would make to that statement applies to Amendments which might make a difference in the commitments of the Exchequer. As to these, I say at once that I shall be inclined to be rigid and I shall make a very stiff fight, but still the responsibility of the House is there too. Subject to that limitation, I would really appeal to all sections of the House to support the Bill. Subject to that, I should not regard any change which the House would think lit to make in the Bill either as a defeat of the Government or as a defeat inflicted on myself. I have simply done the best I can with the aid I have got to put the best scheme I can before the House. The House is not bound to accept that. I never suggested that. If there are any suggestions from any part of the House which commend themselves to the House as a whole as better than the suggestions of the Government, by all means it is the duty of the House to carry those suggestions through. It is in that spirit I enter upon the Committee stage. I still adhere to every particular of the appeal I made on the First Reading, and I mean to stand by them right throughout. In that spirit I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is desirable at this stage to cut the Bill in twain, because you really cannot consider one part apart from the other. I ask whether it is desirable that we should proceed with the Bill in the way proposed by the Government or in the way suggested by the Instruction. I was under the impression that there was a rule in the Standing Orders which enables the House at any stage, if they thought fit, to send any part of a Bill upstairs. I
  1166
  understand that the Chair has been consulted on the matter, and that that view is correct. Standing Order 46, Sub-section (2), says:—
  "Provided that the House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions, and that if such a Motion is opposed, the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks lit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further debate put the question thereon."
  Lord HUGH CECIL Lord HUGH CECIL made a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It appears from that Standing Order that it is in the power of the House at any stage to send a Bill upstairs. It is quite competent at any stage, if it is thought proper, to make a Motion of that kind, but I submit that for the time being we should proceed in the way proposed, and I say that if we do so we shall be able to pass a measure which will not be a Government Bill but a Bill of the Whole House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that there had been a good deal of criticism of this Bill outside. That is perfectly true, but may I point out that a good deal of progress was made in the last two months in reconciling the various interests? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) talked of those interests as if they were vested interests. I would point out that they are not merely the interests of doctors. There are the interests also of friendly societies and of trade unions. These represent some 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people. Then there are the collecting societies, which represent something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of workmen.
  Mr. LANSBURY: What about the Post Office contributors?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am pointing out the great progress that has been made with respect to the criticisms which have been given in advance, and after all the criticism which has most body, as far as one can judge from what has appeared in the Press, is that of the doctors. The criticism of the doctors has had far more attention given to it in the Press than any other criticism which has been directed to the Bill. Substantially I think the hon. Member will find that they are reconciled to the proposal the Government has made. As to the collecting societies, their criticism has been reconciled. The criticism of the friendly societies has been met in the main; they wanted to be masters altogether. They made proposals which

  1167
  we could not possibly assent to. We are prepared to meet all the criticism directed to the Bill by municipalities. That narrows it down to one point. The hon. Gentleman says that the criticisms have not been met; I believe he is mistaken there. Up to the present I have had no criticism from him, the other Members have made suggestions.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have put down a number of Amendments which I suppose should be regarded as suggestions. It is quite unfair to say that I have made no criticism.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman says so, I accept his statement at once.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They are on the Paper.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certain Members have come to me with suggestions, and I think they will find that they have been accommodated. That really meets most of the criticisms on the Bill. That narrows down the issue, and I should think that the whole of the financial provisions, together with the points that remain, can be got through in a month's discussion. The financial issue is one which I think it is quite possible for the House to decide in one or two nights' Debate. The point I want to put finally before the right hon. Gentleman is that we have endeavoured to meet all these criticisms, and that they are in a fair way of being accommodated. I would not for the moment suggest that the latter provisions of the Bill should now be sent to another Committee, because that can be done at any time. I would urge upon him not to press that view.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is rather going on the presumption that I wanted one part of the Bill sent to a Grand Committee. I do not think that would be practicable now. It might be practicable afterwards.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood that the Leader of the Opposition desired to support the whole of the proposition. I am very much obliged for that interruption. It disposes entirely of what I was saying in answer to him, but, at any rate, I think it is premature to consider that point. I do hope it will be possible to carry through both sections of the Bill this Session, and may I suggest one reason,
  1168
  which is a very important reason from the point of view of the trade and the business of the country. You cannot this year put a burden of 3d. upon an industry or upon the men engaged in it, and say to them that at a future moment you contemplate putting on 2½d. or any other figure which the House of Commons will decide. It is far better for the trade of the country to know definitely what they have got to meet, and I still think it is very much better that you should do this at a moment when trade is improving, and when trade is booming, and when it is very desirable that funds should be accumulated in time for the depression which, after all, is inevitable in the course of trade in this country. From that point of view I think it is far better that both sections should go through this year.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I only want to say a word or two on the point of view of procedure. The proposal the hon. Member makes is that this Bill should be divided, and it is suggested that it would be open to the House, when the House has passed the first Bill, or when it has passed through Committee, to pass on to the next Bill. I think we should be aware of the precise division that is to take place. One effect might be that the second part of the Bill would go upstairs, while the first part would be in Committee of the whole House. It appears it is equally open to the House to discharge the second stage of the Committee of a Bill and send it upstairs at any point. As a matter of procedure, I did not think that was so—convenient as it appears—but if it can be done under the Standing Orders it can only be done on the Motion of the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Bill. It is not very likely to happen in this case, because it is contrary to the general principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with the Bill. Secondly, I am not quite sure how far Members of the House would be able to take part in a Committee upstairs, as well as doing their work in this House, if you interrupt the Committee when you get Part I. The Instruction is a well-recognised process, and its object is that the Bill should be divided into two parts. Of course, if you merely cut the Bill into two with a pair of scissors you would deal with all the parts up to a certain part in one way and after a certain point in another way. I should have thought it was better on the right hon. Gentleman's own principle to accept this Motion now. It commits him to nothing but to the principle of dividing the Bill,

  1169
  and will cost nothing in. the way of Parliamentary time, excepting two Debates on the Third Reading instead of one. If you divide the Bill I think there was great force in the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he said that if you go straight through with it and try to press all those things through, whatever may be the circumstances, the second part will not be discussed at all perhaps. After Members have been engaged for three weeks in hot weather discussing the earlier stage of the Bill they will be jaded and tired, and they will not give much attention to the later stages.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the second part is sent upstairs what is the object of the Motion?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My point is that you do not commit yourselves by accepting it. If you are going to get the whole Bill through this Session, I should send the second part upstairs, but not at a time when this Bill is before a Committee of the whole House, but at a time when the House is doing other business which it is clearing away for the Prorogation. I quite agree that to discuss one part of the Bill upstairs in Committee in the morning, and to discuss the rest of the Bill in the House in the afternoon would be quite impossible, and would throw an intolerable burden upon Members.
  I suggest that you could avoid this by sending the other part of the Bill upstairs at a time when you are dealing with other matters in this House before the Prorogation. I should have thought that that was what the Motion meant. I think the First Lord suggested another procedure, which was to discharge the Committee on the Bill and send the remainder to a new Committee; that was the procedure that I meant when I spoke of cutting the Bill In two with a pair of scissors. I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very conciliatory observations with great pleasure, and most of all I was glad to hear him say that he proposes to defend the Exchequer. I welcome that declaration very much indeed, and I earnestly hope he will be very firm, and that he will not allow too great raids upon the Exchequer from whatever part of the House they are attempted. The right hon. Gentleman, except where armaments are concerned and the invader threatens us, is rather, in general, an expensive custodian of national expenditure. However, he is a reformed character. Far from me be it to cast up to him his early
  1170
  sins. Let us lead him to the penitents' form, and let us hope he will not be tempted to fall again by the numerous persons who want to attack his economic virtue, and who surround him like those who tempted St. Antony. I am very interested to hear that he means to allow the House of Commons a much freer hand than is usual; that is an interesting and quite a new thing, and I will be interested to see how the right hon. Gentleman, with his great dexterity, is able to manage the House of Commons in these unusual circumstances.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us what the President of the Board of Trade failed to make clear as to the Government view of the dependence of the second part of the Bill upon the first. No doubt the Government have only a certain amount of money to spend, and they cannot afford to have one part of their scheme financially settled without any regard to the finances of the other. That, no doubt, is true, but it is true of every Bill which involves a charge upon the Exchequer, and if that is a good reason for confining the whole of the Bill within the limits of one cover then we might confine any Bill which provided for a public charge within the limit of one cover. We shall have nearly a month to spend upon the Insurance Bill, but it must be remembered after all that we are dealing with millions in each part of the Bill, and when a Bill is of that character the objections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer raises to a division of the Bill do not hold good. Is that a reason for treating the two Bills as one?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The House, of course, must settle one part before it proceeds to deal with the oilier, and when the second part comes on it will be limited in its beneficent action by the liabilities already undertaken in the earlier discussions. It is a perfectly reasonable point, that you must take one Bill after the other, and that if you greatly exceed the present Estimate on the first part, you will not have enough money to pay for what you propose to do on the second part. You must take one Bill after the other, and that is the only force there is in the Chancellor's observation that the finances of the two Bills depend one upon another. I quite agree it will be difficult, and indeed impossible, for the Government to shovel off the financial responsibility which lies

  1171
  upon them by sending either part of this Bill to a Grand Committee. They have the power of pressing Bills through which they can exert in this House, and they may relax that, but they cannot devolve upon anybody the guardianship of the public purse which they hold, and allow anyone to take up the duty of deciding that more money should be spent in a fit of virtue or benevolent intention.
  Still we might deal with one part of the Bill, which I think is a distinct subject by itself, and have ample time to carry out this Instruction and to adopt the further procedure contemplated by the hon. Member. The objections which have been urged are no part of the Motion he has made, and are quite distinct from it, and the discussion we are now engaged in deals only with the proposal to have this Bill divided into two Bills, which are really two Bills included in one cover. I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what he is asking the House and the Committee to do. He is placing upon it quite an unusual burden: I do not say it by way of criticism and still less by way of complaint, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking upon himself a much less burden and responsibility than is commonly taken by Ministers who introduce Bills when he does not take the full responsibility and he puts a share upon others. This share will fall upon individual Members of the Committee and individual Members of Parliament. He has announced that on all parts of the Bill, except his guardianship of finance, ho is prepared to submit his views to the House and to abide by the wishes of the House without any exercise of any of the usual forms of Government pressure by which a Government majority carry their own particular view. I do not quite understand what was the exact meaning and worth of the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that Members on that side of the House might vote against him on any question which was not a financial question, and that he would not consider a defeat on the Bill as a defeat of the Government. Does not that mean that he will not exercise the pressure which the Government habitually exercise on their own side of the House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think if the right hon. Gentleman will reflect, for a moment, he. will see that there is this difference. There are certain Bills in which the Amendment, even of the Clauses, is
  1172
  vital, and where a defeat would be likely to be fatal to the Bill itself; but I do not consider that the Insurance Bill is a Bill of that character. Still, I would regard a very considerable alteration as, of course, fatal to the Government scheme. There have been Bills under consideration lately where any alteration would have been fatal; but I do not regard this Bill as a Bill of that kind.
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, at any rate, for the purposes of the proposal. I think he will see, though I do not limit him to his expressed reservations, that he is putting upon Members of this House a much greater individual responsibility than they ordinarily enjoy. When members of a party are confronted on what is comparatively a matter of detail with a statement from the Government that the Government would regard a defeat on that subject as fatal to themselves or, even with the ordinary pressure that is brought to bear by a Government with its usual majority, they, in view of the larger issues involved, having pledged their faith to the party, vote for it and justify themselves to their constituents on that ground for the vote which they have given. But when the Chancellor invites the co-operation of every Member of the House to make this Bill in some sense the work of the whole House, and not the work of the Government slightly modified by the House, that is an entirely new responsibility put upon it. Much greater attention is required from the Members on the Back Benches. They must have much greater latitude in discussion than they usually have, and if the Chancellor's hopes are to be realised a very great deal of time must be devoted to the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed a belief that so much progress has been made outside the House that our discussions here will be singularly short.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, considerably shortened.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Very well, considerably shortened. As an illustration of what he meant, he actually said that the great question whether women are having fair and proper treatment under this Bill would be disposed of by the Committee in. a day. It is an amazing statement.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I confined the question, which was whether Post

  1173
  Office contributors should be dealt with on insurance principles or Post Office principles, and I said that that could be disposed of in a night or two.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought what the right hon. Gentleman said was not in a night or two but in a day. I still think that in his answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, who specifically raised another question of the Post Office contributors and also this question, that before the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the question of the Post Office contributors he said we should be able to dispose of the great question whether women were fairly treated under this Bill in a day. However, I only meant to say that I thought he was much too sanguine, and to observe further that though a great deal of progress may have been made outside none of us know what that progress is, and not one of us has any means of knowing what are the decisions at which the Government have arrived. Here they are actually asking us to proceed by unusual means, by the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule on this very first day of the Committee stage, and they actually contemplated a guillotine resolution, before they have put on the Paper a single one of the Amendments not only which they have promised since the Second Heading, but which they announced on the Second Reading. Take the question of women's treatment. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Second Reading Debate said it was the plan of the Government that women's contributions should be allotted to women, and men's contributions to men. They were to be kept entirely distinct. He was asked where it was to be found in the Bill, and in an off-hand manner he said it was not in the Bill. That is the plan of the Government. It is not in the Bill.
  We are entitled to have the plan of the Bill before the Government presses on discussion with such extreme haste, and we are entitled to say at the very earliest opportunity that we ought to have had before to-day the Amendments as to which the Government are already agreed. The right hon. Gentleman has done his best and very properly, to conciliate, without injuring the Bill, all the various parties who are discontented. It is the task of a Minister, and no one is more adapted for it than he. But what is the result? That you separate in an obvious way different and sometimes conflicting interests. Different promises are made, sometimes, I
  1174
  think, conflicting promises. At any rate, hopes which cannot be reconciled are held out, and somebody later on will find themselves disappointed. When the right hon. Gentleman says that his previous conferences have cleared away half our difficulty that demands a great deal of consideration; but I have not observed from my correspondence that they are much cleared away to the ordinary member at present. We do not know what it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do. If he carries out all the statements which he has made his Bill will have to be profoundly recast. If he means to put the friendly societies into the position he announced they would occupy at Birmingham he has got enormously to increase the liability of the State. Instead of giving us the detailed proposal by which he hopes to stand he treats us to a great deal of vague declaration which raise hopes often, I think, doomed to be disappointed, and he does not help Members of this House in the work which they have to do. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman, before he proceeds further, to put on the Table the main Amendments of the Government. I do not say the other Amendments which will have to be brought forward no doubt as the Bill goes along, but the main Amendments which the Government has already decided, and which have been promised to meetings of individuals orally.
  Surely the House of Commons is entitled to have this upon the Notice Paper before it proceeds to discuss the Bill. Until we have it, I do not think we shall be able to say with confidence how much our Debates may have been shortened by the discussions which have taken place outside. I think it is quite possible, when the actual proposals of the Chancellor are put upon the Paper they may give rise to fresh difficulties of which we in this House shall have to take notice. But what I am really concerned about is that the Bill, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer invites the whole House to join with him in making it the Bill of the whole House and not the Bill of the Government, shall be a credit to the whole House; and it cannot be that unless we have ample time. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that on the introduction of the Bill Part II. was not explained at all, and on the Second Reading Debate the only speeches which dealt with Part II. were interjected into the midst of the discussion on Part I. by the two Members who have

  1175
  been or are at the Board of Trade, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who dealt with Part I., was not in the position, within the limits of his speech, or within the limits of the capacity of a Minister, to deal properly with what is really another distinct and heavy Bill. If we divide the Bill into two, I do not care which part the Government chooses to take first. I am quite ready to discuss Part II. in front of Part I., or to discuss Part I. in front of Part II., but I do Urge that whichever we take first we shall have a free hand to give to it as much time as the subject is found to require, and that we shall make a good job of that before we begin on a second, and that we shall not put ourselves into a difficult position by trying to do more than the House can do at this time of the year and turning out two bad Bills instead of one good Bill.
  One great difference is this. If you separate the two Bills, when you conic to the end of the Committee stage, if you have any doubt about the capacity of the House to deal fairly with both subjects, you can proceed with the Report stage of the one portion of the Bill and make it a perfect work, instead of being forced to go through, and weary the House with, a second and a new subject before they have finished the first part, and so render hon. Members so tired at a very late season of the year that when the Report work has to be done—and Report work on Bills like these must be very heavy—they are so fatigued, and time is so late, that it is impossible for the House to do properly the necessary heavy work. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned two reasons against delaying Part. II. of the Bill. As I have said, I do not mind whether you takes Part II. first or Part I. first. That is for the Government or the House to decide, but I think that only one of the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave has any weight at all. He, following the President of the Board of Trade, said quite truly, that if you are to start on employment insurance it is of the highest importance that you should start at the most favourable time and accumulate a reserve before times are bad and the drain comes. As times are comparatively favourable, he thought that that was a good argument for proceeding with that part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was another argument, namely, the effect produced upon the trade and industry by holding a certain liability over
  1176
  them. He only showed that his Bill is Part I. and not Part II., and that he really has not in his mind this unemployment part. That deals only with a very limited part of the trade of the country. It deals with it experimentally, with the avowed intention on the part of the Government that at a later time it can be extended to other trades. Therefore, all the uncertainty which the right hon. Gentleman says will be so dangerous is created by the avowed and expressed intention of the Government at the present time.
  Let me say that, as far as trade and industry are concerned, I think that the argument is all the other way. You are going to put a very heavy burden on trade and industry by this insurance. Further, I think that the burden will obviously be sensibly aggravated, where unemployed insurance falls also by the provisions of that part of the Bill. To have both these burdens suddenly placed upon the trade of this country at a time when the margin of profit is not great, when competition, even with either of these burdens, is very severe, seems to mo to deal a dangerous blow at trade; and if you regard the interests of the trade alone it is much better to proceed more gradually and allow the burdens to be assimilated and distributed more slowly than would be done by passing both these measures together. The main point is, I say, that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invite the co-operation of the House in this way and to refuse them the necessary time is, indeed, to make a mockery of the matter, and for my part I do not believe that it is possible for the House to deal adequately with both these great subjects within any tolerable limits of the Session. It may be said that the House will sit long beyond tolerable limits. I say that we may have to do that, but that it will not make good work. Everybody knows that in these circumstances this House is not at its best, that the work it turns out is much less likely to bo revised properly, and is much more dependent on the absolute fiat of the Government; and that that kind of work is singularly out of place at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confronted with the enormous difficulty of devising anything like a perfect scheme, invites the help of all of us to improve his Bill and render it more effective.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot reply to the hon. Gentleman except by leave of the House, but perhaps I may be allowed to answer him in regard to the questions

  1177
  he put. With regard to the Amendments of which the Government have given notice, they had to be discussed in the form of drafts with the various interests concerned, and they will be ready to be put upon the Table of the House at the beginning of next week. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these Amendments refer to Clause 8 and onwards, and I do not see any reasonable prospect of our coming to Clause 8 before the next few days.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Cannot the question as to women be raised on Clause 1?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I think not, though of course that question might be raised as to whether or not women are to be in the scheme at all. The Amendments which we propose must necessarily come later than Clause 1 in the Bill; therefore if they are produced at the beginning of next week they will be in ample time for the discussion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the question of women is directly raised on Clause 1, and unless we know what the Government propose to do about them, this House will be committed to the inclusion of women in the Bill without knowing in the least what that involves. I myself intend, if the Government Amendments are not on the Paper, to move to amend Clause 1 in order that women may be treated separately, and not included in the general scope of the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether it will be in order to discuss that on Clause 1. The proposals of the Government with regard to women go throughout the Bill, and I should have thought that, strictly, it would be out of order to take such a discussion on Clause 1, except by consent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in proposing the exclusion of women on Clause 1, in order that there should be laid before the House the Government Amendments to Clauses 8 and 13. For myself, I think that would be out of order, except with the consent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman wants the actual Amendments for consideration, but that is not possible at present, and I can only say with regard to them that they will be ready by the beginning of next week.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for
  1178
  Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to Clause 1, line 8—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord cannot. discuss the Amendments. At present the House is discussing whether or not the Bill should be divided.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One other point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was in reference to the finance of the scheme, and he suggested that it was a question of abrogation of responsibility. We shall certainly accept responsibility for our own scheme. I do not regard this Bill in the same way as I do the Veto Bill, and any alteration in the Clause would not necessarily be fatal to the whole scheme as far as we are concerned. Many of the Amendments to be placed on the Paper are in accordance with suggestions put before us in the course of the last few weeks.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Whilst I have been listening to the Debate I have tried to gather what particular arguments have any bearing whatever on the question before the House. Whether the Bill is to be divided or not is a matter which is hardly to be settled, I think, in what time remains to us to consider the Bill. We could drop Part II. of the Bill if necessary, and as soon as we see what is going to happen. We do not know how long a time is going to be taken up in discussing the question whether or not women are to be included in the Bill, and we must, surely go on clause by clause making what amendments we desire, besides making the most of our time and not wasting time in vague generalities about matters which might have been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not simply going to vote against this Instruction because I want to support my right hon. Friend, and if the guillotine had been proposed I would have voted against him in the Division Lobby. If it can be shown that the two sections of the Bill are quite separate, or, at any rate, have very little bearing upon each other, then I think there might be a good case made out for the separation. But whoever knows the operation of these two problems, sickness and unemployment in every-day life, knows perfectly well that they are interlaced together at every point. It may well be found convenient to drop the second part, as I have said, but it is a matter of convenience and not a matter of principle. There is not the least doubt that if we cart get these two parts, which compose the

  1179
  whole of the Bill, through the House within a reasonable time, it will be far better to get them both than to get them through separately. But I am not going to help to get them through together if it means that either section is going to be inadequately dealt with, or that the work which we put into either is going to be bad work. I do not know about that; I am a sceptic about it, a little bit of an agnostic. I must wait and see. It all depends on what we are going to do now, and how we are going to do it. This discussion is altogether premature, particularly for those who want to get on with the Bill and see what happens.
  If hon. Members look at Part I. of the Bill they will find, as I think at any rate, that one of the most important provisions of Part I. is that where an insured person is unemployed, and is coming under benefits given him by Part II. That is a very important point. If Part II. is going to be dropped that particular advantage in Part I. must also have to be dropped. Obviously no Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is as reckless as the Noble Lord opposite seems to suggest, or whether he is as careful as the Noble Lord would be, if he were himself Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give an unemployed person certain benefits in Part I. unless they were defined, and defined pretty rigidly and pretty reasonably, and I, for one, would help anyone in that direction, so that Part I. might be applied definitely without laying the Chancellor of the Exchequer open to the charge of extravagance or unnecessary waste. Therefore I am going to vote against the Instruction, not because I want slipshod work done, but because I would like to see what work can be done within the time at our disposal. We have a good many substantial Amendments, and if I find that Part I. is not going to be adequately discussed, I am not going to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out bad work. But until that time comes, the Government should have facilities to go ahead with the Bill.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: With reference to the provisions of the Bill, I should like to point out one practical consideration which has a bearing upon Parliamentary procedure. If this division of the Bill is not carried out, what is our position with reference to one very important part of the Bill. Closely connected with the first part of the Bill is the first Schedule,
  1180
  which really contains the gist of the measure. If we proceed with the two parts together, if we first consider the insurance part, and then go on to the question of unemployment, we would have to return to the Schedule in regard to Part I., and then go to the schedule in regard to unemployment, which would be a very difficult course to pursue in the interests of proper discussion. You cannot unless you divide the Bill and discuss one part at a time be sure that the Schedules follow the Clauses, and, therefore, it does seem to me that the business-like way of considering this measure is to accept the separation, and say that each part shall be considered with the Schedules affecting it; otherwise considerable difficulties will arise. The Government have failed to show us any real and close connection between the two parts. Although the last speaker endeavoured to show that in the first part of the Bill there was a provision dependent upon the second part, yet I do think it would be far more business-like if we dealt with each part and its Schedules separately. It is with all due deference that I put this point before the Government, and I hope they will give it consideration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Leicester, as I gather, is going to vote against this Instruction, but it certainly seems to me that his arguments were in favour of it. because the Instruction to divide the Bill into two enables us to take Part II. of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester knows perfectly well that Part II. is supported universally throughout the country. The hon. Member for Leicester seemed to think that Part II. might be dropped if it took too long to discuss Part I. I think everybody here would far sooner see Part II. on the Statute Book than Part I., and therefore one ought not to be tempted to vote against the Instruction in order to facilitate the dropping of Part II. of the Bill. The hon. Member showed clearly that one provision of Part I. was clearly dependent on the passing of Part. II. The question of whether a man is to be allowed to suspend his contributions during unemployment depends altogether on whether a man is unemployed. That is another argument in favour of passing Part II. first, and putting it on the Statute Book—a result which really depends on our being allowed to divide the Bill into two parts. I think the matter is of infinite importance. I can see no possible hope of passing the whole of this

  1181
  Bill into law this Session, or if it is passed into law it will be, at any rate, without adequate discussion, especially if the two parts are to be taken together. If that is the ease surely we are justified in doing all we can right here and now to see that the Part we do like shall be taken first. We have seen during the last month in the country a vast group of feeling against Part I. of the Bill, while we have seen nothing against Part II. of the Bill, or very little. All this makes it surely in the interest of the House and the Government that they should take first that part of the Bill which is wanted by the people and which is understood by the people themselves as being in their own interest.
  I am one of those to whom the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) referred and my chief Amendments to Part I. are to secure additional contributions from the Exchequer with a view to making the taxation created by this Bill a little less unequal and invidious in character. At present eleven millions is going to be raised on wages, and I and a good many others do not like that way of raising taxes. We prefer to see it raised by ordinary taxation rather than by deduction from wages. A good deal of the criticism on Part I. must inevitably consist in the desire to give additional benefit for the contributions, and to levy those contributions in a more equitable sense. I quite appreciate the attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in doing all they can to prevent any raids upon the Exchequer, but really they need not be very nervous about it. The Government have put a financial Resolution on the Paper, and that, I understand, is to be taken. As soon as that is passed half the Amendments at least on the Paper will become out of order, and all this nervousness about raids on the Exchequer ceases automatically with the passage of that Resolution. I notice that some hon. Members opposite have put down Amendments to exempt the agricultural labourer from the Bill. Even that Amendment, I imagine, will be ruled out of order as soon as we pass the financial Clause, because it is well known that the agricultural labourer is less liable to sickness or does not go sick so often as the town worker, and therefore the exemption of the agricultural labourer from the Bill would increase the actuarial risk among the average people, and would make the actuarial basis of the whole Bill unsound.
  1182
  Thus even that Amendment will be ruled out of order as soon as we pass the Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point can be raised on the Amendment. We are not discussing the matter now.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was endeavouring to explain to the Noble Lord and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a question that need not unduly delay the Committee over Part I. of the Bill, and that this Amendment will be ruled out as soon as the financial Resolution is passed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am very doubtful about that, and that is why I suggested to the hon. Member that he should wait until the Chairman of Ways and Means rules the point.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will pass from that point. I do urge upon the Government that the rushing through of Part I. of this Bill is not a matter of great importance at the present time. Part II. is far more popular and far more wanted than Part I., and it will be to the advantage of the House that we should be allowed to deal with these Bills as separate Bills, either one upstairs and one in the House, or one this year and one next year, in order to give them adequate discussion and consideration and in order to put good Acts on the Statute Book. We have secured today one great piece of assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has told us that wherever it is not a question of finance going to the root of the Bill, and wherever it is an ordinary Amendment, he would not put on the pressure of the Whips to force Members to vote in the Government Lobbies. This is an Amendment now brought forward by a Member of the Liberal party and seconded by a Member of the Labour party, and supported very largely by Members on this side of the House. I do hope that we shall not have the Government Whips put on in this case, and that we shall be able to vote on this Amendment as freely as though it were an Amendment moved by an influential Member on this side, or by a Member of the Opposition. This is a case that does not go to the root of the Bill, but merely divides it into two parts. You can still pass both this year, and you can send one upstairs. It does not go to the root of the insurance question. I do hope we shall not have any pressure put upon us, or put upon the people who are amenable to the party Whip, to vote in the Government Lobby on this Amendment.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I think it is quite clear that both on the other side of the House and on this side there is really a very general feeling that it will be quite impossible to pass this Bill into law provided we end our discussions at a reasonable hour of the day. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I think, evidently felt that during the course of his speech. His objection was why could not this be brought in when we had gone on with the discussion of Part I.? To my mind the whole object of dividing the Bill now is to make it quite clear that we can get through one part of the Bill straight away. I do not mind whether we begin with insurance or employment, but I do feel that it will be much more in the interests of good work if we could get through one of those parts first, that is to say, get through the Committee stage and Report stage and Third Reading of the insurance part, and then go on, if there is time, to the Committee stage and Report stage and Third Reading of the unemployment part. I do feel that it will be better not to spend weeks and nights over the insurance part, then go on to the unemployment part, and come back again to the insurance part. I was very glad to hear both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiating the suggestion that one part of this Bill should be sent upstairs. They have very rightly recognised that it would be really unfair, especially to those who are interested in both parts, to ask them to attend a Committee upstairs sitting from eleven o'clock to four, and then ask them to come down at four o'clock and go on to another part of the Bill until probably the same hour the next morning. They agreed that that is quite impossible, but at the same time they ask Members to go and sit on other Committees from eleven o'clock to four o'clock, and then, when they come down here, suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. I think that is extremely unfair, not only as to big Bills like this, but as to other Bills, which ought to receive very careful and very serious consideration upstairs.
  I was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest that though he will not send one part of the Bill upstairs, yet the Government are contemplating when we get through a few Clauses of the Bill to frame a Resolution that will send up particular Clauses out of both parts of the Bill to the Committee upstairs. Surely they must recognise that it is unfair to ask Members to sit on a
  1184
  Committee upstairs and discuss certain Clauses of the Bill, and then come down and discuss the whole of the rest of the Bill down here. That is equally unfair to them, and it is equally impossible, from the Government point of view, to reconcile the two parts of the Bill together in that way. The Government may be defeated upstairs on Amendments which may vitally affect other parts of the Bill, yet with their regular majority down here they may be carrying the Bill through on original lines. I cannot see what possible advantage can accrue from sending certain Clauses of this Bill to a Committee upstairs. I do sincerely hope that we have-heard the last of that suggestion, and I do wish that even at this hour the Government will alter their view and consent to divide this Bill into two parts. The only reason they really give for pressing on with the unemployment parts this year is that it happens to be the beginning of a fairly good time of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier in the Session that we were in for a good boom in trade. I am sorry to find that the opinion of the Chancellor has altered, for if not why would it not be possible to put off to next year, or the latter part of this year, the consideration of the unemployment part of the Bill. Though the Government say that a good many conflicting interests are reconciled, surely they must not forget that there are several other points which are not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which at present are stirring up very considerable feeling throughout the country. I may refer to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), namely, the position of the agricultural community. People who live in the rural districts may not have such active brains as gentlemen who live-in the towns, and it has taken them sometime to realise that really they are going to pay for the benefits of the town people under this Bill, though they are paying the same premium and receiving the same benefits.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is anticipating the discussion, and has nothing to do with this Motion.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I only wanted to point out that there are matters like that which were not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which will deserve and require very full and adequate discussion. That was

  1185
  one of my reasons for again urging the Government to divide this Bill into two parts. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members would much prefer that really adequate consideration should be given to the various points of one part of the Bill rather than that the Bill should be hurried through the House without any discussion.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I listened with great interest to all the speeches made in reply to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I regret I have found no adequate answer from the Front Bench to the arguments he put forward. The refusal of the Government to divide the Bill into two parts has been justified on two grounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that nearly every point of the important interests involved has been met by deputations, and in the second place the President of the Board of Trade said that the second part of the Bill is of such overwhelming importance that it must be proceeded with this year. In regard to the first contention, that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I feel that it is not convincing. He has, indeed, met a great many deputations, representing nearly all the vested interests concerned under the provisions of the first part of the Bill, but I doubt if his statement that he has met all their points really represents the situation. I fear he has not met the demands of the doctors, for only this morning I have received a letter asking me to meet a deputation from them. That surely does not represent that their case has been met. That, however, is not the most important point. It is easy for organised interests to go and meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to put their case before him. There are others who are not organised, and whose case cannot be presented in that way, and who can only have their views put forward on the floor of this House. It is on behalf of some of these that I desire to make this appeal to the Government to divide the Bill. I may give, as an example, the farm servants of Scotland, who are in a very peculiar and distinct position. There was indeed a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on behalf of these men, but it was a farmers deputation, concerned only with the interests of the farmers, and not with the interests of the agricultural labourers. The Scottish agricultural labourers are absolutely unorganised, and have no
  1186
  means of putting their case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their only chance of doing so is through their representatives in this House. It is extremely strange that a Government who owe so much to the agricultural labourers of Scotland should have introduced a Bill which ignores and neglects their interests altogether. The Prime Minister would not be here if it were not for the agricultural labourers of East Fife. I question whether the Patronage Secretary would be here, and I do not know how many other Members of the Government might be looking in other parts of the kingdom for seats, were it not for the agricultural labourers of Scotland. In this Bill they are absolutely ignored. They do not need to make any insurance whatever, because, as a term of their employment, they obtain full wages during six weeks.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to deal with that question now. When we reach the Amendments the Committee will doubtless be very glad to listen to him.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not intend to go any further into the merits of the case, but surely I am at liberty to argue that the fact that the interests of these men have been ignored is a reason for dividing the Bill into two parts, and for the further contention that, having ignored such an important interest, we should deal with the second part of the Bill before the first part.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no proposal to deal with the second part first. That is not contained in the Motion before the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I understood that the question whether one part should not be sent upstairs had been argued by preceding speakers, and I thought I was in order in making an alternative suggestion. But I support the Instruction without any reference to any particular procedure. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade as to the overwhelming importance and the extreme urgency of the unemployment part is the strongest argument for dividing the Bill. We are in a period of good trade in relation to those very particular industries which are most liable to fluctuation. Surely this part of the Bill should be taken separately from the other, and an opportunity be given to accumulate a reserve for dealing with the period of unemployment when it arises. I speak with special interest on this matter, be-

  1187
  cause I represent a part of the country where these fluctuations are very severe indeed. In no part of the country are the fluctuations of trade more severely felt than in the West of Scotland, which is so largely dependent on the great shipping industry. Another more general consideration which seems to me of almost equal importance is that the health provisions of the Bill affect the daily life of every man, woman and child in the country. Only a very small minority of them have any appreciation of how these provisions will affect them. Surely it is important that these two parts, so different in character and in urgency, should be dealt with separately? For these reasons I have been driven to the conclusion that I must support the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. PETO: I am strongly in favour of dividing the Bill into two parts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating that that course would be very undesirable, said that it was necessary to go ahead with the unemployment part in order that the employers, who would be asked for a contribution of 3d. per week, should know exactly where they stand. It seems to mo that there is extremely little, if anything at all, in that argument, because the unemployment part of the Bill refers to one or two selected trades only. Therefore the employers in all the other trades in the country, after we have passed Part II., will still be waiting to know whether they will have to make a further contribution of 2½d. or any other sum that may be decided upon. There is no reason why the Bill
  should not be divided, so that the House might address itself to the comparatively simple, though long and arduous, problem of Part I.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether the intimation which ha3 been given empowers the Minister in charge of the Bill to send certain Clauses to a Grand Committee upstairs at any time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The position stands thus. The Standing Order provides that the Member in charge of a Bill may, immediately the Bill has been read a second time, ask the House to keep part of the Bill here and to send a part upstairs. My own impression is that that must be done immediately after the Second Reading. But it is always open to the Government, as they have control of the time of the House, to put down a Motion to send part of a Bill upstairs. They are not precluded by the existence of the Standing Orders from so doing. But the hon. Member will observe that an unofficial Member is precluded from doing that, because he has no time at his disposal.
  Mr. BOOTH: In view of your ruling, and of the undertaking of the Government that they will consider my suggestion, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 254.

  Division No. 255.]

  AYES.

  [6.10 p.m.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Doughty, Sir George

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Boyton, James

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Butcher, J. G.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Baird, J. L.

  Cator, John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cave, George

  Goldman, C. S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chamberlin, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Goulding, E. A.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grant, J. A.

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Barnston, H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Bathurst, Hon A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks-

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bigland, Alfred

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bird, A.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Martin, Joseph

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Starkcy, John Ralph

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Moore, William

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Swift, Rigby

  Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hunt, Rowland

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Nield, Herbert

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Williams, Col. R. (Corset, W.)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile Erid)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

  Younger, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Wedgwood

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crooks, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Herbert, Sir Ivor

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hodge, John

  Anderson, A. M.

  Delany, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Doris, W.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, W.

  Barnes, George N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barton, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Beale, W. P.

  Ellbank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Joyce, Michael

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Keating, M.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)

  Keily, Edward

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Essex, Richard Walter

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Falconer, J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Boland, John Plus

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leach, Charles

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Field, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Logan, John William

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Lundon, T.

  Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk, N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cameron, Robert

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Hackett, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clough, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Manfield, Harry

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harwood, George

  Meagher, Michael

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  1190

  1191

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Sutton, John E.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor John W. (Durham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Munro, R.

  Reddy, Michael

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Dowd, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Webb, H.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Shee, James John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Pointer, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow Mr. MacCallum Scott) proposes to give powers "to insert provisions for the extension of medical and sanatorium benefits to married women whose husbands are insured under the Bill." If a charge would be created by this Instruction it would not be permissible. If it does not create a charge, the object can be carried out by Amendment to the Bill. The next proposal, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is also out of order. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) proposes that the Bill should "be divided into two parts, one relating to the insurance of men and the other relating to the insurance of women, and that the Committee should have power to proceed first with the insurance of women." I do not know whether that means two Bills. If it means two parts, it cannot be done by Instruction. If it means two Bills, the division is an unnatural one. The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset (Sir Randolf Baker), "that it be an Instruction to the Committee to divide the portion of the Bill relating to invalidity into two parts, one dealing with all persons employed in agricultural or horticultural
  1192
  occupations, and the other with all persons engaged with other trades," can be done by Amendment. The same applies to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rye Division of Sussex (Mr. Courthope).
  With regard to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Horner) that the Committee be empowered "to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with Great Britain and the one dealing with Ireland," the Bill does not naturally fall into that division. The hon. Member proposes to omit Ireland from the Bill altogether. He can do so by moving to omit Clause 59, and inserting a new Clause to say that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland. That can be done in Committee, and does not require any Instruction. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Mr. Sandys) "that the Committee should have power to order an inquiry by Royal Commission into the subject of State Insurance against invalidity and unemployment before the Third Reading of the Bill," is quite beyond a Committee of the Whole House. The last Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir Henry Craik), "that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to

  1193
  postpone the provisions for medical benefits so that they may be made the subject of a separate Bill," can be done by amendment. There being no other Instructions, I propose to leave the Chair.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

Part I.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Insured Persons.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons who are employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be, and any persons who are not so employed but who possess the qualifications hereinafter mentioned may be, insured in manner provided in this Part of this Act, and all persons so insured (in this Act called "insured persons") shall be entitled in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in this Act to the benefits in respect of health insurance and prevention of sickness conferred by this Part of this Act.
    (2) The persons employed within the meaning of this part of this Act (in this Act referred to as "employed contributors") shall include all persons of either sex, whether British subjects or not, who are engaged in any of the employments specified in Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act, not being employments specified in Part II. of that Schedule:
    Provided that the Insurance Commissioners herein-after constituted may, with the approval of the Treasury, by regulations, provide for including amongst the persons employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the said schedule.
    (3) The persons not employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act who are entitled to become insured persons include all persons who either—
    (a) are engaged in some regular occupation, and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation; or
    (b) have been employed contributors for a period of five years or upwards;
    and the persons possessing such qualifications who become insured persons are in this Act referred to as voluntary contributors:
    Provided that where a person who has been a voluntary contributor for five years or upwards ceases to possess such qualifications as aforesaid he shall not by reason thereof be disentitled to continue to be insured under this Part of this Act.
    (4) Nothing in this section shall require or authorise a person over the age of sixty five years not previously insured under this Part of this Act to become so insured.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) to postpone Part I. is out of order. You cannot move to postpone part of a Bill. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow), in Sub-section (1)— after the word "Act" ["Subject to the provisions of this Act"], to insert the words "and save as provided in Part II. of the First Schedule of this Act"—is, I think—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask on what ground you rule that you cannot postpone part of a Bill? I do not see any reason. May I inquire, Mr. Emmott, on what grounds your ruling is based?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move to postpone part of a Bill. He can move to postpone a Clause if he gives a proper reason for making the Motion; but he cannot move to postpone part of a Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it will be convenient for you to give some guidance to hon. Members who have put down Amendments? The Speaker was good enough to suggest that I should raise this question when you first took the Chair. We would like to know what is the view of the Chair in. regard to all that series of Amendments which will increase the benefits to be distributed. Will you hold that they increase the charge upon the Exchequer, and are, therefore, out of order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot possibly answer a general question of that kind, because we have not yet passed the necessary financial Resolutions for this Bill. When those are passed I shall be in a better position to say what is in order and what is not in order.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will it not then be too late to deal with all these Amendments which increase benefits? Directly

    1195
    the financial Resolutions have passed the House it may be quite impossible to alter any of the benefits proposed, because it will lead to actuarial unsoundness in the scheme. If these Amendments are to be ruled out of order as soon as the financial Resolutions are passed it is as well for the House to know before they sanction these Resolutions what they are committing themselves to.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to hon. Members that if they have any questions upon this point I should deal with them when we come to discuss the financial Resolutions. We cannot enter into a discussion on Clause 3 until these financial Resolutions are passed. When these financial Resolutions are before the Committee, if I can give any guidance with regard to these matters I shall be very glad to do so. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford, I gather from conversation that I had with him, really refers to exemptions that he desires to make. In that case it will not be in order here. The next Amendment is in order.
    Mr. HILLS: My Amendment is, in Subsection (1), after the word "all" ["all persons who are employed"], to insert the word "male." This Amendment raises the whole position of women in this Bill, but I see that all the specific points that I meant to raise are included in other Amendments. As I do not want to waste the time of the House with a Second Reading discussion, I propose not to move my Amendment subject to this: that I have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by so doing I shall not be precluded from dealing with these specific points as they arise.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: By the leave of the House I will answer that question. This belongs to a class of Amendments of which I am cognizant, and raises all the difficulties presented to me in respect to the case of women. It can be raised subsequently.
    Amendment was not moved.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that he will let us have the actuarial calculations which we were promised on the Second Reading, and which it was said we should have at the same time as the Amendments? It is really impossible for us to consider what Amendments we
    1196
    should put on the Paper whilst the actuarial information which the right hon. Gentleman promised so long ago is not before us; which I believe myself he had in his possession then, and is withholding from us.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My own recollection is that I did promise certain actuarial calculations with reference to the men of the Army and the Navy—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And women.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that I did, of course I accept his statement, but I have no recollection of it. At any rate, it is the intention of the Government to publish information in respect of the actuarial position of women and of the soldiers and sailors, and that certainly will be done long before we reach the specific Amendments.
    Sir F. BAN BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the actuarial information upon which the whole Bill has been founded?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Baronet will find that all that is in the Paper which is to be published.
    The CHAIRMAN: The proposed Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) contains an exemption which I think can come up on Clause 2.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. This Amendment hangs on another one in which are certain enacting words. If I were to wait for the Schedule I should be out of order, because I understand you cannot move enacting words in the Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: By taking the hon. Gentleman's two Amendments together I see that they make exemptions, and exemptions can be moved in the form of a new Sub-section to Clause 2. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley, in Sub-section (1), after the word "persons" ["All persons who"], to insert "including for the purposes of the benefit conferred by this Act, or such of them as are hereinafter specified, the children under sixteen years of age of such persons," can come under Clause 8.
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act," to insert the words ["Part of this Act shall

    1197
    be"] "and their wives." The Amendment will make the Clause read as follows: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons who are employed within the meaning of this Part of the Act 'and their wives' shall be" and so on. This raises the whole question of the position of women under the Bill in a very concrete form.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going to move to include the wives in all the benefits. Surely that will cause an increased charge upon the Exchequer, as I presume the hon. Gentleman will require that the Exchequer should contribute in respect of the wives in the same way as the men. Does not that increase the charge upon the Exchequer, and therefore is it not out of order?
    The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with a Clause now which states who is to be insured and who is not to be insured. The financial arrangements in regard to persons follow, and therefore the point raised by the hon. Baronet does not arise now.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Does not the word "persons" include women already?
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it will be better if the hon. Gentleman who is moving this Amendment should make it "and the wives, 'if any,' of such persons."
    Mr. HARDIE: I am not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, how your suggested words might be construed "and the wives, 'if any'"—
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, can you include women at this point, and not children? My Amendment was to include children for the benefits, and I understand that you have ruled me out of order, seeing that they must come into the Schedule benefits. As I understand the proposal now it is to bring in the wives. Then why not the children?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as I understand it, would include the children within the scope of the benefits provided under this Bill. That should wait for Clause 8. I take it that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil proposes that the wives of any of those men whom he desires to include within the category of compulsory insurance shall pay a contribution and come under the compul-
    1198
    sory insurance part of the scheme. If that is the case I do not see any other place where it can be raised except here.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Your interpretation, Mr. Emmott, of my intention is quite accurate. My object of moving this Amendment on behalf of the Labour party is to bring the women within the scope of this Clause as insured persons. Under the Bill as it stands, the married woman occupies a very anomalous position. If the married woman had been an industrial worker before marrying, what becomes of her when she marries? She loses for the time being all the benefits and remains in a state of suspended animation until she may chance to become a widow. But the woman who has never been industrially employed and is married is left out altogether from the provisions of this Bill. I heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say, and I read his reasons for excluding married women from the scope of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated the difficulties in the way; he is himself quite sympathetic with the proposal if it could be done, but first of all he points out the enormous cost, because he says it is admitted that sickness amongst women is much more frequent than sickness amongst men. His second point was the difficulty of checking sickness amongst women who are not industrially employed, and his third point was the difficulty of getting the doctors to agree. I do not know whether the Chancellor meant to say, when speaking about the difficulty of checking sickness amongst women, that the working women in this country are given to malingering. Those who live like myself among the working classes, and know the conditions of working-class life and character and of the wives and mothers of the working classes know that the fault is not that they are given to malingering and pretending sickness, but, on the contrary, that they frequently over-work themselves when their physical condition is not equal to it.
    With regard to the financial objection, it is purely a matter of justice. There are several ways as to how the married woman's contribution might be made, either of which could be brought into operation if the married woman was brought within the scope of the Bill. The married woman's contribution, for example, could be deducted along with the husband's in the office of the employer. The contribution of the worker is to be deducted from his wages week by week, and there could

    1199
    be no insuperable difficulty in the way of making a deduction for the wife's contribution as well as for the husband's. If that is not desirable a second course would be open, namely, that the married woman could pay her contribution through an approved society, and therefore there need not be any technical difficulties raised as to the matter of contribution. As for the medical men, I presume their hesitation about seeing women brought into the scheme is purely financial. They know as well and better than any section of the community the great need there is for married women receiving more and better medical attention than they possibly can under existing circumstances. The 30s. alternative benefit is good so far as it goes, but it goes a very little way, and what we desire to see is that the medical benefit, and especially the medical benefit, shall be extended to women, with a certain sickness allowance the same as in the case of industrial women.
    The House of Commons, I am sure, will approach this subject in a sympathetic frame of mind. The relief that is proposed to be given to the breadwinnner under this Bill will, to a certain extent, relieve the pressure which inevitably follows a period of sickness. But that pressure is not felt alone in the time when the breadwinner himself is disabled. When the wife is sick, it is nearly always necessary to pay for outside help which has to be brought in. The married woman requires nursing, the housework requires to be done, young children require to be looked after, and it entails extra expenditure, which the wages of the husband makes it impossible for him to adequately meet. As a result the poor woman suffers, the children suffer, and a great deal of discomfort is added to the life of the husband which might easily be obviated, and therefore by the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill, and by setting the experts to work, to find out what cost it would entail, and having the necessary amendments provided to have married women brought in, you would carry a measure of hope and comfort into the homes of tens of thousands of people all over the land, and in the belief that the House is prepared to approach the subject in a sympathetic frame of mind, I beg leave to move my Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a proposal of a very sweeping and far-reaching character. I am sure the Committee has
    1200
    already gathered its full import. It means not that women should be included, but that women should be compulsorily included; that the wives of all the employed people of the country which comes to something like ten or twelve millions should be compulsorily included in the purview of this Bill. What does that mean? The hon. Member with his usual courage ha3 faced it, and is prepared to carry it through. Somebody has got to pay that contribution. His proposal is that the workman should pay, not 4d. as proposed under the Bill, but that he should pay 8d., that the employer instead of paying 3d. should pay 6d.; that is what it means, unless the State comes to the rescue and finds a few more millions. Every penny of contribution produces £3,000,000; that is the first figure I want to get into the minds of hon. Members of the Committee. This Amendment means you have got to find 6d. for the married woman in addition to the 2d. from the State; that means 8d. altogether, which represents another £24,000,000 of money. If the hon. Gentleman says 6d. is to be divided between the employer and the workman and the other 2d. is to be paid by the State, that means an additional liability to the State of about £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of money.
    Let us take the workman. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that 11,000,000 of workmen in this country—I do not know what proportion are married, if you like make it 9,000,000—is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that that 9,000,000 of working men would be prepared to find 3d. in addition to the 4d. levied upon them? I agree that even then they would be finding less than the workmen in Germany. Then you come to the employer; he would have to find 6d. if married women were included instead of 3d. as the Bill now stands. I also believe that even then the vast number of employers would be only paying about the same amount as in Germany, but I could not accept the responsibility on the part of the State for finding another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 and imposing an additional charge upon the employer of £9,000,000 and upon the workman of another £9,000,000. I think that is much too serious and sweeping a proposition. Some time later on, it may be desired to include the whole of the married women within the purview of the scheme, but there is not the same urgency, for the simple reason that we are making provision now for the workman when ill, and for a time when no money at all is coming into his house. That is not the case when

    1201
    the married woman is ill; I do not say there is not a greater burden upon the household when she is ill. She may have to find a substitute. I am not challenging these propositions, but there is not the same hardship as when the breadwinner is ill, and it is far better that we should see how the provisions which we contemplate under this Bill would work before we embark upon a gigantic scheme such as that outlined by the hon. Member.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Every Member of the Committee who has heard this discussion will feel that the objections to this particular Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised are insuperable. You cannot ask the State at this moment to find an additional £6,000,000, and you cannot ask the employers of married men to double his contribution because the workman has a wife. Just consider the proposition. I do not know whether hon. Members have themselves looked into individual cases to see what the charge upon the employer is going to be under this part of the Bill. I confess I think it is a very serious burden in many cases. The highest figure which has been brought to my notice by a gentleman whom I can absolutely trust, shows that it is going to cost 6s. in the £ on the average profits of the last three years in the case of the particular manufacture in which he is concerned. You cannot ask an employer, in addition to the burdens placed upon him, to take an additional burden, not on behalf of the person he is employing, but on behalf of his dependent. If you did it would have a result which I am sure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil would be among the first to regret. It would cause every employer when taking on a man to ask whether ho was married or single, and he would reject married men in favour of single men. I am sure that would not achieve the object in view. For these reasons it will be quite impossible for me to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment or to alter his decision in regard to it. I think a very uneasy feeling exists largely in this House and very widely outside as to the general treatment of women under the Bill. The scheme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted deals very harshly in my opinion with women. Of course, I accept from the Chancellor of the Exchequer his statement that women, as women, get more in proportion to their contributions than men as men under this Act. That is a state-
    1202
    ment which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Second Reading of this Bill, and it is for the purpose of going into this point that I have asked for the actuarial calculations upon which that statement is based. Accepting it for the moment as being the case, it does not prove that what is taken from women is fairly distributed amongst the women from whom it is taken. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has framed his Bill so that a very large number of women will pay a contribution quite in excess of anything they can receive either as individuals or as a class.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going into the general question. I could not possibly reply to him, and I do not think it is quite fair to introduce it at this stage. I submit that it is out of order and that it should be raised upon another part of the Bill. The point the right hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise can be raised when we arrive at the part of the Bill dealing with that question, and I think it is obviously out of order to raise the general question on an Amendment of this kind.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to involve the Committee in a discussion which can be more conveniently taken later on, and that is not my intention. I do not, however, wish to give the go-by to this Amendment without indicating to what extent I am in agreement with the hon. Member who moved it, as to the class whom he seeks to protect, because I think they ought to have larger benefits than they get under this Bill. I think, however, it is impossible to treat them as the hon. Gentleman proposes to treat them, and I will not elaborate that point. I will merely say that probably the bulk of the wives of insured persons have themselves at one time been employed, and will be at one time insured persons under this Act. They will be insured before marriage; and a few of them may become insured persons in their widowhood; but the great bulk of them would cease to derive any benefit at the time when they are wives because they will be wives of insured persons under this Act. I do not want to say "No" to this Amendment without indicating that more consideration should be given to the class of case which is raised with the intention of making their position rather more favourable than it is at the present time. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that I have not trespassed unduly. I have avoided details, but I do not

    1203
    wish to exclude the possibility of doing something for these women by the rejection of this Amendment.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not support this Amendment because I think it raised too large a question and fixes too heavy a burden on those concerned.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have not discussed the financial position because I understood that would not be in order. The object of this Amendment was to bring married women within the scope of insured persons. The financial provisions to be made is a matter for subsequent discussion, and I purposely did not raise it at this stage because I understood it would not be in order.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I cannot see that it is out of order in view of the points raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment for East Worcestershire. This Amendment would raise too heavy a tax and increase the burden of this Bill too greatly. I want to put to my right hon. Friend that this Amendment does raise the position of married women, and if you do not bring them under the compulsory Clauses provision ought to be made that they will come under the voluntary Clauses. The position of married women should not be lost sight of, although we cannot bring them under the compulsory Clauses at this moment.
    Mr. HILLS: I do not think this Amendment ought to be accepted, because it will throw upon the married man employed and the employer a greater burden. You will either have to take more from the man's wages and the employers or else use the premiums paid by them to insure the married women. I do not think that is a feasible or a fair plan. It is clearly impossible to charge the employer with a premium required to insure the workman's wife. It raises the obvious difficulty that no married man will get employment easily; besides that, it imposes too heavy a burden upon industry. I think the burden on the man's wages is too great. There is another point to which I want to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the present time married women who have been insured before marriage on marriage lose all benefit, and until they come back into industry or lose their husbands they cannot get on the insurance fund again.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that it is a very important point, but it comes on later. As far as possible I think it will be more convenient that we should confine the Debate to the immediate Amendment before the House. I shall really press for that, otherwise there will be much repetition. I can assure the hon. Member that I have got that point in mind, and I think he will find when we come to it that I shall be able to satisfy him. I submit that we should confine ourselves to the particular question raised by the Amendment.
    Mr. HILLS: I think I can show that I am quite in order. Besides the point that you must get premiums from the employer and the employed there is the point that the State may be asked to pay the 2d. for women. Supposing that it was held by the House that married women insured before marriage could not pay premiums after marriage, and that the husbands could not pay the premiums, it is arguable that the State ought still to grant 2d. a week for all married women. That point is included in the Amendment of the hon. Member, and it does not deal with finance at all. The Amendment simply says that the wives of employed persons are to be included in the compulsory insured Clause. It does not say what the amount of the premium is to be, but it simply includes those women in the class that is to be employed. I submit it is perfectly competent to argue that it might be a fair and proper thing for the State to pay the twopence a week for these women. First of all, I want some information about the figures, because I am told that these married women who would be included in this part of the Bill number 6,000,000, and not 9,000,000 or 11,000,000 as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Anyhow, I think the figure will be found to be much smaller than that stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    7.0 P.M.
    As this may be the last occasion upon which we can raise this point, I feel bound to raise it, because it is one that goes to the very basis of the system of the Bill, and also to the very root of the economic position of a man compared to a woman. It is all very well in the case of a man to say you will not insure him unless he earns a wage from which you can take his contribution. The same rule as to work does not apply to women. The work she does is not wage paid, and yet it is work just as valuable to the State as man's work. Why on this account should a man be placed in

    1205
    a preferable position to his wife? A man goes forth to his work and labour, and woman stays at home to mind the home. Each does just as valuable a work for the State, but by this Bill all the advantage is given to the man, and you put the woman into a very inferior position. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a moment of unexpected generosity, was to consider the possibility of granting the twopence a week to all married women who were insured before marriage. He would then find that these women were some 6,000,000 in number, and that the total charge upon the Exchequer would be something like £2,250,000 a year. I agree that that is a very large sum. Assuming that for a moment, how much could you do for this 2d. In the first place you could give a married woman medical benefit for the whole of her life, and you could give her maternity benefit for the whole of her life. You could not give sick pay, but that, perhaps, is not so important in the case of a married woman as in the case of a married man. You could do all the curative and preventive work this Bill is intended to do for 2d. per week, and beyond that you could give institutional and sanatorium treatment, all for your 2d. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to accept a suggestion of that sort, because I suppose he will say it will upset the finance of his Bill, but it is important the Committee should realise how unfair the whole scheme is to women and how unfair all contributory schemes are bound to be to women. It is not the fault of the way the Bill is drawn, and it is not the fault of the Bill itself. All contributory schemes, whether of pensions or of anything else, cannot be fair to women, because their work is not paid by wages, although it is just as valuable to the State. A woman's health is a more important asset to the State than the health of a man. A recent writer has said that a man's life is the income of the State, but a woman's life is the capital of the State. You cannot risk her health without risking a grave national calamity, and for those reasons I do urge this Amendment in some form or other upon the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think some hon. Members who have spoken, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have come to rather hasty conclusions about this Amendment. The assumption
    1206
    is this Amendment means that 3d. must be paid for the woman from her husband's wages, 3d. by the employer of the husband, and 2d. by the State, but hon. Members have surely not forgotten the first words of the Clause, "Subject to the provisions of this Act." Subject to the provisions of this Act, these women shall be insured. All we want to do by this Amendment and all we actually do is to say that women shall be insured. If a married woman is to be insured upon a threepenny basis, we will say so later on. If part of her insurance is to come from the employer of the husband, we can say so later on, and, if part of her insurance is not to come from the employer of her husband, we can say that. As a matter of fact, there are Amendments which will complete the scheme. All we want the Committee to say now is that it is in favour of the compulsory insurance of married women on precisely the same footing as men. That is all. I want to emphasise that, because there is no use in making absurd replies to very reasonable Amendments. The absurd reply was that the married woman, if this Amendment is carried, must be subject to the same provisions as to the contributions of the employer, the husband, and the State as the husband. That is not involved in the Amendment at all. The right hon. Gentleman is compelling a very considerable number of people to insure who are already insured in friendly societies and trades unions; and if he is going to claim one-tenth of the benefits for his scheme he has claimed he has got to make it a little more liberal than it is. It is simply absurd to go away and say a scheme is at all satisfactory which deals with married men only and not with their wives.
    My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. W. Hills) stated that a contributory scheme must be unjust to women. I think it is unnecessary for a contributory scheme to be unjust to women. A woman's value to the State can be appraised, and the benefits under a compulsory scheme can be made as definite and as fair to women as to men. I want the Committee to remember what the Amendment is. It simply says the wives of people who must be insured under this Bill ought also to Be insured. If the Committee is not prepared to do that, let it understand right away from the beginning that it is going to cut out great benefits from the family point of view, apart from the individual point of view, which this Bill can easily secure. We will deal with the payments and with

    1207
    the benefits when the time comes, and we will also deal with the responsibility of the State when the time comes. Those questions can be solved, and can be met by Amendments on the Paper. All we want the Committee now to say is that in its mind and intention married women must be included as well as married men.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must reply to what has fallen from my hon. Friend. He attacks me because I put an interpretation upon this Amendment which was put upon it by the mover himself. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) suggested increasing the workman's contribution and the employer's contribution, and I inferred that the rest was to come from the State. All I said was that if that was the interpretation placed upon the Amendment it would cost £24,000,000 or £25,000,000. The hon. Gentleman says it will not cost quite as much, but if you bring it down to £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 somebody has got to find the money, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said he would find it by increasing the contribution of the workman, the contribution of the employer of the workman, and the contribution of the State. I say that is a responsibility the Committee ought not to undertake at this stage. That is all I have said. There is one other statement made by my hon. Friend for which he has no warrant, and I think it is rather important it should be pointed out. He says there is no provision in the Bill, unless the Amendment is carried at this stage, for the family. That is not correct, and he cannot have read the Bill if he says so. There is a provision that the surplus may be applied by the societies for the purpose of providing medical attendance for the family. That will be a sum of £2,000,000 within the first three years, and within 15i years it will be a sum of £8,000.000 or £9,000,000. If will be quite possible for the societies with that £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 at their disposal to use it for the purpose of medical treatment and sanatorium treatment of married women. There is, therefore, some provision in the Bill. My hon. Friend may say it is not adequate and does not come up to his ideal of what ought to be done, but it is not correct to say there is not provision. After all, £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 is a very considerable provision for anything in any Bill.
    There is only one other word I want to Bay, and it is in reply to the hon. Member
    1208
    for Durham (Mr. Hills). I hope he does not think I imagine he wants to waste the time of the Committee. He is a genuine social reformer, and always speaks with knowledge on these subjects. He says there are only 6,000,000 married women to come under this Clause. I am not prepared at the moment to challenge his figure and I will accept it for the moment. That would involve £2,600,000 a year from the State, and that is equivalent to an additional penny on the Income Tax. I think it would be a great responsibility to ask the Committee to undertake that, and for my part I shall be called upon at this stage to resist it. There is not really the same urgent demand or reason, as I have pointed out, for insuring a married woman as long as she has a husband employed. The point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) is a point by itself. You must have some benefit, and the cheapest you can get is sanatoria, which would come to one-third of a penny. Nobody proposes to confine it to that, and it would cost 2d. at the very least.
    Mr. DICKINSON: May I ask your ruling on a point of Order? The proposal is to insert the words "and the wives of such persons," so that if those words were inserted it would read "all persons who are employed and the wives of such persons shall be insured." If we reject those words and decline to insert them, will it be competent for us to put in other Amendments which will give benefits to married women under any circumstances?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, of course, means in the Benefit Clause, Clause 8. The rejection of these words would not, I think, interfere with the Committee in reference to the Amendment of Clause 8. This is a wider question. This is to bring women in. as compulsorily insured, and I should not, therefore, treat the decision on this question as excluding them from further benefits under Clause 8.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Clause 8, I think, relates exclusively to benefits, and I submit it would be out of order, under Clause 8, to indicate, in any form, either the amount or the nature of the contribution that will have to be paid. Surely, if we are to raise the question in some subsequent place in the Bill, we should do it where we could arrange for the contribution as well as the benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point of Order. May I submit that if the contribu-

    1209
    tion is to be compulsory then it has to be disposed of at this point. But that does not preclude any one at a later stage suggesting that married women should come in as voluntary contributors. That comes in Sub-section (3), and even if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is defeated at this stage, it will be quite competent for any one on Sub-section (3) to move that married women shall be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors.
    The CHAIRMAN: In answer to the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division of Kent, I would point out that in Clause 8 there is a paragraph which, as the hon. Member very well knows, gives the maternity benefit to the wife of an insured person, and, therefore, although it may be impossible for me to tie myself on a point like this, I do not say, having regard to what is already in Clause 8, it will be impossible to propose other benefits for the wife of an insured person. In reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who asked me about the voluntary contributors in Sub-section (3), I was proposing in regard to Amendments to the Sub-section to deal with them in Clause 34. If I find any reason to alter that opinion, I shall allow some Amendment of Sub-section (3) to be proposed in order to raise a case in regard to women, if there is any case to be raised.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point I want to raise is, whether, in the event of the Amendment being defeated, it would preclude proposals for bringing married women within the scope of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: As there is already a benefit to the wife of an insured person, I do not think that would follow.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: However great the measure of our sympathy with the workman's wife, whose lot is generally hard and bitter, I submit that this is a very crude Amendment, which can hardly have been fully considered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. If it means anything it implies a fresh contribution from the employer. What claim has the workman's wife upon her husband's employer? She is not employed by him, and you will be putting an impossible burden on British trade. It is all very well to talk in percentages, but when it is worked out in £ s. d. it seems a very great change to take 8s., as will be done under the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr
    1210
    Tydvil, out of every pound of profit made in certain trades. You are not only dealing with the case of great companies that have large resources, but there are many cases in the East End of London where the employer, employing thirty, forty, or fifty men, himself does not make more than £2 or £3 per week profit, and you are proposing to impose on that man an added burden of a contribution, because this Amendment must mean a contribution by the employer for the man's wife as well as for himself. When you have figured that out, it amounts to 25 per cent. of the profit he is making, and I say that it is an unfair and impossible burden to put on British industry. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite can have worked out these figures. They cannot have realised what the added burden would mean to the smaller employer. I quite admit it is very difficult in this great question to argue closely, because so much of the land is so wholely unknown. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave airily the figure of 10,000,000 as the number of married workmen in this country, though he has since modified that. I do not think he had any statistics in his possession, and it was more or less a guess, but it shows the difficulty, the very great difficulty, we are in in arguing many of the points that will arise.
    Everybody will admit, of course, that if we can benefit women who are not at present insured in any way, and who do not come into friendly societies, except in so few instances as to make no matter, it would be a great advantage. But I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it does seem very hard, and I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, it is hard that a woman who has been working and paying contributions and then marries should get no return in money in many cases for what she has given by way of contributions. She may be happy in her married life and may —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—I am not sure whether this is in order, but it is only so far relevant because it has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) as arising out of Clause 8. When we come to consider that further, if the maternity benefits can be increased in the case of those who have made contributions, it would meet much of the hardship that has been pointed out and which has given ground for the Amendment. The Amendment, as it stands, would set up a principle absolutely unjust in itself, that is the demand from

    1211
    the employer of a contribution for the wife of the man he employs, who has no real claim on him, and, if it were granted, it would mean an added burden, which it would be not only unjust to impose, but which would be found in practice most harmful to the whole conditions under which men work in this country.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I should not have intervened again but for a fear that the vote on this Amendment may be taken on a false issue. Everyone has assumed, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if this Amendment be carried the financial conditions applying to married women must necessarily be the same as those applying to men. But that is not necessarily so. No one on these benches has said it is so. The hon. Member for Stepney has spoken of the great harm that might accrue, and has told us that the small employer earning only £3 a week for himself would suffer seriously. But suppose a certain employer of, say, thirty workmen has to pay 2d. per week in respect of each one, it only amounts to 5s. out of the £3, and that surely is not a very embarrassing sum in view of the benefits which are secured. The point of the Amendment is this, if this Amendment is not carried women are thereby excluded from the class of persons who are to be compulsorily insured under this Bill. I am, of course, referring to married women. The Committee is asked by the Bill to again treat married women as inferior creatures. If the women had a vote the same as the men have the Government would not dare to treat them in this way. No such Bill as this would be brought in. The object of the Amendment is to bring married women within the class of those who are to be compulsorily insured under the Bill. The terms of that insurance and the benefits to be provided under it are all points for subsequent discussion, but, by passing this Amendment now, you bring married women fully and completely within the scope of the Bill, and then you proceed to make what provisions you think fit, both in the matter of contributions and of benefits. If this Amendment is rejected, it means that at no subsequent stage of the Bill can married women be brought in under the compulsory Clauses. I shall, therefore, press this Motion to a Division, and I hope hon. Members will not vote against the Amendment on a side issue. Let them bear in mind that the real issue is: Are married women to be
    1212
    brought inside this scheme so as to secure all the benefits which the Bill is supposed to confer?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly understood, as also apparently did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman proposed, as his method for carrying out his Amendment and making it effective, that the employer should pay a contribution on account of the wife as well as on account of the workman himself.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: No, I simply used that as an illustration of how it might be done.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course I accept the statement of the hon. Member that he intended it nothing more than as an illustration of one way in which the employer of a married man might be made to pay a double contribution because the man was married. The man himself is also to be called upon to pay a double contribution because he is married, and I put it that that is the only way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested the Amendment could be given effect to. To that I think the objections taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members are well founded. The hon. Member says if you do not like that plan, which was only put forward as an illustration, other plans are open, and I believe the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said he and his Friends had prepared a series of Amendments which indicates other plans. If hon. Members want us to vote in favour of their Amendment, I think they must take the Committee a little more into their confidence. The only plan which has yet been suggested is one which puts an enormous additional burden on the State, and on the employer of a married man, as well as a double tax on the married man himself. That is far too serious a proposition for me to assent to now, and, unless hon. Gentlemen can show that they have a practicable scheme by which their plan can be carried out, it is quite impossible for me to vote blindly for a proposal of this kind; the only interpretation which I can place upon it being the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman states he threw out as an illustration. The case of married women is one of great difficulty. They are hardly dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. But I draw the distinction drawn also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think accepted by the hon.

    1213
    Member for Durham, between the position of the wife and of the husband, in regard to this matter. It is the business of the husband to provide for the needs of the household. We force him to insure because he may be struck down, and in that case the whole means of the household may be suspended. But as long as he is strong and hearty it is his duty to provide for the needs of his wife as well as for his own needs. If the wife is struck down the revenues of the house do not cease; if the man is struck down the income of the house comes to an end. That, and not any desire to place women in an inferior position, is the reason for the distinction which is embodied in the Bill. I cannot vote for an Amendment of this kind so long as the only illustration of how it would work is the one given us by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie).
    Mr. AMERY: May I ask if the Amendment is defeated will it still be possible at a later stage to move an Amendment compelling married women to contribute say a penny, together with a State contribution for limited benefits?
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon Member to hand in an Amendment and let me see it. I cannot answer a question of that kind.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I am only too anxious to obtain the full benefits of the Bill for married women, but I cannot support a
    proposal at the last moment to put it forward in this form. It will be possible, I believe, in the later stages of the Bill to obtain, if not full benefits, at any rate partial benefits for married women, and even if you do not put them in the compulsory class we may nevertheless at a later stage be able to get what we want for them in the shape of medical attendance and other things. But I feel that this Amendment is one that even I cannot vote for and a large number of Members who are anxious to obtain benefits for married women will not be able to vote for. I should like the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment and co-operate with us to try and get these advantages at a later stage, in which case we shall have the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I also appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. His position is quite untenable. The women can insure themselves if they want to, but the Amendment would force them to insure even if they did not want to. That is most undemocratic. My complaint about the Bill is that it is forcing a great many people to injure who do not wish to. There will be trouble if men's wages are docked, and we surely do not want to have all the women of the country as well in revolt.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 244.

    Division No. 256.]

    AYES.

    [7.35 P.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hills, John Waller

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hodge, John

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Johnson, W.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Jones, Left Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmok

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Wadsworth, John

    Crooks, William

    Lansbury, George

    Walker, Colonel William Halt

    Doughty, Sir George

    Logan, John William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanct., Ince)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Wardie, George J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pointer, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanten)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Boland, John Plus

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barton, W.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Alden, Percy

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Beale, William Phipson

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Beck, Arthur

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cameron, Robert

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cave, George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Dowd, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Clough, William

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hughes, Spence- Leigh

    O'Shee, James John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, W. S. Glyn-(T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Joyce, Michael

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Keating, Matthew

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    Delany, William

    Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Doris, William

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Falconer, James

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A, (S. Geo. Han. S)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    French, Peter

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Maclean, Donald

    Smyth, Thomas-F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Manfield, Harry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Meagher, Michael

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Grant, J. A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Webb, H.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Hackett, John

    Moore, William

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Morgan George Hay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L (Rossendale)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Munro, Robert

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Harvy, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harwood, George

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Hayward, Evan

    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "shall" ["this part of the Act shall be"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
    On the Second Reading of the Bill we had a great number of speeches from Members on the Front Bench. I listened to no fewer than five, but in not one of them
    1216
    did I hear a word of justification for what, after all, is the fundamental principle of the Bill, that is, the compulsory nature of it, the fact that you are not merely saying, "We will give you an incentive to thrift," but "We will make you thrifty whether you like it or not." However much the Conservative party may justify and slur over this question of compulsion, I think

    1217
    on these benches we should have some justification for this great departure from Liberal traditions. What is the predominant feature about the Bill? It is that you say to every working man fourpence a week shall be deducted from his wages. It is a compulsory poll tax, and before it is carried into law we ought to know what are the very strong grounds which move a Liberal Government to make this change. The Bill as it stands is compulsory thrift — the compulsory thrift of the lower classes decreed by the upper classes. I want to know as a Liberal by what right you can say to the healthy man "you must pay for the sick and debilitated man." I perfectly agree that it might be right that he should do so, but I want to know by what right you make him do it whether he is willing or not. This is a matter which affects not only myself, but a large number of Liberals on these benches. We on this side of the House are opposed to compulsory service in the Army. It is quite true that it is a very desirable thing that working men should be prepared to defend themselves against their enemies, though possibly we might have different views as to who their real enemies were and as to the direction in which their muskets should go off. It is desirable that the working classes should be temperate, but we have not yet said that it is a crime for the lower classes to drink. We are practically agreed that it is not right for the lower classes to be immoral, but we have not yet taken steps to prevent them from being immoral. We all know perfectly well that it is good for people to be thrifty, moral and sober, but that is a very different thing from passing an Act of Parliament to compel them to be any of these things. As an old Liberal I think we should have from the Government some justification of this change in Liberal policy.
    The advantages of compulsory thrift we have been told about by hon. Members on the other side. Thrift among the working classes is always the ideal of the well-intentioned employer. If a workman becomes sick he often becomes a burden on the rates, and his desolate home affords a very afflicting spectacle for those who are engaged in building up in factory and counting-house this civilisation of which we are so proud. The success of this measure will make it infinitely more convenient to manage the working classes. It should make them more tract-Able and contented.
    1218
    It is not only the compulsory contribution we object to. It is the compulsory inspection, medical attendance, espionage, inspection by your doctors, friendly society visitors and the collecting societies' inspectors. I am not so opposed to the second part of the Bill as to the first. We shall find the second part the finest part of the Bill if it becomes law. It deals with the assistance to trade unions who provide an out-of-work fund or benefits. It is the Ghent system that is provided for in the second part of the Bill, so that the second part, as to insurance against unemployment, does not sin against the old Liberal tradition so much as the first part. I want the House to consider whether it is necessary to make this thrift compulsory or not. Up to now we have got along with friendly societies alone. Men who wanted to be thrifty could be thrifty through our friendly societies. Now you jump a stage and say: "We will make them thrifty, whether they want it or not." You pass over the intermediate stage of encouraging a man who is thrifty to come for a State subsidy without compulsion. In spite of the almost universal acclaim with which this measure was first greeted in the Press I am inclined to think, from the point of view of the working classes of this country that some system of assisted thrift would have been a great deal better than a system of making people have deductions from their wages when they do not want to.
    One thing strikes me about the Bill, namely, that as certainly as free education followed compulsory education, so certainly will free thrift follow this compulsory thrift, and you will, sooner or later, get all your contributions from the State instead of from this oppressive poll tax from the individual. This is only a halting and half-way house on the road to the logical conclusion. You are dealing, as far as you can in this Bill, on benevolent and, more or less, harmless lines with the worst suffering of the working classes. It is a nice, kindly measure. When it passes no one will be able to say that the masters of England are not very kind to their workers. Nor, after the way it has been received by the Labour party, can-it be said that the workers are not very responsive to this kind treatment. The Bill has all this to be said for it. But at the same time I do not think there is the same enthusiasm for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as when he introduced the Budget of 1909–10

    1219
    "Punch" the other day gave us a cartoon —a lamentably true cartoon—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It portrayed him called before the curtain at the end of the play—I think it must have been the end of the first act—and he is receiving bouquets not only from his old friends of the gallery but from the occupants of the stalls as well. I do not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much when he is receiving bouquets from the stalls as when he is receiving them from the gallery. It may be due to my imagination, but I cannot help thinking that the applause and bouquets from the gallery are not quite so profuse as they were two years ago.
    The fact of the matter is that compulsory insurance for the working classes and the lower classes is a very nice comfortable thing for the upper classes. The working classes are, of course, to them a great deal of a nuisance and trouble when they become sick. It will be much better when they are all properly groomed, stalled, and looked after under this scheme. But I want to know whether they will be as free then as they are now. Probably the bulk of the working classes do prefer a little bit of comfort. I am certain that the moving spirits of the working people do not merely want the people to be comfortable and better groomed and looked after. The leaders in the working class movement who are making the future do not desire merely the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but they want above all justice and freedom. And they know perfectly well that the contributions made by the State, the employers, and the workers themselves come from the labour of the workers through the wealth they produce, and that at present they do not get what they rightly consider their fair share. Among the working classes of this country there is a feeling of unrest at the present day. They know that they are being robbed at present, and that they are getting a little bit back by some of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxes. But this 4d. a week which working men are going to pay under this Bill does not mean getting a little bit back. It is taking a little bit from them. At present they have not to pay. When they do have to pay I think the pressure on this Parliament, or a succeeding Parliament, will be so great that though you refuse now you will be compelled in future to couple compulsory thrift with a revenue derived from general taxation and not from a poll tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought that if the Second Reading of the Bill settled any principle in the Bill it was the principle of compulsion.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was not allowed to speak.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think anybody would be allowed to speak against the principle of compulsion.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: May I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a point of the statement that compulsion is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. I think compulsion was accepted in all quarters of the House except by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and his coadjutor (Mr. Bridgeman) sitting opposite, and who is now in a position of less freedom and greater responsibility than he was in at that time. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I congratulate him on the position to which he has been appointed. It may be due to superior intelligence or superior independence, but at any rate very few members in this House took the view that a compulsory system should not be introduced. I think all parties in the State are in favour of compulsion. I do not say they are in favour of the particulars of this Bill. That is not my contention. If my hon. Friend was opposed to the principle of compulsion, he certainly ought to have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I said "No" when the Motion was put.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman had the courage to say "No," but without sufficient emphasis to enable anybody in the House to hear him except one or two hon. Friends who sat near him. I challenge this proposition altogether with regard to compulsion. The hon. Member says we are imposing compulsion for the benefit of the working classes for the first time. I would remind him that we are compelling them to educate their children whether they like it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is free."] That is a totally different question. It is not a question whether education is free. The point I am putting to the Committee is that it is compulsory. The question of compulsion is a totally different matter, and we are now dealing with the question of compulsion. My hon. Friend says that the cost of the

    1221
    scheme should be put on the State. That is an observation which would be perfectly relevant to an Amendment of that kind. We have had compulsion for twenty or thirty years. Before free education came in the working classes contributed compulsorily to a scheme of education, and that was accepted by both parties in the State. It was initialed by the Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I think it was in 1887 that we first introduced the principle of compulsory education. Very well; I am not departing, as the hon. Member seems to imagine, from the principles of the Liberal party. Let me deal with another point. You have got compulsory health provisions for the working classes. You are compelling them to conform to the rules of health. They cannot even keep their pigs within a certain number of feet of their habitations. My Friend has referred to some remarks which were made four or five years ago. Well, with reference to the Public Health, that Bill I think was introduced by the party opposite, and became the Public Health Act of 1875. The Liberal party introduced compulsory education for the working classes, and the party opposite, with the consent and support of the Liberal party, enacted the first of the public health provisions which are now part of our legislation. Therefore I think it is rather late in the day to urge now that we ought not to compel workmen to do anything they do not like to do, whether it benefits them 1o do it or not. These educational pro-visions, at any rate, my hon. Friends have never challenged, nor have they challenged the many extensions of the Public Health Acts, which in many respects are compulsory. These critics are really not consistent. I know that to impute inconsistency to my hon. Friend is to go to his heart, and I am sorry to say that nothing but compulsion would really ever have induced me to do it. But he has imposed that compulsion upon me by his speech. He said he did not mind the second part of the Bill, but surely the second part is just as compulsory as the first part? It is a scheme to provide against unemployment, and the bulk of it is compulsory. It compels 2,500,000 workmen compulsorily to insure against unemployment and to make contributions for that purpose. He says I do not mind that, because, after all, it is only a small sin. That is the old story. Surely he is a man of principle, and if he really says he does not mind the (second part, which is just as much an out-
    1222
    rage upon the purity of his principles as the first part is, what does it amount to? I compel 2,500,000 to sin and he thinks it is a good thing, but I compel 15,000,000 in the same way and that is really a monstrous thing to do. That is the notion ho has of principle.
    Let me take up another point. My hon. Friend asks will there be more freedom under this Bill? This Bill places at the disposal of the working classes fifteen millions of money which is raised outside the working classes and which they will administer themselves. That is a principle of self-government. The whole of these funds are to be administered by the workmen themselves. All we say is that we shall see that the money is spent upon the purposes for which it was raised. But they have a complete system of self-government, and I say that even from the point of view of freedom it is one of the greatest boons to the working classes. For the first time in the history of this country we shall organise as a whole the working classes for the purpose of administering their own affairs. I think those who specially represent the working classes have not yet quite appreciated the full magnitude of that from their point of view. They administer these funds in their own societies, and so far from that being detrimental to freedom, we have organised them for the first time, and I think it is a very significant fact when you come to consider the effect upon liberty in future among the working classes. Take another point. How will they look at it in the future. Will they like it any better? I think they will like it much better in future than they do now. I do not think that for the moment they have quite appreciated the full benefits of what is being conferred upon them. They are doing so gradually, and will continue to do so. That is the experience of Germany. At first in Germany both workmen and employers were suspicious. But what has happened now? In a few years we find that not even the wildest Socialists, who were its opponents at first, are now opposed to it.
    Mr. BOOTH: Oh, yes they are.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. He will find men exactly of his own type even in Germany. He is not quite so eccentric as he thinks. There are in other countries men of the same type, and of the same upright principles, so long as they are not departed from, beyond two and a-half millions.

    1223
    What is there to be seen in Germany? You have, of course, got the Socialists, who said that this was an interference with the liberty of the working classes. They said exactly the same sort of thing as my hon. Friend does, and used the same sort of argument.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: They are coming round.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has used that argument about both political parties here. He said I was going to compel the working men. The Socialists said exactly the same thing in Germany, but to-day there is not a Socialist leader in Germany who proposes to repeal the insurance law. There are many Socialists there who would be very glad to get the same measure of freedom for the working classes as we are conferring in this Bill. There are many who would like to see five or six millions contributed by the State and the same comparatively small amount of contributions by the working classes. They would like to see a scheme with all these advantages to the working classes, instead of doing so much, as they are in Germany, on small wages with the assistance of the employers' contributions. They are perfectly unanimous there in their determination to maintain the existing scheme on something the same lines.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend says "No," but did he ever hear of a responsible Socialist leader in Germany who proposed to abolish the insurance law. I met many Socialists there, and met some of the great employers of labour there. I asked them what was their suggestion, and they replied that their suggestion was to increase the benefits. The Socialists are no exception.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It must have been Mr. Bernstein that said that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He said the same thing.
    Mr. BOOTH: Mr. Bernstein is not a Socialist.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Now that he discovers he never said so, we must get somebody else. I did meet the very gentleman he mentions. He was almost the first man I saw in Berlin, and he was a strong supporter of the insurance scheme,
    1224
    although he would like more self-government for the workmen. I say there is no responsible leader in the whole of Germany who would propose to abolish the insurance scheme, and the same thing applies to unemployment.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If he could name any responsible employer of labour —I do not say he might not get one employer here and there—but if he could name any great employers or combination of employers who has demanded the repeal of the insurance law he might justify that. All I can say is that it is very remarkable that the attention of those whom I employed to go into this matter very carefully did not discover them. I never heard of them and I ask him to name to me now any combination of employers who demanded the repeal of this law. They have asked for larger representation on the body that holds the money, and are prepared if they can get that to increase their subscription in order to do it. But no responsible body of employers have ever asked for repeal of the law. So far from a scheme of this kind being more unpopular as experience develops, I think he will find it will have a growing popularity. The moment the working classes begin to see that gigantic improvement in their condition effected by it, and by the distribution of twenty-two, twenty-three, or twenty-four millions of money for the purpose of relieving distress, sickness, and unemployment; when they see the incalculable difference it will make in millions of the households of this country, that sort of experience will begin to tell as they begin to realise what it means. When that takes place there will be many people who will be very much concerned to point out that they did not oppose the Rill, although they adopt a somewhat hostile attitude at the present moment. They will be far more concerned then to quote passages from what they said in favour of it than their passages of criticisms or opposition.
    One other word upon a final point. My hon. Friend said, "why do not you encourage existing institutions by giving them more money?" The only result will be to give money to those members of the working classes who least need it. If you give that money to voluntary institutions it will help the people who can now afford to go into these voluntary institutions. These are the people you would give the money to. They are not the people who

    1225
    stand most in need of it, and we want to help those who do stand in need of it. And the experience of Germany shows that nothing short of a compulsory scheme will effect that purpose. That is the reason why I am in favour of compulsion.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to refer to me, I feel bound to say that I adhere entirely to the position I took up when I put down this Amendment. I have not yet been converted to compulsion, and I am afraid that nothing I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman has made me more inclined to be. He says his Bill will grow in popularity. If so, what is the necessity for compulsion at all. If every one sees it is the right thing to do—as I have no doubt it is—there is no need for this compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman accused Members opposite of inconsistency and quoted from the experience of Germany. Is it quite fair to charge hon. Gentlemen opposite with inconsistency? I remember a speech made in this House only three years ago discussing the Old Age Pensions question and the German system. That speech said:—
    "The German system … could not be transplanted here for one simple and sufficient reason, that it is founded on the two pillars of inquisition and compulsion. Whatever the hon. Member for Preston may think, you cannot brigade the industry of this country, you cannot, if you would, set up and work here the complicated and irritating machinery by which in Germany the necessary funds for a provision against sickness and old age are extracted from the profits both of employers and employed."
    Who is inconsistent? That is the speech of the Prime Minister, and I should like to know whether it is quite fair that a charge of inconsistency upon this point should be brought from those Benches against those who still adhere to the principles of liberty in the matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: It was not my intention to raise this point again, because I think I was the one hon. Member who on the Second Reading made plain to the House what his views were. I was delighted to hear that hon. Members on my own side below the Gangway, if they had not been closured out, would have supported me in my plea. I did make some of these points on the Second Reading. What I said then I say now, that a voluntary scheme would be better even if we wished for a compulsory scheme to come later. I think it would be better to have a voluntary scheme in operation for some years, and then if we were satisfied we could extend it, and we should have had data
    1226
    accumulating for two or three years under the voluntary scheme which would have been most valuable in framing a compulsory scheme. I am entirely in sympathy with those who consider that the introduction of compulsion into the Bill is a departure from historic Liberal principles. I have no doubt that my friend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) is perfectly prepared to admit that in a passage-at-arms the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to come out well in debate, but that does not at all remove the contention which is made that we are departing from the old line. I was brought up in the Liberal school, as was my predecessor in Pontefract, Hugh Childers; and as were Gladstone, Bright, and Charles Bradlaugh. These were the great men who led the Liberal party in my youth, and I say quite frankly that we are departing from that position, and that the House did so when reading the Bill a second time. I made my protest then, and found that I was out of touch with the House and with my own party, as I freely admit. Therefore I am not going to persist as an obstructionist. That is why if this goes to a Vote I cannot vote for it.
    I would like to say a word in regard to the compulsory principle in Germany. I am one of those who are disposed to turn away with scorn and disgust when they hear of anything being brought from Germany in the way of ideas. Their higher criticism and their power of analysis in many things do them credit; but the House should recognise once for all that we cannot allow it to be laid down that Germany is a pioneer on this subject. We are the pioneers on the subject of insurance, and Germany follows a long way behind. They would be delighted in Germany if they could show the huge insurance and thrift organisations which we can show. I am not, therefore, prepared to adopt a thing simply because it is in existence in Germany. In Germany the important thing for the employer and the employed is the tariff. The employers are prepared to give to the German scheme a benediction and to give their money freely if they are only allowed to have taxes imposed upon what they produce. The cost of insurance is a trifling matter to them in comparison with the tariff being raised to suit their purposes. Insurance there is founded upon conscription and protection. I do not say a word with regard to conscription, but I cannot see how you can carry out this compulsory

    1227
    power as it is now in this Clause without some provisioan for identification. We have had no explanation how there is to be any identification of people covered by the Bill or people who are paid the benefits. It is all very well, presuming that these people are compulsorily brought into the scheme. They are not. They are compulsorily sent to the Post Office. The only thing you are sure about with regard to men being compulsorily brought into the scheme is that they are sent to the Post Office. There has been no undertaking given by the friendly societies to receive them, and the old men, the lame, the halt, and the blind, will not be able to get into the friendly societies.
    Therefore those for whom this appeal is made will be compulsorily brought into the Post Office scheme. That is not an insurance scheme at all. A great deal probably will be said on that when that Clause comes on later. Now I wish to ask what are the means of identification? I put a question on the Notice Paper with regard to this point. I cannot see how you can work a compulsory scheme without this system of identification. In Germany they manage it under the conscription law. In the police dossier they have got everybody particularised, and they can trace them. Here you introduce an element of compulsion, and you do not provide any machinery to carry it out. I ask what would happen in a Chelsea flat if the good lady locks the door with her servant girl, and says, "Nobody will know you are here?" The Bill says that this servant girl shall be insured. What is your machinery for bringing it about? In Germany they manage it all right, because of the system which enables them, not merely to identify a claimant for benefit, but also enables them to collect all the contributions. A policeman knocks at the door, and says, "You have got Mary Jones there. She is of such an age and was born at such a place. Show mo her insurance card." That is done by the police. In that way your compulsion becomes effective. But it has never been explained to me how this is to be done here, and it is a point which seems to me to be a great difficulty in the Bill. Most of the other things I think we can make workable, but I have great difficulty on this point of compulsion and identification. I do not see any machinery for entering the flat and being quite sure that the premium is paid.
    1228
    Again, if the premium is paid I am certain that the servant girl would be in the Post Office section.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I have allowed the hon. Member to make a reference to the machinery. I must not allow him to go too far as other hon. Members will want to follow him. This Clause only deals with the persons who are to be insured. We will come to the methods later on.
    Mr. BOOTH: I must bow to the ruling of the Chair, but at the same time I know that it is quite within the ability of the Chair to prevent me getting this point later. We have not always the same occupant in the Chair and another gentleman who is just as strict may come again. I cannot give my reasons why I dislike this Clause and why I think that the element of compulsion is imperfect. Without introducing that, I am in a difficulty, but I hope with the little latitude which you gave me that I have made clear to the House that the principle of compulsion, which I am afraid we must accept, is foreign to all Liberal traditions. Gladstone, Cobden, and Bright would not have adopted it, but we must accept it. Some may say that we must progress with the times; others may say that we must join in reaction with the times. However, we have passed the Second Reading and I cannot be a party to re-opening eternally what we then decided. But in beginning our consideration of the Bill, if we put this element of compulsion in I want to point out the things that must follow. I do not want the House to decide on this principle of compulsion without warning them of the other things that must come in later in carrying out the work. That is why I mention the point of identification and police visitation of the people's houses. To my mind that will invariably follow, and that is one reason why I warn the House of the great importance of the effects of compulsion coming into the scheme at this particular point.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: We have listened to a very remarkable speech from an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway. But what is the common-sense view of this question? To understand it the hon. Member would want to be in touch with the working people of the country. What is in fact the unanimous wish of the working classes with respect to this Bill? Practically the unanimous feeling of the working classes is in favour of compul-

    1229
    sion. That is, after all, the main point upon which the Committee has to direct its attention. That has been the wish of the working class in years past, those who made great sacrifices, who contributed to friendly societies, who may have devoted all their spare time in many cases to helping the poorer men, the poorer men who gave no time themselves to carrying out this work of friendly societies which the better-off members have carried out free of cost, in many cases, for them. There may be exceptions. There are always a certain number of scallywags who will contribute nothing. Their great object is to get something for nothing, and the object of compulsion is to prevent their spending at the week-end in the public house money which should go to their wives and families. There are men who draw their money on Friday night and spend half of it before they get home, and that is that class of men to whom you ask the Government to give exemption. You are not going to compel these men to take home to their wives and children at the week-end the money which is necessary for them to carry on their home.
    The hon. Member talked about Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden. May I ask whether they would have been in favour of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does the hon. Member above the Gangway (Mr. Booth) say that the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been approved by Mr. Gladstone? Why it was entirely contrary to the doctrine preached by him—entirely different from his methods of finance. We have to march with the times, so far as this matter is concerned. No one knows that better than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who supported the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at all events in connection with the land Clauses. We have to accept the position as it arises from year to year, and the methods of Mr. Gladstone are now wholly out of touch with what the people of the country desire. So far as compulsion goes—and I am speaking for a large industrial constituency—the overwhelming majority of all thinking men welcome this measure as a step to help them forward. So far from rejecting compulsion they accept it, and I ask the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to pay the slightest attention to a class of men who do not fulfil their obligations to their families, but in many ways fall short of their duty.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have heard a conflicting exposition of Liberal doctrine on this side of the House, and I do not propose to introduce a fresh variety. I merely wish to refer to one or two statements which have been made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who takes upon himself to speak for the vast mass of the working people of this country, and says they are unanimously in favour of the principle of compulsion. I think he would be quite right in saying that the vast majority are in favour of the principle of insurance, but it is altogether an unsafe conclusion to assume that they are in favour of the compulsory principle. I am merely judging from what little experience I have been able to obtain since the introduction of this Bill. Undoubtedly in the two General Elections when this insurance question was discussed, there was very little said about the principle of compulsion. What was said was about insurance alone, and that undoubtedly appealed to the vast mass of the workpeople of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as usual, has scored off my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Of course, it is easy to convict my hon. Friend of inconsistency, particularly in the present case; I do not think you can convict the hon. Gentleman of inconsistency as to the main point in his argument. We may assume that it is a part of the Liberal principle that compulsion should not be adopted except in case of strong and overwhelming necessity. We believe that education is such a case. It is true that when compulsory education was introduced, it was on a contributory basis. Cobden sixty years ago preached free universal education.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There was what is known as the unauthorised Liberal programme.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I would be the last to deny all the right hon. Gentleman did for free education. At the same time I think that all those who claim to be Liberals in the strict sense, apart from the old-fashioned Whigs — for after all it was largely a Whig Government that introduced the Education Act of 1870—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Gladstone's Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was Mr. Gladstone's Government, but it was largely a Whig Government in which the territorial element predominated. It was only since

    1231
    1886 that the Liberal party has been emancipated. The principle that I was laying down was that unless in cases of overwhelming necessity you have no right to introduce compulsion. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made out a special case in reference to this Bill? We say he has not. We think the voluntary system would meet the situation. We put it in the form of a dilemma: If you are going to have a compulsory scheme you cannot have it contributory, and if you are going to have a contributory scheme it ought to be voluntary. I say the voluntary principle meets the situation. At the present time many men are being forced into this Bill who do not need it. There are many men with whom it is a term of their employment that they obtain sick pay. These men are being forced into the Bill. We hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make sonic exceptions, and there is a statement in "The Times" of to-day that there are to be certain exemptions made. If that is so, then get rid of compulsion. In reference to the scallywags, to whom my hon. Friend referred, you can have compulsion put upon them, because the State is to enable men to get benefit, and, if they do not take it, they must fall back upon the Poor Law. That is indirect compulsion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member suggests that whenever a man elects to come under the scheme, we also compel his employer to pay 3d.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is an assumption that the right hon. Gentleman has no warrant to make for anything I have said. I am dealing with the general principle, and I am not dealing with the proposal before us. I think there are a great many objections to contributions by the employers. The system is very hard upon a man in whose industry the cost of production is large in proportion to profit. That is a question which has got to be met. The smaller employers of the country are not well organised, and have not been able to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his room like the large employers, who can either reduce the wages or put the contribution on the cost of the article, and they do not mind it at all. The small employers are very much concerned about this matter, which I would not have mentioned had not the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. This compulsory system is based upon the assumption that
    1232
    all the working classes are in a condition to receive it, but the status of the many is such that they have no means of organising, and no means of emerging from it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am opposed to the Amendment, and will vote against it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am not going to divide.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Then why propose your Amendment; which is, as I understand it, to enable a man to say that he will or will not contribute. I stand for a State system of insurance, but when it comes to the question of payment I think I shall take an altogether different line from that of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). I think when you are compelling the people of the country to buy a public health service that there is no more to be said for levying a poll tax upon those whom you think are going to benefit than for the levying of a tax on children who are being educated in the elementary schools. Public health is of much greater importance than education, and without healthy bodies you cannot expect to have reasonable education at all. The Amendment seems to me to lay down that the State has no right to set up a system of this kind and bring within it the people who are outside, and for whom, as I understand, the hon. Members have been pleading and whom an hon. Member here denounced. Those are the people I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give us the opportunity of thoroughly discussing, that is to say, the people who, in our opinion, are much too poor to pay any contribution at all. It is not true to say that the people who are not insured to-day are, as hon. Members called them, scallywags and persons of that kind. I know, as he probably knows, large industrial centres where there are multitudes of men working, from years end to years end, for wages of from 15s. to 17s. per week. I was in a large industrial centre on Sunday last where the working men were working for 17s. 5d. per week. To talk about them not having insured—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not quite what I said. I said there was always a percentage of scallywags who never contributed to trade unions or anything else.
    Mr. LANSBURY: There is a percentage of people who are no good in any assembly in the world, whether working people or any other kind of people. I have no desire

    1233
    to drive the argument of the hon. Member too far, but I do wish to put in a word for a multitude of people for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in a word himself the day he introduced his Bill, when he told us that the bulk of the people are not insured because they are too poor. My main object is to see that if this part of the Bill goes through that it is not to be taken for granted that the money part is to be taken before the third Clause, and that afterwards we are not going to be allowed to discuss the lowering of the rate of contribution. To me that is one of the essential matters in the Bill. If I thought we were not to have the opportunity in the House to discuss that part, I should, on a division, be inclined to vote for the Amendment, because as the Bill stands I am thoroughly opposed to the rate of contribution. But if we are to have the opportunity of discussing those portions of the Bill then I am against the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I think many arguments that have been used in this Debate are entirely foreign to the Amendment that we are considering. It is perfectly true that Cobden or Bright might not have voted for this particular scheme. It is equally true to say that both those gentlemen were opposed to factory legislation. Bright most bitterly opposed it, but it does not necessarily follow that if they were in the House to-day that they would oppose even that legislation. It is equally true that certain Governments on both sides have failed to do certain things, but that, I submit, is entirely foreign to the point we are discussing. I am entirely in support of the compulsory system. In the first place, as a trade unionist, I would compel any man to contribute to the union for the benefits that he enjoys. That is compulsion in the same sense that there are men we have to save in spite of themselves. The voluntary system absolutely has failed, and it is because it has failed that it is the duty of the State to do something in this matter. It is not true to say, as an hon. Gentleman said, that you are compelling some men to pay more for a benefit than they have paid for years past.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I never said anything of the sort.
    Mr. J. THOMAS: I did not say you did. But another hon. Member said that a large number of men had already made provision, and that you are compelling them again to make further contributions.
    1234
    There is not only considerable misapprehension on that point in this House, but there is amongst workers generally. I speak as the secretary of one of the largest organisations, and I say that it will not be difficult for my union to so alter its rules that every member of my society can enjoy the benefits of this scheme without paying an additional copper to the contribution that he pays to-day. The position with my union is equally true with every other union. Men that have made provisions and men that are paying to-day for certain benefits will not only be able to enjoy those benefits, but able to enjoy more benefits, for the simple reason that the contribution they pay to-day will be simply the contribution that they will be compelled to pay under the State scheme.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Why not voluntarily?
    Mr. J. THOMAS: For this reason, that whilst they are paying voluntarily by various methods they are being compelled to help those who will not help themselves, and you are now penalising the men who have made provision. That is the difference, and that is the basis of the whole case.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the hon. Member wants to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle). He was not referring to the men in unions, but to men who by contract of service got sick benefits from their employer.
    Mr. J. THOMAS: I will deal with that because I think I know a good deal of the position of men under contracts. When I joined the railway service I was compelled as a condition of my employment to pay 1s. 4d. per week, deducted out of my money. It is not true to say that the employer is paying my sick pay. Nothing of the kind. I am paying more contribution than I would have to pay under a voluntary system. My employer is paying me nothing for my sick pay. As a matter of fact, I object to him making it a condition of my employment that I should have to contribute this amount. Although I paid 1s. 4d. per week for some fourteen years, when I resigned my position as engine-driver and was promoted to the House of Commons, I was only allowed to draw one-third of the contributions that I had paid. In other words, the railway company kept two-thirds of the contributions that they had compelled me to pay. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point, and I understand that

    1235
    under the provisions of this Bill a man who is in the service to-day in a similar position will be able, by making it an approved society, to carry from that organisation, if he so desires, what he has paid for a number of years. Therefore I say it is for us to consider fully the real bearing of this proposal. There are many Clauses to which I object and I have put down, Amendments to them, but it is not right for us to bring forward our objections on other points on the particular Amendment before the House. It is because I believe the voluntary system has failed, and that you must save some men in spite of themselves, that I oppose the Amendment. If there are men who ought to make provision, but will not, surely there is no injustice in compelling them to insure against sickness. If, on the other hand, there are large numbers of men, as there are, whose wages and general conditions do not allow them to make provision for themselves, it is the duty of the State, as is proposed by this Bill, to help them to make the provision which hitherto they have been prevented from making. For these reasons I oppose the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worth-ington-Evans)—in Sub-section (1) after the word "insured" ["insured in manner provided in this part"], to insert the words "either as members of an approved society, or as members of a health society, or as members of the Army and Navy Society"—seems to me to deal rather with the method of insurance and not with the persons who are to be insured.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On a point of Order. If I do not raise at this point the question referred to in my first Amendment I do not see that it can be raised in any other place. It does affect the persons who are compulsorily insured, and for exactly the same reason as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) was permitted this Amendment seems to me to be in order. In the financial Resolution to be taken on Friday next a definite fixed proportion is laid down, and that will have the effect, if carried, of guillotining a whole series of Amendments standing in my name. There are some thirty or forty Amendments consequential on this particular Amendment, and it seems to me that it would be much
    1236
    more convenient to raise the question now and settle it. If the proposal is not acceptable to the Committee the decision will dispose of the whole of those thirty or forty Amendments, whereas if the financial Resolution is adopted it will deliberately guillotine the whole series. Therefore I submit that this is the proper time to raise the point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot deal with the financial Resolution, except to say that any points dealt with by that Resolution are obviously debateable on the Resolution itself. In regard to the particular Amendment in question, I have given careful consideration to it, and done my best to convince myself that the hon. Member is right, and that it should come in here. But I am clearly of opinion that if I allowed this Amendment I should have to allow the projection of a whole series of Amendments from other Clauses into Clause 1. I am sure it is my duty to keep the discussion on Clause 1 to the persons who are to be insured under the Bill. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester—to insert at end of Sub-section (1) the words "And no benefits or additional benefits under this Act or under any scheme confirmed in accordance with Section 55 hereof shall be taken into account in calculating the yearly means of a person for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or any Act amending the same"—ought to come as a new Clause.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will it not come in on Clause 3? Unless you rule that it will be out of order, I will move it then.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will not prejudge that question. At first sight it seems to be a proper subject for a new Clause, but the hon. Member may at any rate make an attempt to raise it on Clause 3.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Do I understand you to rule that the alternative system which my hon. Friend desires to bring before the House by his series of Amendments can properly be raised on the consideration of the financial resolution if it cannot be raised now?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think that is a different point. No doubt the hon. Member can find a place for raising the question of the exemption of existing friendly societies, but Clause 1 is not the place to do it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid my proposal has not been understood if you say it is the exemption of existing friendly societies. It is nothing of the sort; it is to bring them all within the compulsory insurance. The only exemption about it is whether or not there should be the 4d. deducted from the weekly wage. I am not seeking to exempt the members of friendly societies from compulsory insurance. If I were, it would be in order on the exemption Clause, and I should not have put it down on Clause 1, where it would not be in order because it is not an exemption.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: We have already decided to include all persons employed within the meaning of this Part of the Bill. If this Amendment were inserted would it not prevent any man becoming insured under the Bill unless he was a member of an approved society?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so. What the hon. Member for Colchester last said fully confirms my previous opinion that what he wishes to deal with is the machinery and method of deduction and not the question of general compulsory insurance. Therefore it is quite clear that this is not the place to raise the question. The next Amendment in order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood).
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words: "Provided that the Insurance Commissioners hereinafter constituted may, with the approval of the Treasury, by regulations, provide for including amongst the persons employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the said schedule."
    These words mean that the people who at present are not compelled to be insured may by the act of the Insurance Commission, without any consultation with this House, suddenly find themselves compelled to insure like the rest of the world. I submit that the compelling of British subjects to pay 4d. a week is a question that ought to come before this House, and should not be left to the obiter dicta of a Government Department. The scheme as it stands at present deliberately leaves the doors open to the Treasury and the Insurance Commissioners to push into the scheme any class of workers who are at present exempt, like
    1238
    municipal workers or public workers of any sort; to push them in without consulting them; for the Commissioners simply to say, "We decree without any reference to Parliament that you are to have 4d. taken from your wages to get the problematical benefits of this Bill." It is true that the House, and particularly the Labour Party, are intensely anxious to have all the working classes compelled to insure. I do think that the question as to whether the net shall be thrown wider than at present should come before this House, and not be left to a Government Department without any control from us. I beg to move.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After the skirmish that the hon. Member and I had a little earlier, I am very pleased to be able to afford him a little consolation at this stage. I think he has made some case at any rate for the amendment of this provision. What he said, and said very properly, is that in enlarging the area the House of Commons ought to be able to express an opinion upon it. I agree with him. The principle of compulsion is accepted; we must proceed upon that basis.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I came across classes of the kind referred to by the hon. Member the other day. You cannot quite locate or describe by any words all those whom it may be desirable later on to give the benefit of the Bill to. At the same time I quite agree with the hon. Member that Parliament should have the opportunity of saying who shall and shall not be included. The proposal that I make is that we should leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead "a special order made in manner hereinafter provided." That will make it necessary in order to extend the provisions of any special Clause that we should work under Clause 78 and the Ninth Schedule. That means that before you can make an Order which will be published there will be an opportunity given to any person to send in objections—which carries out, I think, the hon. Member's intention — and in the second place if the objections are not withdrawn, a public inquiry shall be held at which persons affected by the Order shall be entitled to be heard. Even then, before the Special Order comes into force it must be laid before both Houses of Parliament thirty days. I think that will meet the case of my hon. Friend. It gives every objector in the country opportunity to demand a

    1239
    public inquiry, and then the Order must be laid on the table of the House, and any Member of the House can object. I think that meets the whole case of my hon. Friend, and if he will withdraw his Amendment, either he or I can move to substitute the words I have suggested.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am extremely obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I say what I forgot to mention before, that, of course, my chief difficulty in fighting this Bill at all is the personality of the Chancellor. If it had been any other Minister on that Front Bench the Bill would not have had a chance. He disarms us every time. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will not press my Amendment in connection with this matter, for it seems to me that ray point is quite covered. But I should like to have an assurance to that effect.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so; it is really more than covered.
    Mr. FORSTER: May I congratulate the Committee on the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the Second Reading Debate I pointed out this power of the Insurance Commissioners under the Bill to vary an Act of Parliament without the matter being officially brought before Parliament itself. I understand that in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer such opportunity will be given to the Houses of Parliament in future. That being so, I think our objection is well met.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead thereof the words "a special Order made in manner hereinafter provided."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation."
    This means that the Clause will be altered so that it will read: "Persons not employed within the meaning of this part of this Act who are entitled to become injured persons include all persons who are engaged in some regular occupation." It
    1240
    does away with the qualification, "and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood—." My Amendment here is not to exclude certain classes from compulsion, but to allow a larger number to voluntarily insure. I do not see why those people who are not wholly or mainly dependent should not have the same right to insure as the rest of the country have. After all, they, too, pay taxes just like anybody else, and they will contribute their 4d. a week like anybody else. Their employers will probably pay their contribution by deducting it from the wages just like anybody else who have a legitimate claim to be included within the Act. This is not a question of compulsion, it is simply giving an opportunity to these people to come in.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Amendment is the exact opposite to that of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). This is to extend the voluntary part of the Act and to extend it very considerably to persons who are really not in need of it and who have no claim. The very idea of their coming into the scheme would excite the indignation of the medical profession. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, this class of persons would come in wholesale. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I have done rather well by him this afternoon. This would not only get us into worse trouble, and the hon. Member has already scored heavily. He is the first to draw blood, and he has drawn a very considerable quantity of blood, and I hope he will be satisfied with that, at least for one half hour.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not see what course is open for me after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman but to withdraw my Amendment. I quite agree, having seen the doctors this morning, that, if anything, this Amendment would make matters worse and put them at a serious disadvantage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) to add after paragraph (b) the following paragraph (c), "being married women fulfil the special conditions hereafter established," would come better, I think, on Clause 34. I doubt whether it could come in here, and there is another Amendment on the Paper that raises the question in a better form.

    1241
    The next Amendment in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock).
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I should like to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith), and if this would be the place to move it I am prepared to move it in the form in which it is later down on the Paper. I only wish to move it as a precautionary measure, and if you rule it is in order I will move it now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can claim precedence on behalf of another hon. Member. I call on the hon. Member for Warwick to move his Amendment.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph:—
    "(c) having contributed for a period of not less than five years previous to the passing of this Act to a society which becomes an approved society."
    It will be plain that this is not an Amendment which interferes at all with the general scheme of the Bill, but that its purpose is to make quite plain that certain persons who might otherwise be excluded should have an opportunity of coming in and having the advantage of this Clause. There are certain persons in friendly societies who are members of those societies for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits given by the friendly societies. A great number of the friendly societies think that unless provision is made, such as is indicated in this sub-Clause, a certain number of their members might fall between two stools. That is to say that, although they are members of the friendly societies for the purpose of obtaining medical benefit, which they do obtain and, so to speak, are under contract to their societies to obtain, yet inasmuch as they are not members for the purpose of obtaining the whole benefit, that they would, as members of the approved societies, be able to obtain, under the system laid down in the Insurance Bill, and so get the full advantage of members of approved societies under the Act. They may be faced with this difficulty that they may be too few to form an independent branch of an approved society of their own, while they might be able no longer to obtain the advantage of medical benefits offered by the friendly societies as they stand at present. The object of this Clause is to enable such persons as are insured for medical benefits for which they
    1242
    have contributed for a great many years to obtain the advantages of this Clause to enable them to come in and become contributors under Clause 3. Their exclusion from the National Insurance scheme might still deprive them of obtaining the advantages under the friendly societies scheme, and at the same time, if they desire, I think, without in any way interfering with the present limits of the scheme, they might be given the opportunity of coming in under this Clause. It seems quite clear that unless a special sub-clause is put in they will not be able to come in. As the matter stands at present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to maintain the system of friendly societies and to prevent them in any way being interfered with. This Amendment is moved on behalf of the members of friendly societies who at present enjoy a somewhat limited benefit to give them an opportunity of coming in and taking the advantages which are given them under Clause 3.
    Mr. BOOTH: Why should these people have special treatment?
    Mr. POLLOCK: I was explaining that point. The reason why they should have special treatment is that they are persons who for a number of years have taken advantage of the system of friendly societies and have made use of that excellent system of thrift; and the anticipation and fear expressed on their behalf and by them is. that they might no longer be able to receive the same benefits which their thrift has so far given to them. It is on the ground that their position might be imperilled that I am asking that they should have special benefits, inasmuch as they are a class belonging to friendly societies who have taken the opportunity of taking advantage of the limited insurance offered by friendly societies. For that reason I submit that they are entitled to special treatment, and unless they get it they would lose under the Act, because they would no longer be able to get precisely the same benefit, and probably they would be too small a number to form a branch themselves. It is in the interests of the class who are members of friendly societies that I move this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can hardly imagine the hon. and learned Member would press this Amendment if he fully realised what the meaning of Sub-section (3) is. What is he proposing? He says that he wants to safeguard the interests of existing members of friendly societies and

    1243
    to see that they will enjoy precisely the same benefits after the Act. May I inform the hon. Member that they will enjoy exactly the same benefits after this Bill is passed as they are enjoying now. The hon. and learned Member does not seem to appreciate the point. He wants them to enjoy greater benefits than they enjoy at present. Who are the people he wants to enjoy these benefits'! They are not members who are engaged in any regular occupation and wholly dependent for a livelihood from that occupation. Who are the members of friendly societies who can come in? Those who have been contributors for five years. Who are the persons the hon. and learned Member wants to come in? The members of friendly societies who have no occupation and need not hare an occupation to earn a livelihood, but who would probably join, not in their own interests, but to encourage the local friendly societies. Can the hon. and learned Member mention a single person who will be excluded by the proposals in the Bill?
    Mr. POLLOCK: The persons I allude to would join to receive the medical benefits, and they are not necessarily rich people.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member is not answering my question. I asked him, can he give the kind of member who will be excluded? What is the kind of member who will be excluded under Sub-section (3) unless his Amendment is carried? He does not appear to realise that all those persons who are members of friendly societies now can join.
    Mr. CAVE: There are members of friendly societies who have contributed for many years who are no longer either engaged in a regular occupation or dependent upon an occupation, and of course have not been employed contributors for five years. They are people who have retired or got past the age for business and who are now insured under friendly societies schemes, and they will be prevented from coming into the Government voluntary scheme.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I have said. No person engaged in any occupation will be excluded, but only the sort of retired person who has already made his money and retired, there-fore the whole of this Amendment is to
    1244
    enable these retired gentlemen to get the benefit of the 2d. offered by the State and what benefits would they derive? The benefits of coming in, although they might be forty years of age, just as if they were sixteen years of age.
    Mr. POLLOCK: They are not well off.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been through the list of members of friendly societies, and the type of member he is referring to I will not call the local "swell," but he is the man who is well off and generally joins to encourage the others. I ask the hon. and learned Member to give me the members of any friendly society and show me a person who has not got means who will not come under this scheme. He says these gentlemen have got private means and need not have any employment. The result will be that they will get full medical benefits at the expense of a State scheme. Has the hon. and learned Member followed the controversy with the doctors? The very class he is proposing should come under the scheme is the class objected to by the doctors.
    Mr. POLLOCK: This is one of the Amendments pressed for by the Manchester Unity.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought the hon. and learned Member was going to answer my question. The doctors objected even to this limited class getting the benefits, and now the hon. and learned Member is proposing a further extension to include the private patients of doctors who pay them well, and suggesting that they shall come within the benefits of the Act. This Amendment really proposes to include the local "swell," the local squire, and the man who has retired.
    Mr. POLLOCK: It docs not mean that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman really knows what his Amendment means. It must mean all those who have been in a friendly society five years before the passing of the Act come in.
    Mr. POLLOCK: May come in.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, they may come in although they are men who have retired and who may be very well off. The hon. Member says they are not all well off, but he cannot deny that some of them are. They may be well off, but under his Amendment they may come in and claim medical benefits at the rates

    1245
    at which they are extended to the poorest of the working classes. If it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? It means they are to come in on the same terms as anybody else, and therefore they must be entitled to claim medical benefits as well as anybody else. Let the hon. Member try that on his medical constituents, If they come in at all you increase the deficiency, which means that you postpone additional benefits for members of the industrial classes for men who have retired on their income. I do not think he can possibly have contemplated the full meaning of the Amendment; otherwise he would not have moved it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite fair to my hon. and learned Friend with regard to this Amendment. He has tried to run off on the medical question. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, the whole of his speech was directed to the fact that these people are going to get medical benefits, and he challenged my hon. and learned Friend to go down and face his medical constituents if he voted for this Amendment. I am going to vote for this Amendment and for all the Amendments desired by the doctors. I do not think this Amendment is in the slightest degree inconsistent with the subsequent Amendments regarding the doctors' position. Subsequent Amendments will be moved affecting the medical position with regard to all the voluntary contributors coming under the provisions of the whole of this Sub-section, and they will apply more or less to those members of friendly societies included in my hon. Friend's Amendment as well as to those Members of the Government who may be voluntary contributors. I do not think these men are solely the local squire and swell. That was all said to impart prejudice with regard to them They may be working men who for years past have belonged to their friendly society and who, through ill-health and through their work going wrong, are no longer in the position of being employed but are living with relations or with friends eking out a scanty existence. Those men, merely because they are not Cabinet Ministers with £5,000 a year, are not to be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who objects to those unfortunate men coming in under the Bill as it is drawn, can himself become a voluntary contributor and can claim all the medical benefits.
    1246
    There are two sides to every question, and I ask the House to see there is another side to this question. There are members of friendly societies who are no longer employed, and who, if this Amendment is not passed, would not be allowed to come in either as compulsorily insured members or under the Voluntary Clauses. They are men who have done their best for the State by belonging for upwards of five years to friendly societies, and they are men whom the State would wish to see in their great scheme of National Insurance. I am friendly to the scheme in its main lines, and I want to see everybody who can reasonably become members come into it. This Amendment is supported by one of the greatest friendly societies the Manchester Unity. They desire to see it passed in the interests of their members, and I appeal to hon. Members who have the interests of friendly societies at heart and who desire to recognise the work friendly societies have done to vote for this Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I do not think anybody on these benches can be accused of not having the interests of friendly societies at heart, but I think, in considering this Amendment, it is as well for us to accurately know who are the people for whom a special plea is being made. I do not think either Gentleman is right. I venture to say two-thirds of the Members of this House are the very men for whom this plea is made. I do not suggest that Members of this House became Members of friendly societies for any such benefit. On the contrary, they became members for other benefits, but the fact remains that they are members of friendly societies. The only people outside Members of this House are people rich in the sense that they need not necessarily work. If they do not belong to either of those two classes, they are persons who are in low circumstances, and who, through ill-health, have been unable to follow their work for five years. There is nothing to prevent a friendly society giving all the benefits he has hitherto enjoyed to such a member after this Bill passes, and surely that is not an injustice to the individual. The friendly society will be able to give him and continue to give him all the benefits, medical and other, for which he has paid and which he expects, or, in other words, they will be able to meet all the obligations and liabilities that attach to such a member. Surely, we are not justified in asking for anything

    1247
    more than that. If you ask for more than that you ask for something for one class of member at the expense of another class of member, and therefore, instead of helping the friendly societies you are really doing them an injustice. I quite recognise this Amendment has been suggested by the Manchester Unity, but I say they were under a misapprehension on this point. The same position applies to other societies. They have hundreds of members who did not join for the medical benefit, and did not expect it. Very often they join for ulterior motives— political, or otherwise. Those who do not join for ulterior motives will not suffer under this Bill, and providing this Clause is carried, which guaranteed to them the existing number of benefits paid for. I say, therefore, we are not justified in giving any special preference to any special class of member.
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there is any real difference between the two sides of the House as to the dangers that are allied to this Amendment. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford had been moved when it should have been, according to its place on the Paper, and if it had been carried, there would have been no real objection raised in any quarter of the House to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock). As far as I can see the only objection taken to this Amendment by hon. Members who object to it is that those who are too well off will obtain medical benefits which are really designed for those who are poor. The question of limiting it to the class whose incomes are less than £160 a year will, I hope, be raised on the next line of the Bill, and, if that is done, I think the objections which have been advanced against this Amendment will fall to the ground.
    Mr. BOOTH: I regret very much I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I do not consider there has been any answer to the argument of the hon. Member below the Gangway. I know that hon. Members opposite have brought this suggestion forward with a view to serving friendly societies, but they may take my assurance, for what it is worth, that they are doing a dis-service not only to those societies, but to the scheme of the Bill itself, because the Amendment will bring in more than a number of old
    1248
    men. For instance, I am one of those who voluntarily subscribe to many friendly societies. I daresay many other hon. Members do so, and it will bring in those who do that because the words are "any member who contributes for five years." If the hon. and learned Member had taken note of a recent Return I think he would have found there were 57,000 honorary members of friendly societies in this country, and this proposal would apply more particularly to them. I have no doubt that some of the officials of friendly societies put the Amendment down with a very good motive. They may have some friends or relatives who will be affected, but to say it can possibly be in the interests of the vast body of members cannot be right; it would be distinctly to their detriment; it would further be contrary to the whole design of the principle of the Bill, and it would be necessary to consult the actuaries, as the financial fabric is pulled to pieces. It is, therefore, more important than hon. Members think. I have no doubt many hon. Members have been requested to put this forward. I am not antagonistic to friendly societies, and I do not want it to be thought that the champions of friendly societies are only to be found on one side of the House. But in order to let in one or two friends we ought not to vitiate the whole scheme.
    I would like to point out another difficulty, and that is that this is the first attack on the position of the medical profession. It is the first Amendment proposed which will be resented in a keen degree by that profession. It is difficult enough to get them to work the schema as it stands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of considerable brain power and has a great deal of tact. In his absence I may pay him that compliment. When he is present I am not so apt to be complimentary. But his abilities are being taxed to the utmost in order to gain the co-operation of the medical profession in making the scheme a beneficial one, while at the same time upholding the dignity of that profession. If you admit an Amendment of this character there will be many of a like nature introduced later on, and they will all be regarded as hostile to the profession. I think it is indispensable that the profession should be upheld. It should be a body of dignified, well-paid and independent men who will give an independent judgment and will not be overridden by local committees or local managers. If you introduce to the benefits of this Bill

    1249
    some of their best clients, if you remove those clients from private practice to club practice, and that is exactly what this Amendment will do, you will create hostility to the Bill. I repeat if we pass this Amendment we shall have to pass many others of a similar nature.
    We shall go on admitting the middle classes to the benefit of the Bill. The hon. Member for Brentford spoke as if this only applied to poverty stricken people. But could people of that description keep up their contributions to the societies for five years'? Do people who are helpless and without money keep on subscribing to a society for five years merely because of the memories of the past and in order to enjoy the privileges of attending the lodge meetings and wearing the regalia? Such a thing docs not obtain in every-day life. The people who will be admitted by this Amendment will be middle-class people who do not work because they have no need to, and if we are to ask the doctors to treat them as club patients we are raising difficulties to the Bill itself and this will be but the beginning of the trouble in dealing with the doctors.
    Mr. CAVE: I hope hon. Members will consider this Amendment with rather more care. The hon. Member has laid much stress on the suggestion that this Amendment is intended to favour hon. members of friendly societies, or local swells, or people who are well off. My hon. Friend the Member for the Sevenoaks Division pointed out that, in that, they are entirely wrong, as in fact it is desired to limit thi3 Clause or rather this Sub-section to men whose income is below a certain limit. Fix the limit where you please, but make it such a limit, as will prevent rich men, Members of this House or others, from coming in as voluntary contributors. None of us want to come in and we do not want people who are well off, better off than we are perhaps, to come in either. So we may rule that particular matter out and assume that the Amendment is not meant to assist men who are well off but men who are badly off. Let me take the second matter of prejudice. The hon. Member suggests that this Clause is unacceptable to the medical profession. That is not so, at all events in our intention or in our view, because when the proper time comes, when we come to the benefit Clause, we shall, I think, support proper Amendments which will prevent men who can afford to pay a doctor a proper fee from coming in under the con-
    1250
    tract system, and I am quite sure, now that we know a little about the doctors' views, that on that footing they will not dream of objecting to an Amendment of that kind. Therefore I hope that matter of prejudice, too, may be ruled out.
    Let us now get to the merits of the Amendment. The hon. Member said that there are very few people who will come in under it. If that is so it is a very small matter, but in fact, I have it on the best authority for this purpose, the Amendment would bring in about 10,000 members of the Manchester Unity alone, who could not otherwise come in as contributors. The men I refer to according to this authority, and no one recognises it more freely than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are people whose incomes range from £100 to £150 a year. They are small tradesmen or small workmen, gardeners and so on, who have given up their occupation, who have for years been in a friendly society as working men, who have made perhaps a little money or may have small interests in business, but who are not within the class contemplated by the Clause as it stands. Look at the position of these men. Surely there is nothing to be said against them. They have been thrifty. They have belonged to friendly societies for years past and have been looking forward to their benefit. I think it is a little cheap of the hon. Member opposite to talk of them as he has done. They are perfectly honest, thrifty men, who have done their duty and have subscribed to these societies, putting by towards bad times to come. Ought they to be shut out from the Government scheme? I think they ought not. It is said "but you will remain members of your society. You will get from your society all the benefits you have expected and you will be no worse off." Will hon. Members look at that question and see whether it is so, because it bears upon a good many Clauses of the Bill. What is the effect of the Bill on the friendly societies, and what will bo the effect on members of friendly societies who cannot come in under the Government scheme?
    I think we have all read Clause 55 of the Bill. That Clause amounts—I say it without any intention to disparage the Bill, but by way of caution—to partial liquidation of the existing friendly societies. A scheme is put forward under which the interests of these existing members of the society who come in as insured contributors shall be divided among them, or

    1251
    rather shall be applied for their benefit in manner provided by that Clause. So that they will be practically out of the society so far as any accumulation of interest goes. They will get an equivalent, I agree, in the funds invested in the State, but so far as the society itself is concerned as a voluntary society they will be out of it. That will leave behind, as a separate class, the residue of members, exactly the members who would come under this Amendment. To provide for them there will be a reduced fund in the hands of the treasurers of the society. They will no longer have a right to look to the very great funds which are now accumulated by the societies in their own name. They will not have the security of those large funds. They will only have the smaller funds. I am the last to prophesy evil, but it may be that that fund will not be sufficient to provide for the benefit to which these older members are now entitled by virtue of their subscriptions. That would be a very deplorable result indeed. I hope it may not be the result. If it were it would be a condemnation of the Government scheme. If I am right there it may be that these very members who come within the Amendment which we desire to pass would by the Bill lose the security for the benefits which they have subscribed for so many years. Will hon. Members look at it from that point of view and see whether there is not a good deal to he said for the Amendment. The remedy proposed here is to tell them "you have done your duty. You have subscribed for some time, and you may come in as voluntary subscribers." I do not see who is hurt by it. The voluntary subscriber really pays for himself. He pays for the benefits he is going to get. He gets the benefit, speaking broadly, of his own subscription. Why should you desire to keep him out? I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment, and the Unity are, I think, well advised—their advisers may know as much, or even more, than the hon. Member opposite; I do not want to put it too high—in putting forward this Amendment. I would not support it and my hon. and learned Friend would not propose it unless we thought it was a right one. I do not want to pose as the champion of this or that body, but we all want to see that every one who has a right to consideration should be considered.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I quite understand the position taken up by the hon. and
    1252
    learned Gentleman, but I think he is pleading for a privilege for a special class of men which might legitimately be asked for by a far wider class than those for whom he puts in a claim. We are now dealing with those people who may insure themselves voluntarily under this scheme, and, naturally, I am anxious that as large a class as possible should be able to come in. I am sorry I did not receive any assistance from the hon. and learned Gentleman when I moved my Amendment to let everyone come in, but now he is asking that members of friendly societies who are five years' members should have the special privilege of coming in under this Act. They did not ask for it apparently at the National Conference of Friendly Societies. It is only the Manchester Unity who asked for it. I think in spite of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) that they were probably well advised in asking for the privilege, but I do not think we should be well advised in giving such a special privilege to one particular class. Members who subscribe for five years to a co-operative society have, I think, a better claim than those who subscribe to a friendly society.
    Mr. CAVE: May I point out that it is not confined to one class.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am afraid that under the Bill trade unions will have difficulty in coming in as friendly societies. It would be possible for the hon. Member to press for a wider interpretation. I object altogether to the attempt made to introduce a distinction between those who get £160 a year and those who do not. I think the less we have of these income limits introduced or insisted upon in this or any other Clause the better. I am in favour of the proposal to bring in the whole population, and I shall object to any proposal to bring in one privileged class.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am going to support the Amendment. There is a large class of members of friendly societies who when they joined the societies were in good health, and who may or may not now be in good health. Unless they are in good health, they will not be in a position to join a new and approved society under the Bill. That appears tome to be a very poor reward for their thrift. It would be quite unreasonable if this Amendment were not limited to a certain period of years. Some reasonable period of qualification ought to be insisted on, but it is very absurd to say that only after five years they should be qualified

    1253
    for the Government subsidy. This will also affect another class who at present are probably cut off from the benefits of the Bill. I mean soldiers and sailors. They have joined their friendly societies in order to get benefits, but they will not be permitted, or at any rate they will not be encouraged, to continue as members of the friendly societies. If they do, at any rate they will get no benefit from the Government subsidy. This Amendment would remove a portion of their grievance, although not the whole of it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) said he would not mind if this was extended to members who have exercised other forms of thrift. Trade unions, which become approved societies, are included in this Amendment. I believe co-operative societies are not included. Savings banks also are not included. A man must have joined a friendly society in. the belief that he will be able to continue to receive benefit once in the society, but as this Bill intervenes he will not be able to receive the same benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] This is what will happen. Friendly societies may endeavour to continue the voluntary section, but they will not get voluntary recruits, because every person at. sixteen will be obliged to come into the State scheme. In my opinion the voluntary section of the friendly society will be killed. There may be additional benefits under the State scheme, but the purely voluntary section will be killed, and unless you allow members to come in as volunteers you are practically killing the provision they have made for insurance. That is why you should differentiate between them and those who have been saving and thrifty in other directions. From the State point of view the State would get a good bargain by allowing them to come in. The State is going to got 7d. for something that costs less, and if people are willing to join in order to save that which they have already paid it seems to me a stupid policy from the financial point of view, and bad policy from the point of view of the encouragement of thrift not to allow them to come in.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member that we have to discuss this without in any way importing matters of prejudice, but I do not think that the arguments used on this side of the House ought to be subject to that
    1254
    criticism. There is no question of importing prejudice in the sense of saying something which has no relevancy to the subject under discussion and which is really for the purpose of arousing feeling against those the Amendment aims at benefiting. The argument put against the Amendment is perfectly sound. I wish to point out that what has been advanced by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) docs not seem to me to refer to the argument which we are using against this Amendment. He says that there will be difficulty unless the members of a society become members of an approved society. Rut why should that be? The Amendment provides that they must have been members of an approved society for five years, so that it presupposes that a man has been a member of a society for at least that period right up to the passing of this Act. I am unable to understand the argument which the hon. Member put forward that that man will have difficulty in becoming a member of an approved society when the real assumption is that he has been a member of a society for at least five years. One argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was that those who have been members of societies for five years and upwards would suffer because of the provisions of Clause 55. That does not seem to me to follow. Under Clause 55 all that a society can deal with is a scheme "for abolishing, reducing, or altering such benefits as respects members who become insured persons under this part of this Act." The objection has been taken that if these Members are not insured persons they are not affected by Clause 55. But if they have accumulated funds to meet their benefits for the future, they will be dealt with under Clause 55.
    Mr. CAVE: I pointed that out.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That was the point. These men may have accumulated funds, and, if so, they will have the benefits, and they are in exactly the same position. They will be in exactly the same position with regard to the accumulated funds as they were before. If that argument is right, what is the object of introducing this question now? It does seem really difficult to follow, because no one has been able to give a good instance. The Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) said you might take persons who were in receipt of an income of £150, and no more. But the object of the Bill is to meet the case of persons who were at work and earning that

    1255
    amount. That is what the State benefit is intended to meet. In the compulsory part of the scheme you are seeking to meet the case of the breadwinner who is earning from£100or£l50 a year, but not more than £160, but whose income stops from the moment he becomes sick. You are trying to give this man the advantage of the State rates. It is not intended to enlarge the voluntary benefit so as to give the State money to people who are already in receipt of a sufficient sum to meet sickness whatever happens. I do submit there is no ground for introducing the special class, and that the Amendment ought to be rejected.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General leaves me rather puzzled. He says the real object of the Bill is to deal with the people who are breadwinners. But these are the people you deal with in the compulsory part. This is to help other people who do not come under the compulsory parts. They would be dealt with if this Sub-section stopped at the end of (a). But then you come to (b), which is much more parallel to the new Sub-section which the hon. Member seeks to introduce than it is to anything in the Government Bill. It does not show how they are going to be affected. It says they must have been "employed contributors" for five years; but it does not show that whilst they have been contributors they have been dependent on their daily labour. He says there is a reason for that, but his argument as it stood was inconsistent with the Bill. This Sub-section (b) deals with people who have been in employment and who made good their insurance as bread winners, but they may have ceased to be bread winners. The people whom it is proposed to include in the new Sub-section are exactly similar in character and come into the same category. They are those who have insured themselves, presumably in ninety-nine cases out of 100, when they were dependent upon their daily exertions to make provision for sickness, and they may or may not have ceased to be so dependent. And in that respect are in no ways different from those who are already included in Sub-section (b) of the Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that they must have been "employed contributors" for five years or upwards; but
    1256
    whilst they were contributors they must have built up a reserve, whilst they have been employed contributors, as defined in Sub-section (2) of the Clause. They will have contributed for five years, and that does not cease when they cease to be employed. Let me take the case of a man who has been forced to contribute. Let him have the benefit of the State contribution. If that man ceases to pay after a period of years he should not lose his advantages. We should let him come under the voluntary part as a contributor, so as to get the benefit of the State contribution.
    Mr. LYNCH: This is the first Amendment by which the position of the medical profession has been touched, and I desire to say a few words in defence of that profession. I have listened carefully to what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I think it will certainly include a number of men whom this Bill was never intended to benefit. The case for the Amendment has been extremely well put by the Member who moved it, and by the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), but the very fact that it has been so well put indicates that the Amendment has not been so well drafted. If it were possible to introduce the class of person for whom they plead there would be no objection to the Amendment on either side of the House. But the objection is that whilst it introduces them it introduces a number of others to whom there would be serious objection, particularly by the medical faculty, and therefore I hope the House will not have such an Amendment introduced into the Bill unless it carries only its good intentions.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I have been considerably interested in the various speeches, but I am not at all convinced that the Amendment is one which I can fully support. As I understand the Bill, men will come into the voluntary class, although a large proportion of their income is derived from investments. Such persons are indicated in the words of the Bill as being engaged in some trade or profession or wholly or mainly dependent upon it, but they may be mainly dependent upon the profession and at the same time may derive some of their income from investments. Will a man come under the contributory scheme who has been compelled, possibly by force of circumstances,

    1257
    to retire on a small pension and desired to secure some provision against ill-health and has joined friendly societies. He may have been a member for a number of years, but as the Bill stands I think he will be excluded from all benefits, while a professional man or a tradesman, notwithstanding that he has a private income, will be within the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has referred to the position of the doctors. I confess I feel a good deal of sympathy with the objection of the doctors to the inclusion in the Bill of men whose incomes exceed £160 a year. That objection may apply to this Amendment. But I understand the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) proposes to move a further Amendment excluding those whose income exceed £160, and on that ground I can support the Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the Division takes place may I say exactly what my proposed Amendment would be. It would be to insert this proviso after the conclusion of this Sub-section: "Provided always that no person shall be entitled to become a contributor within the provisions of this Section whose total income from all sources exceeds £160 a year." That I shall move.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: I must protest against the attempt that has been made by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to make out that this Amendment is in favour of the well-to-do. There are belonging to friendly societies very many thousands of people who are of very small means indeed. It is these poor men whom we desire to see included, because it would be an injustice if they were kept out. For instance, a man has been all his life a gardener, and it happens that his health does not permit him to continue pursuing that occupation. He has managed to save a certain amount of money, and he finds that he has £l a week from his investments. There must be many thousands of people of that description in this country, and I think that when they have shown their thrift in times past they should obtain the advantage of the new scheme. I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment. I must protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer describing it as one for local "swells." I do not think that it touches that class of people at all.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 257.]

    AYES.

    [10.20 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Forster, Henry William

    Martin, Joseph

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Paget, Aimeric Hugh

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Grant. J. A.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Boyton, James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cave, George

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chamberlain, Rt.- Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lansbury, George

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Younger, Sir George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Adamson, William

    Hancock, John George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Shee, James John

    Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

    Harwood, George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hasiam, James (Derbyshire)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Barton, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Beale, William Phlpson

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hinds, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hodge, John

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Reddy, Michael

    Bowerman, Charles W

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Johnson, William

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Robinson, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Keating, Matthew

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Crooks, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)

    Sheehy, David

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Leach, Charles

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Davies Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.)

    Dawes,' James Arthur

    Logan, John William

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Summers, James Woolley

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Sutton, John E.

    Doris, W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Taylor, Theodore c. (Radcliffe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maclean, Donald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Manfield, Harry

    Ure, Rt. Ron Alexander

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wadsworth, J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wardle, George J.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Meagher, Michael

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Falconer, James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Webb, H.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    French, Peter

    Mond, Sir Alfred M,

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Munro, Robert

    Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Glanville, H. J.

    Neilson, Francis

    Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) at the end of paragraph (6) to insert the words: "or
    1260
    (c) being married women, fulfil the special conditions hereafter established."

    1261
    The reason I move this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) is that we decided earlier in the day that married women will not come in. under the compulsory powers, and we are now dealing with the voluntary powers and have decided that voluntary contributors shall be persons who are engaged in some regular occupation or who have been paying contributions for a period of five years or upwards. I rather gathered from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that he might be prepared favourably to consider the position of married women in the Bill although he could not have a compulsory scheme. We fear that unless we put in a provision here qualifying them for a voluntary scheme that we may not be able in the later stages to bring them in. I do not think I need argue the case further. The Amendment is simply to make it possible to put in married women and enable them to come into a scheme subsequently, and does not decide as to the conditions or the benefits they will receive.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have preferred, if my hon. Friend and those who sympathise with him—amongst whom I count myself—had been satisfied to raise this question on Clause 34. By that time I think we would be in a position to formulate a scheme to satisfy all the reasonable wishes of those who want to see married women get the benefit of certain advantages of this Bill. The difficulty of bringing it in here is that if you admit married women at this point it means that you permit the wives of the better class of artisan to come in up to the age of 45 as a charge upon the women's fund. I want the Committee fully to realise that. It is not the charge on the Exchequer that I am afraid of, because I do not think that a very considerable number would come in; they would have to pay not merely their own 3d. but also the 3d. of the employer, and I do not think that a very large proportion of the wives of the industrial classes would be able to pay 6d. in addition to the 4d. already provided by the husband. Let us see what that means. If they come in at this stage, it means that they could come in at the age of 39, 42, or 43, and to that extent increase the deficiency which the women's section will have to wipe out before the younger women can receive the fuller benefits. That would be a much more serious thing for the women's section than for the men's
    1262
    section. The voluntary contributors coming in in the men's section would be a comparatively small percentage of the whole, as there will be some 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 men altogether. But you might have a considerable number of women of that class coming in and thereby increasing the deficiency by ten per cent. or twenty per cent. What does that mean? It means that women who are earning 9s. or 10s. a week and are contributing to the fund will have to bear the whole burden of wiping out the deficit for women who are in a position to find 6d. a week for themselves. That is really not fair.
    If the hon. Member had put to me the case—he did not, as he would not have been in order in so doing at this point— of the young unmarried woman engaged in some employment who maintains her contributions for seven or eight years and then marries and had said that it was fair that she should go on paying her voluntary contribution and remain in the society—that is a different case. That is a case with which I have very strong sympathy, but it arises on Clause 34. It is really a question for the women themselves. The whole of the burden comes on the women's fund; it means that if there is malingering it is the women's fund that suffers. If the women are perfectly prepared to allow those who have already been in the fund to go on as voluntary contributors, it seems to me that is entirely a question for the women themselves. There will be nothing in the resolution to exclude our finding an additional sum of money for that purpose. It is framed in such a way that it will be quite possible to move Amendments on Clause 34. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that. I ask him and those who are really in sympathy with his object whether the women themselves are prepared to place upon those who are earning 9s. or 10s. a week the burden of wiping out the deficiency for women who are well enough off to pay 6d. a week. It is a very serious burden to put on the women's fund. But in regard to the case to which I have referred, I am prepared to consider favourably—I should like to see the scheme first—a proposal made on Clause 34.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets me quite fairly; really meets the view that I desired to put before the House, though I thought I was precluded from raising it now. I wanted to be perfectly sure that married women would not be left out of the scheme. If it

    1263
    is perfectly clear that on Clause 34 we can determine whether or not married women can come into the scheme voluntarily; that the conditions under which they may come in can then be determined; that they may be such as the Chancellor has just stated—as, for instance, that they have already been contributing—that really meets my view. I only wanted to be perfectly certain that we should not find our hands tied when we got to a later stage of the Bill, and when we desired to consider the scheme as a whole. Provided it is quite clear that we may later discuss the question of the admittance of married women into this scheme, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. COOPER: I feel it would be a great advantage to the Committee if the Mover of this Amendment stated how he intends to deal with the inclusion of married women in the Bill. Because we all feel, especially on these benches, that it is our duty not to support suggestions of this nature, which practically amount, if carried, to swamping the proposal that the Government have placed before us. On the other hand, there are many of us here—and I am one— I voted in the last Division for the hon. Member for Merthyr's Amendment—who desire to see if something cannot be done for married women without loading the Bill to any great extent; if loading it at all In that connection I want to mention that the purport of the Bill itself, above all things, is to deal with the prevention and cure of sickness; above all, to benefit those who most stand in need of that benefit. I would be glad if we could have some idea of the proposals of hon. Members opposite in regard to married women. If we know that we may be able and ready to support you. If not, we shall feel bound in carrying out that understanding to which we have allied ourselves, in reply to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to support Amendments which are going to impose a considerable burden on the Bill to the extent of crushing it.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has asked leave to withdraw it.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I said subject to what you might say on the point that I raised, that such action will not keep us from doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his willingness to do.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make quite clear to the House the one statement on which he has based his opposition to the Amendment. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer chiefly objected to the Amendment because of the danger to the women's funds of the additional expense involved. Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is irrevocably committed to the separation of the men's funds and the women's fund? That is a very grave matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I think upon Second Reading I made it quite clear that upon the face of the Bill it is absolutely plain that the women's fund must be kept quite separate from the men's fund.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked me whether it would be possible to do this on Clause 34.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Or on any part of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: Clause 34 is the place. It is very difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. It seems to me that the women who are eligible under Sub-section (3), which we are now discussing, should be dealt with under Clause 34. It is quite clear that the restrictions under Clause 34 could be struck out and other conditions established. I think that is the only answer I can give the Committee at this stage.
    Mr. HILLS: Would it be enough to strike out the special exclusion of women under Clause 34? Do not we want some special inclusion here or some words that would not exclude married women independently of Clause 34?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the question, but as I understand it the women who are dealt with under Clause 34 must satisfy the conditions under Subsection (3) of Clause 2. I think that must be so, and that is why, contrary to my first intention, I allowed this Amendment at this stage.
    Mr. CAVE: As I understand the Bill the married woman who is a worker is upon the same footing as a man. If she is an employed contributor, she must be insured; if not she will come within this particular Subsection (3). Up to this point she is in. exactly the same position as a man. It is

    1265
    only upon Clause 34 that an attempt is made to cut down the rights of women. There is this further observation. If it is desired that the subscription paid by the man shall bring the benefit to his wife, that does not arise at all under Clause 34 or under this Clause, but under Clause 8.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the compulsorily employed insurance it is expressly stated, but in the voluntary part nothing of the kind is stated. I call attention to that because it is the volunteers we are dealing with under Clause 34.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Would it be possible under Clause 34 to make a provision that a woman who was an employed contributor before marriage might continue as an employed contributor after marriage provided she desired to do so?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If any doubt arose in connection with this Clause later on I certainly should not object to any part of the Bill being re-committed to clear it up. I can assure the hon. Member that I am at one with him in that respect.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am perfectly satisfied with that.
    Mr. HILLS: Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 will not suit the case of a married woman living at home. She cannot come in unless she is in regular occupation and wholly or mainly dependent upon her earnings, or has been a contributor for five years. Assume that a girl who has been a contributor for three years marries and lives at home, she cannot come in as a volunteer, and whatever we do with Clause 34 we cannot bring her in. If we pass this Clause all the married women who do not come within the narrow lines of Sub-clause (a) and (b) are ruled out of this Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Clause 34 provides for the case of a woman who is already in the scheme. If there is any doubt on this point when we come to Clause 34, as I do not want anybody to be ruled out, I shall consent to the Bill being re-committed in order to introduce words to meet this point if it is found to be necessary.
    Mr. HILLS: Still I do not understand the point. Supposing when the Bill passes a woman is married and lives at home, how can she come in as a volunteer? If we get a pledge that the right hon. Gentleman will re-commit the Bill if necessary I will accept it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have given that pledge twice.
    Mr. HILLS: All right.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "persons" ["include all persons who either"] to insert the words, "whose total income from all sources does not exceed one hundred and sixty pounds and." Under the Bill as it stands the voluntary contributor can have any income whatever as long as it comes from his own exertions. A lawyer earning a big income, or a Cabinet Minister, can become a voluntary contributor. Members of this House, when they are paid, could become voluntary contributors and be insured under the provisions of this Bill. I have no objection to any man becoming a voluntary insurer, but I have a strong objection to a rich man accepting these benefits so far as the State is concerned. I do not think poor men—who in the ultimate resort pay the bulk of the taxes—should be called upon to provide 2d. for the voluntary insuring of the rich man. If the Government or the Committee feel that £160 is not enough and that any other sum, such as £200, £250, or £300 should be substituted, I have no objection, but I do object to allowing a rich man to join in this scheme. There is something more than the mere desire not to have a man who does not need the benefits in this scheme. The voluntary insurer is undoubtedly somewhat of a drag on the scheme. The voluntary insurer, according to the actuaries' figures will probably be considerably older than sixteen, and he will be coming in under this scheme at the same price as a man of sixteen. He will therefore swell the deficit. There are no really good figures to enable us to ascertain how many voluntary insurers there will be. The actuaries, under Section 68 of their report, estimate that some 829 people will be voluntary contributors, but they tell us there are over 2,120,000 who may become voluntary contributors. They cannot tell us they will not; they only estimate that some 800,000 will become voluntary contributors, but there is certainly the possibility that a considerably larger number will become voluntary contributors. Every man who becomes a voluntary contributor adds to the deficit and to the cost to the State. I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment, either in its present form or in some modified form. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,

    1267
    in that celebrated meeting he had with the members of the British Medical Association, gave an assurance to the doctors that he will accept an income limit with regard to medical benefits for voluntary contributors. That is perfectly clear. I am a great student of the Chancellor's speeches with great benefit, because I find sentences in his speech to the British Medical Association which I think will preclude him from opposing this Amendment. He said:—
    "I am quite prepared to consider an income limit dealing with the volunteers, so that a man earning £200, £300, or £400 should not be entitled to claim medical benefits at 6s., 7.s., or 8a. per year. When you come to voluntary contributors. I agree with you it is desirable there should be an income limit. I will support an income limit with regard to those."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is therefore pledged to support an income limit with regard to the voluntary contributors so far as medical benefits are concerned. How is it possible to have one limit for medical benefits and another for sick benefits? It would be quite impossible. It would mean the recasting of the Bill to enable the voluntary contributor to come in with an unlimited income for sickness benefits and a limited income for medical benefits. I feel sure the Chancellor will see, as he is pledged to a limited income for medical benefits, he must agree, and I think it would be to the advantage of the scheme he should agree to an income limit for the whole of the voluntary benefits. I have pointed out not merely with regard to medical benefit that it will be to the benefit of the Bill altogether to limit the number so far as you possibly can of voluntary contributors because each such contributor adds to the cost of the Bill, and will help to pile up the deficit. Every voluntary contributor above the age of sixteen who comes in up to the age of forty-five as if he were sixteen, must necessarily add to the deficit and to the cost of the Bill. Therefore if we can, without doing an injustice to any section of the community limit the number of voluntary contributors we shall limit the cost of the Bill to the deficit—or I may put it in another way: we shall set free more State money for other purposes, at the same time we shall be doing no injustice to men of large or moderate incomes by limiting them from taking part in the benefits so far as State payment is concerned. It would be no injustice whatever to a man with an income of £160, or £200, or £300 per year to prohibit him sharing in the State benefit under the provisions of this
    1268
    Bill. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the Amendment in some form or another.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is a good deal to be said for limiting benefits of this character. The hon. Member is quite correct when he says that every voluntary contributor who comes into the scheme increases the deficiency, and therefore places a burden on the industrial members of the community having a low wage, which is very unfair, as being imposed by persons whose income is sufficient to enable them to provide medical attendance for themselves. It also simplifies the matter so far as the medical profession is concerned. One of the greatest difficulties we have had is the apprehension under which medical men are labouring that the class of patients which enable them to give more liberal treatment to the lower wage earning community will be taken from them, and that they will have in future to deal with them on contract terms. Therefore, I cannot resist an Amendment of this kind. I agree that a great scheme of national insurance of this kind should provide medical and maintenance benefits for those who are unable to provide them for themselves, and I think that those who are over the Income Tax limit hardly come within that category. I therefore will not resist the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is a slight hardship that may be done by the acceptance of this Amendment, exactly as it stands, as existing members of friendly societies will be shut out again in precisely the same manner as they were shut out by the acceptance of another Amendment. If we are really endeavouring to maintain the position of friendly societies we ought at least to maintain the rights of existing members of friendly societies. You are otherwise going to break up the organisation of friendly societies which are largely dependent for their management and some of the best advice of members who will be shut out under this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite wrong. They are not shut out, and they are not deprived of any existing rights they have. They will be exactly in the same position they are in at present. This is one of the greatest complaints of the doctors, that men who have hundreds of pounds a year insist on being doctored at 4s. a year. That is a very serious thing,

    1269
    and it cannot be interfered with as long as it is a voluntary organisation, but I do not think its members have a right to come to the State and ask for this 2d. a week to enable them to pay their 4s. a year for a doctor when they ought to be paying the full rate.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understood my point. I do not in the least want to have the 2d. I am quite willing if he limits them not to have the 2d. at all, but you are interfering with existing members of friendly societies.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is going back to the old point. I do not think that part of the question arises on this Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I submit that my hon. Friend was really not arguing the point which had been previously discussed. He was arguing as to the effect of this Amendment upon existing members of friendly societies.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was discussed for about an hour.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment introduces a new restriction. My hon. Friend may be right or wrong as to its effect upon the existing members of friendly societies. He could not have been discussing the restriction introduced by this Amendment before it was moved on an entirely different Amendment.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am saying that under this proviso you are shutting out those who are at present members of friendly societies. I do not want them to get the extra 2d. I do not want to extend that provision. I want, to preserve the rights of those who are at present members of friendly societies. That is all I want to do.
    Mr. HOLT: Before the Amendment is definitely accepted I should like to put this to my hon. Friend. I think it is quite proper with regard to Sub-section (a), but is it quite fair with regard to the voluntary contributor under Sub-section (b)? If you take the case of a man who has been a compulsory contributor, an employed contributor, and ceases to be so by reason of the fact that his income has risen above the £160 limit, is it quite fair to prevent him by this Sub-section from getting the full benefits of the State contribution if he chooses to go on as a voluntary contributor?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that this is at the wrong point. I think we shall have to move it back to its original position when we come to the Report stage. I am accepting it now in order to accept the principle.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As to the business to-night, perhaps this would be a convenient stage, as it is now after eleven o'clock, for the right hon. Gentleman to state how long the House is to sit. I do not suppose it is intended to sit late to-night.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there is very much more to discuss on this Clause. I would suggest to the Committee that we should get this Clause. I will then move to report Progress.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4). My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has an Amendment down which raises the same question in another form, and it is a matter of indifference to me which Amendment you accept. This Sub-section bars persons over sixty-five years of age from the benefits of the Bill. I submit that the deletion of this Sub-section would remove what we regard as a great blot from the Bill. The Bill proposes to penalise persons who are from sixty-five to seventy years of age. I say that because it is only when men or women reach seventy years of age that they become entitled to the benefit of the Old Age Pensions Act. It is proposed that men and women over sixty-five years of age should not be entitled to the benefit of this Bill. That would be a grave injustice to them, because they have lived the productive part of their lives and have contributed to the fund from which must be drawn the money wherewith to pay the benefits to those who are under sixty-five years of age. We say that is a grave and manifest injustice. The matter has already been brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer by myself and others, and the only plea against the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has stated is that the risks of sickness are so great over sixty-five years of age that the insurance scheme would not stand the strain. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that that is the very best reason that could be adduced for the inclusion of these people in the scheme. We have been told by the Home Secretary that this

    1271
    Bill is to pool the luck, so that the burden which would otherwise fall with crushing weight on the shoulders of the individual will be borne by the broad shoulders of the many.
    If that be the purpose of the Bill, then the deletion of this Clause is consistent with such a purpose, and the insertion of our Clause is justified. The shutting out of these people from the benefits of the Bill is altogether inconsistent with that purpose. It is manifestly unfair that we should leave these people after sixty-five years of age to bear their own burdens. If that is the only reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer has for their being shut out, I hope it will not weigh with the House. If one goes into the tables of expectation of life at sixty-five years of age—I have not the figures; I have been called upon to move this Amendment without preparation—but I think I should be right in saying that the expectation of life of persons at the age of sixty-five is not more than three years.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    Mr. BARNES: Well, the average—
    An HON. MEMBER: Eight.
    Mr. BARNES: Taking it at that, the burden, such as it was, would be spread over that period, and over the whole of the resources of the employer and of the State, and the contributions of the workmen could be drawn upon to fulfil the obligations in respect to these people; and I say, whatever the burden may be, it is manifestly unfair on our part to leave these people outside the scope of this Act. These are briefly the reasons that operate in our mind for the insertion in the Bill of those who are over sixty-five and under seventy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have in his mind an intention, when excluding those between seventy and seventy-five from the operation of the Act to immediately reduce the pensionable age under the other Act from seventy to sixty-five. That would meet my purpose much better, because I think that people at the age of sixty-five are entitled not only to the benefits of a scheme of this sort, which is founded on the contributions of the people, but that, having lived a life of industry presumably, they are entitled to a pension from the State under the Pensions Act. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has that in his mind, and would reduce the
    1272
    age in the immediate future, possibly we may be induced to withdraw this Amendment. Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, I shall press it to a division, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will avoid the need for doing so by accepting it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend is not under the impression that some people have as to the effect of these words, and that they mean that as soon as a man reaches the age of sixty-five, he is disqualified and he receives no benefits.
    Mr. BARNES: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There were certainly some who thought that was so, but it is not the effect of the Bill. If a man joins at the age of sixty-four, he receives benefit under the Bill. But my hon. Friend says: "Why do you exclude these men? Why do you forbid men at the age of sixty-five joining for the first time?" We do not forbid a man at sixty-four from joining, and if it were not for this Bill not only the man of sixty-five but the men of fifty-five, and the men of forty-five would have gone on receiving nothing. This is the first time under any scheme in any country that it has been proposed to admit all these men up to the age of sixty-five. But my hon. Friend says, "Why do you go on to exclude men from sixty-five to seventy?" My reply is that you must have a waiting period. You have six months as a waiting period for sickness pay. You must have a waiting period of two years for invalidity. In Germany it is five years. We have cut it down to two. Therefore the man who is over sixty-eight years of age might get his six months' sickness, but after that he would receive nothing, unless you propose to increase the burden upon the whole fund. Therefore it is purely a question of the man between sixty-five and sixty-eight. That is the period when the burden is really heavy upon your scheme, and you are beginning to insure at a point when your contributions bear no proportion at all to the amount that you are paying. At whose expense will you be doing that? Not at the expense of the State, but at the expense of the other members—the expense of the men who have got the burden of the family. The case of the old people is a very hard one, and we are providing for them. But we can only provide up to the limit of the means at our disposal. If you go beyond that you

    1273
    must make the burden upon the younger people greater, just at the time when they are bringing up a family.
    As between the two classes, I think that the case of the man of thirty-five or forty, with young children, the breadwinner, who is stricken down with sickness, is much harder than that of the old man of sixty-six, who at any rate is done with providing for a family. The suffering is infinitely greater that a man would feel for his own children than that which he would feel for himself. Therefore, I consider that the man of thirty-five deserves more of the attention of the State from the point of view of the suffering involved, and from the point of view of the fact that the State ought to see that the children are properly fed. It is to the interest of the State. Why should you increase the burden of these younger men with families? They are bearing a very large burden now. They are postponing their benefit for fifteen and a half years in order to enable people up to sixty-five to benefit. If you put on in addition to that the very heavy burden of sickness between sixty-five and seventy for people who have contributed practically nothing, I think it is an excessive burden to ask the younger man to bear. It amounts at least to a deficit of five millions. The whole of that five millions has got to be borne by the young people who have got to bring up a family and who have got to postpone for a much further period the time when they receive the additional benefit which will enable them to get doctoring for their family, and bring the family in, which everybody desires to hasten. I think it Would be too great a burden to ask them to bear, and, therefore, I think, that the conditions of the Bill are exceedingly liberal. If you put on an additional burden of that character, for periods that amount from ten to eleven, twelve or thirteen weeks in the course of the year in respect of people who have not contributed it ceases to be a contributory scheme really in respect of these people. I very deeply regret, therefore, that it is impossible for me to do what is asked.
    I have a suggestion to make to which I invite the attention of the hon. Member. We provide in this scheme that the employer should pay 3d. As far as that goes that ought to go to the benefit of these people. I would not object to an amendment that would give 2d. from the State between sixty-five and seventy. It is the burden on the fund that I wish to avoid. If these men
    1274
    were to contribute their own 4d. and we were to put the fund to their benefit to draw upon, then there would be not merely the 4d., but there would be the 3d. from the employer, and they would get the whole benefit of the 2d. from the State. I would suggest that is as far as we can go. The fund would be of value to those who have worked for two or three years, and then have suddenly broken down. It would just give them the necessary help to bridge the gap between that time and the time they reach their old age pension. The Bill, within the limit of that fund, which would be ear-marked, would enable them to get the medical benefit. That is really all the Government can do, and I think it is a very fair proposal.
    Mr. G. J. WARDLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether inquiries have been made as to how many people there are between sixty-five and seventy years of age who are already in friendly societies and are being provided for? It would greatly simplify matters if these figures were available.
    Mr. CROOKS: If a man at sixty-five is at this moment a member of a friendly society, you are taking him over as a member of an approved society. Either you do or you do not. If you do not take him over you leave the old man a burden on the society, while, at the other end, you nip off from the young man who is keeping the old man. That is manifestly unfair, because you have the burden of the old man on the society, while you are getting the benefit of the new blood.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely the hon. Member knows the friendly societies better than that. The man of sixty-five has been paying to the friendly society, and the money has been accumulating up to that age. There is no more profitable member of the friendly society than the man who has reached sixty-five years of age. It is for the man who is not in a friendly society that I have real sympathy. The man who is already in the friendly society is in clover.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like made a little more clear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. I think we on this side want clarifying a little on the subject. Am I right in understanding that the man may pay 4d., the employer 3d., and the State 2d., and that the money would be carried to the Post Office—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, to deposit.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: You make a deposit fund, and they will have their money as far as it goes.
    Mr. GILL: Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion is adopted, it it would still be necessary to pass the Amendment, because otherwise those of sixty-four and sixty-five years of age would not come in. It appears to us, from the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, after the next three years everybody will be in affluence. The men of sixty-five years of age cannot draw on the very large sum of money expended, while the young persons who pay at thirty years of age, the employers deducting the contributions from their wages, will not be entitled to anything until they are sixty years of age. If the whole thing was averaged up, it appears to me that it would be a reasonable thing to have in persons between sixty-five and seventy. It is an age that appeals to everybody, just as the old age pension did, seeing that the people of that age are not able to look after themselves. I think the Chancellor would be well advised in accepting this Amendment. At any rate, the scheme he proposed is an advance on what has been suggested previously, but is it not necessary to accept this Amendment in order to carry out that scheme?
    Mr. MOUNT: It was stated, I think, by the Chancellor that he was going to pay 2d. towards the benefit of the old people. I understood the State paid two-ninths of a penny, and not 2d. per week.
    Mr. BARNES: I should like to make the point quite clear. It has been suggested these men are to be put on a Post Office contributory basis. As I understand, it is nothing of the sort, and that what he would do would be to make this a collected fund, so that if a man broke down between sixty-five and seventy he would not be entitled, but that the whole of the money in respect of the old people would be pooled. Of course, the moneys in respect to any person reaching seventy would revert to the pool, and therefore those men and women would to some extent be insured.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mount), the amount would be two-ninths of a penny, which would be the equivalent of 2d. We have no intention of the money reverting to the pool at seventy. I think the person ought to get the benefit of his deposit.
    Mr. BARNES: He would get the benefit of the old age pension.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What he really wants is that the person should have the benefit of his own money.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is to be an insurance deposit fund.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He is to get the benefit of his own 4d., of the 3d. of the employer, and of the 2d. of the State— that is practically making it deposit contributors. What I suggest is that I am prepared to move or let the hon. Member move at the end of the section, "Except a deposit contributor as hereinafter provided." I think he would be well advised at the present stage to accept that.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The matter is rather complicated, and I do not yet quite understand what the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. I understand that he does not propose to put all men from sixty-five to seventy years of age into a pool together, but that he means to treat each man separately. Each man has a deposit account of his own, with no claims against any surplus there might be on the fund if it were treated as a whole. But what happens to a man who at the age of seventy has not exhausted his fund? Is the balance paid over to him then and there, or what does the right hon. Gentleman propose should be done?
    Mr. BARNES: The matter could be-settled without discussing these complicated details if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept an Amendment quite in accordance with what he has just stated—namely, to insert after the word "year," or wherever is more appropriate, the words, "except as hereinafter provided." That would give us free scope to discuss at the proper place the whole question between a pooled fund and individual funds.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will accept that Amendment, but it would not be fair to do so without making it perfectly clear what the view of the Government is.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Could not the words come in at the beginning of the Sub-section?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would it not be simpler to leave out the Sub-section altogether? All that the Chancellor of the

    1277
    Exchequer has suggested could, I think, be done by an Amendment on Clause 9.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the hon. Member will allow this Amendment to be made. It will not prejudge the question later on, but it makes it perfectly clear that a person of sixty-five does not come in on the same terms as others.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire—
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that if the hon. Member is not allowed to withdraw his Amendment that these words cannot be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to Move, at the beginning of Sub-section (4) to insert the words, "Except as hereinafter provided." Then the Sub-section goes on as printed in the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this alteration does not increase the compulsory nature of the Bill? We are not really insuring these people. You are only putting them into the Post Office contributory scheme. None of them are really insured. I do not think we have any right under these circumstances to force them to pay their contributions. My Amendment later on is to alter sixty-five to sixty. I view with great regret any alteration which would force people of sixty-five or seventy to enter into this very deficient insurance scheme.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I do not know whether the acceptance of this Amendment will do away with the possibility of dealing with the plan referred to in the last Amendment, that is in relation to persons who have been members of friendly societies for five years? It is really a very important point. No one who is acquainted with the work of the smaller friendly societies can help but be aware that the effect of the Bill will be that the smaller societies will be destroyed. The result will be that men between sixty and sixty-five who now have benefit from the friendly society of which they are members will be deprived of that benefit by the operation of this Bill, and will at the same time be excluded from the benefit of this Bill by the operation of this Clause. In my own county there are at least 4,000 members of small societies and two conferences have been
    1278
    held by them. They have drawn the particular attention of their representatives to the fact that the inevitable result of the Bill will be to destroy them; that their members will ultimately be men between sixty and sixty-five, who will be brought into the category where they have no provision for ill-health or old age. If then these men are also to be excluded—
    Mr. CAVE: Does this point arise now?
    The CHAIRMAN: It does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I only wanted to know whether the acceptance of this Amendment will exclude discussion later on as to the position of these societies?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (4) after the word "require" ["nothing in this Section shall require or authorise "], to insert the words, "a person over the age of sixty."
    This Amendment, if accepted, would still leave these people the option of becoming insured if they wanted to do so. I think it is probable that persons over the age of sixty would be wise to insure, but there is another point. A man over sixty finds it very difficult to obtain employment, and I think he will not be very anxious to insure. In any case, there is no family depending upon a man of sixty. It is not a question of letting the children or the mother starve; a man at that age has only himself to consider, and surely people of that age might be allowed to do as they like. I understand the object of making the ordinary workman insure is that the family may be made secure. When a man reaches the age of sixty he will begin to consider himself free of responsibility to his family. Therefore I hope the Government will consider the possibility of giving this slight extension to people over sixty years of age.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Amendment of the hon. Member would cut people of sixty and sixty-five out of the scheme and prevent them getting these great advantages.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am not proposing to cut them out, I am proposing to give them the option.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The whole point is that all the benefits are calculated on the basis of giving persons over sixty

    1279
    years of age these very great benefits. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have an Amendment on the Paper lower down which raises this point, but perhaps this would be the more convenient place to raise it. Many Members of the Committee will bear me out when I say it is becoming increasingly difficult for men at sixty and sixty-five years of age to find employment. I do not think the answer which has been given quite meets the point. Our object is to make it easier for these men to have employment between the ago of sixty and sixty-five. Hon. Members are saying it is bed-time, but they do not seem to care about the bed-time of these poor men of sixty and sixty-five. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member confine himself to arguments which are appropriate to the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes, Sir. I think this Amendment raises a most important point upon which the operation of this Bill will be judged. If we could make pro-vision for these people in some other way than by extracting contributions from the employés, then we should be contributing to the solution of the continued employment of these men at this critical age.
    Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member says the Workmen's Compensation Act has given us an illustration of how easily the old people are displaced. That is perfectly true, but what comparison can be established between the Workmen's Compensation Act where an employer has to undertake a known obligation, but under this Bill he knows his obligation exactly. The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment did so in the name of individual liberty, but the hon. Member who supported him has given us an indication that this proposal will mean the destruction of individual liberty. The Amendment means that every old man of sixty-five will practically have to contract out of the Act, and when he applies for employment the employer will say, "We cannot take you on unless you are prepared to abdicate your rights under the Act." Therefore, there is no comparison between the Workmen's Compensation Act and this Amendment. Individual liberty would be destroyed by this Amendment, and it would not enable the elderly men to exer-
    1280
    cise their individual liberty, and would mean a destruction of that liberty. Those are just the people for whom the benefits of the Act are most important, and not so much the young life.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The intention of this Amendment is not to compel old people over sixty to contract out of the insurance. As I read the Bill they will have to continue to pay under any circumstances, and it will only be the contribution of these men that would be exempted.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member for Ince is quite wrong. Ninety-nine out of every hundred employers insure.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "authorise" ["shall require or authorise"], to insert the words, "a person under the age of sixteen years or."
    The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that a person under sixteen years of age would not be entitled to insure under this Bill. I want to understand exactly the position of boys under sixteen who are in employment. Clause 8, Sub-section (3) says the right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the assured person attains the age of sixteen, and I cannot understand why his employer should pay for what he does not get. He has no benefit except the right to medical treatment and treatment at a sanatorium, which would only be required in a few cases. I know it is provided by Clause 10 that arrears should not be calculated while the person employed is under sixteen, but I am doubtful how far that is intended to exempt persons under sixteen from payment altogether. In any case, it seems to me the employer has to pay, and I do not quite see for what he is to pay. Clause 38 provides that no part of the contributions above 4s. 8d. in the case of a boy and 4s. 6d. in the case of a girl, payable in respect of a person under sixteen shall be credited to the society of which he is a member, or, if he is a deposit contributor, carried to his credit in the Post Office Fund, so that a young person suffers in every way. This question is a very important one to a great many persons and societies. For instance, the district messengers are very much concerned as to what their position will be under the Act. There are others, such as paper boys, as

    1281
    to whom there will be some difficulty in deducting the amounts from the small sums paid to them. Would it not be better, as you have an upper limit of age, to have a lower limit of age, and exclude altogether from the Bill children under sixteen?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): If you exclude children under sixteen you put a premium on child labour, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree it is undesirable to give any advantage whatever to an employer in favour of employing children under sixteen rather than persons over sixteen. I admit for the time being the sick benefit is reduced in amount, but the youthful contributor later on gets the full benefit of his contributions. I think the general desire not to put any premium on child labour is so strong that it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. It must be remembered that the medical benefit and the sanatorium treatment are exactly the same for the youthful person as for that of any other insured person. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member on Clause 10, it only appears that no account shall be taken of arrears due from a contributor under the age of sixteen. That is really a proviso in favour of the youthful contributor. I think, therefore, on the whole, looking at the advantages I have stated, it is undesirable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. FORSTER: I want one point made perfectly clear. Is the employer of the youthful contributor to pay the full contribution of 4d. or 3d. as the case may be? I understand that no account is to be taken of arrears, and if the youth does not pay nothing happens.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates this part of the Bill. This is a real concession to the boy under fifteen. In other cases the arrears accumulate. In the case of those under sixteen we do not propose to take account of arrears during the period before the age of sixteen, because the labour may be of a very casual nature.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not the fact that out of these youthful persons a sum of £807,000 is made by the Insurance Fund? That is my recollection of the actuaries' report as to the results of the payment of 4s. 8d. in the case of boys and 4s. 6d. in the case of girls per annum. But when the right hon. Gentle-
    1282
    man says that these youthful contributors are going to get the full benefit of their money he is speaking of the sweet by and by, when there may be additional benefits. There are some words in the Bill that young persons shall be personally considered, and I think the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies or the Insurance Commissioners ought to take into account the case of these young people who are robbed to the extent of £807,000 a year. That is a very small compensation surely, for what is being done, and it seems to me that the Amendments either to give them benefits or else not to take contributions from them is a thoroughly just one. I do not want to put a premium on child labour, and I should like in some way either that they get additional benefit or some cumulative advantage definitely guaranteed them, and I say without fear of contradiction it is not guaranteed them under the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has been discussing a point which could not possibly be met under this Clause. The question whether they should receive additional benefit is a proper one for discussion, but even if I were prepared to agree I could not meet it under Clause 7. The whole point is whether you are to exclude them altogether. If they are included that does not prejudge the question whether they are to receive additional benefit. I suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. CAVE: If I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will later favourably consider an Amendment to give something in exchange I will withdraw.
    Mr. HOHLER: Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us an undertaking, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. There is no right in this Bill to penalise any particular form of boy labour or any particular class of employer. If you pay you should receive your benefit. We may all agree in regard to boy labour, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider to what extent this will injuriously affect agriculturists. This is particularly important in Kent, where there are two great industries, hop picking and fruit picking, and invariably small children and whole families go out to these employments. Under this Bill,

    1283
    in regard to each of these members of a family employed, there will be a liability to contribution. Look at the injustice you will do to these persons who are as a result not to be employed at all. This is not a Bill for a penalty at all. If it is improper to employ boy labour introduce legislation to deal with it. It is well within my knowledge that in these great friendly societies they insure from the age of twelve upwards a great number, and I ask that in some way effect may be given to a most just and proper Amendment. We cannot at this stage go into all the questions which have been raised on the other side. There will be ample opportunity at a later stage to deal with any special advantage which may be given to young persons, and obviously it will be a most unjust thing to persons under sixteen to shut them out from the scheme and to encourage employers to employ the very class of labour which is so largely producing unemployment. Newspaper boys are one class that we do not want to encourage. It would be a disastrous thing to do, and I hope very much that the Committee will reject the proposal.
    Mr. POLLOCK: What my hon. and learned Friend is asking by this Amendment is why these young persons are included? As I understand the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty it is in order to prevent any premium on the employment of child labour. That does not follow. Children are safeguarded in many other ways in almost every trade. I think that by the Acts which have been passed in the last three or four years their interests are sufficiently protected. Surely the real answer why they are included is that by this means the sum of £800,000 is obtained for the scheme. That seems to me to be so powerful a motive to include them that I attach more importance to it than to the statement that it is intended to prevent the giving of an advantage to persons employing them. It seems to me that there is a difficulty in dealing with this, for if hereafter, when the Committee is discussing the later stages of the Bill, we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be possible for him financially to give these increased benefits, he may be compelled to say that inasmuch as the Bill has a financial foundation to stand upon it would take away some portion of that foundation if he provided benefits for those very young people. That seems to
    1284
    be the real difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman asks whether, in the event of this Amendment not being carried it will be possible for the Committee at a later stage to discuss a proposal to increase the benefits for young persons under sixteen—
    Mr. POLLOCK: Not only to discuss the benefits but to grant them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter that must be discussed. It would certainly be possible to discuss it.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I think I understand him. The question before us was whether we should cut them out of the scheme or leave them in the scheme. What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say is this: that, if and when we are discussing the latter stages of the Bill, and what benefits they shall be entitled to, that no difficulty of any sort or kind, nothing in the terms of the financial resolution, and every other sort of difficulty, will not stand in the way of the Committee against further benefits being granted to those persons in respect to their contributions under the Bill. If he will give that undertaking to the full, in the way I have expressed it, that to a large extent will meet the difficulty. That is what I have been asked to look for, and I must press the point upon his attention, so that there may be no misunderstanding. If we are asking for further benefits to be granted, or, in the event of the House so deciding, no difficulty of any sort or kind, financial or otherwise, will be— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I think I am in order. I only want to put it so that it may be perfectly plain, so that not only myself but hon. Members may understand it. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes us all to understand what he means. If I have happened to be exceptionally stupid, he can make it clear out of his courtesy to the Committee that no difficulty of any sort will be placed in the way later on.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to say is that nothing in the form of the Resolution will prevent this matter being discussed, and that the House will have full liberty, if it wishes, at a later stage, if the Amendment is withdrawn now.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE expressed assent.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If he could go a little further he would save us the necessity for a Division. I frankly confess I should be sorry to see the subject prejudged, and we want to be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will keep an open mind. I cannot expect him to accept it; that would be prejudging it the other way; but I ask that he will not make up his mind on this point until the House has had a full opportunity of discussing it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I at once accept that suggestion, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look again at what I have said he will see that there are strong reasons to be considered. It is not merely a matter of the children; it is a question of the fund itself, and I think it would be well worth while for the Committee to keep an open mind. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will keep an open mind I will promise to keep an open mind.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have an open mind on the broad principles.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg leave to withdraw with the understanding on my part that if we are not fully satisfied after the later discussion as to the condition of these young people under the Bill I may take the opportunity of moving this Amendment again at a later stage.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether there is any pledge that we shall have another chance of discussing whether agricultural children shall or shall not be cut out of this scheme?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You can only cut them out on the Report Stage. You cannot increase the charge. You can cut out the whole of the children on the Report Stage if you think the conditions are not satisfactory.
    Mr. HUNT: Shall we have another chance of discussing the question of cutting out agricultural children from the contributors to the scheme? Is there no answer to that?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move to add at the end of Clause 1 the words:—
    "Provided that a person who for at least one year before the passing of this Act has been a member of a society which provides benefits similar to those
    1286
    conferred by this part of this Act shall be entitled to become an insured person under this Act, notwithstanding that he is over the age of sixty-five years."
    A previous Amendment was to permit all existing members of societies which become approved societies to become contributors under the State scheme, and we did not have the benefit of a reply on that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.
    Under Clause 35 you are practically liquidating so much of the friendly societies funds as is attributable to members who become insured and you leave as a special class with a special fund those members who cannot become insured or who would be entitled and do not. It may be that that special fund would not be sufficient in the end to provide the benefits, and, therefore, you are making them less secure by your scheme and should give them something in exchange. Therefore, I ask that if they have subscribed for any time to a friendly or similar society they shall have the benefit of their thrift and the special privilege of coming in although over sixty-five. By virtue of this scheme all the younger contributors are likely to drop out, and if so the fund will diminish and be less likely to be solvent than if the Bill did not pass. I am afraid that whatever happens the scheme must injuriously affect the whole friendly society movement. There is a tendency for all voluntary movements to be absorbed in the end in a State scheme. But I think that this special privilege should be given to the men who are now subscribing. I do not want to put an undue burden on the fund, but I think that the number coming under this Amendment would be small.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already indicated that the Government are willing to consider some special benefits to all persons over sixty-five. Those who are members of friendly societies will get exactly the same privilege as those who are not. The principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that to him who hath more shall be given. I do not say that he should be in a worse position. These people should be in as good a position at any rate. They are in an exceedingly good position at 65 years of age if they are members of a solvent society. The hon. and learned Member is under the impression that somehow or other a friendly society will be weakened. One view of the friendly societies is that the younger men pay for the old. That is surely not

    1287
    the principle of an accumulating society, and any society which went on that principle would soon arrive at insolvency. The whole principle of an accumulating society is that the accumulation should come out of the period when a man is young, in order to provide for him when he is old. So far from societies being weakened they are enormously strengthened by this provision. What do we do? We take the whole of the responsibility of the reserve between sixteen and sixty-five for every member of a friendly society in the country, and we undertake it at 20s. in the pound. [An HON. MEMBER: "An approved society."]
    There is no first-class society in this country that I know of which is not an approved friendly society. All they have got to do is to associate with others, and they can come in. I do not want to prejudge that, however; it will arise later on. Hon. and learned Members are always attempting to raise questions which will come on later. I contend that every member of a friendly society comes in. Take the Oddfellows. In that case it has been calculated that three and a half millions will go to that society alone. The hon. and learned Member said that the funds of friendly societies would be weakened. How can three and a half millions going to a society weaken its funds? It is a very extraordinary proposition. On the contrary, seeing that we are undertaking the whole of the burden up to sixty-five, the amount that the society has got to find will not be such a great sum. The position of a man at sixty-five who is a member of a friendly society will be greatly strengthened. The hon. and learned Member knows that none of the friendly societies, if wound up, would pay 20s. in the pound for all their branches. We take them over, and pay up to 20s. in the pound. That is putting them in a very much better position, in so far as the benefits of the Bill are concerned. May I also point out that these questions will arise on Clause 55?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman. The Government relieve the reserve of the friendly societies from all liability for members between sixteen and sixty-five. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. There are certain members of societies who have
    1288
    insured from 18s. and 25s. We do do not undertake liability for that reserve. There are funeral and other benefits. We take up to 10s. and 5s., and we take whatever reserve is accumulated in respect of these benefits. We undertake the whole liability of that up to sixty-five years of age.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is putting in a very necessary qualification. That was not in his speech. Surely even now he has not got the matter rightly before the Committee, because benefits under this Bill are limited for any who claim over the age of fifty.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade a remark which was inaudible.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: So that they have got to provide not only for the men over sixty-five, but the difference between the reduced benefits of the men between fifty and sixty-five and those given by the society.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Suppose their liability now in respect of all these persons is five millions pro tanto to the extent of the benefits we guarantee. There is a reduction of their liability. Three and a half millions does not represent the whole liability of the Oddfellows, but it does represent a very considerable reduction and to that extent releases their finances, and therefore to that extent must strengthen the society financially.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not deny that a large number of societies are going to get certain advantage under this Bill. That is a statement which I have never denied and never thought of denying. That is not at all the statement the right hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. He is limiting the statement very much now and if he made the statement in this form I do not know that I should have any criticism.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said under the benefits of the Bill.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to say that. I can only say I did not hear him. That he is speaking in perfect good faith I have not the least doubt, but I was sitting opposite, and did not hear it. He went on further to say that the position of the old men who were already members of the society could not be prejudiced under any

    1289
    circumstances, and that there was no society in this country, if it were called on, could meet its liabilities.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Over all its branches.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How, then, do those societies exist? How do they propose to exist except by the influx of new members? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that where there is a deficiency they levy a higher contribution. By those means they accumulate funds to make themselves actuarily sound. You come in and stop the method by which that process is going on, and leaves old men dependent on the society, and I think in such cases the position of the old men must be prejudiced, because the new scheme of the Government is taking away the subscriptions of the younger men which would meet the liabilities' incurred.
    Major WILLOUGHBY: I support this Amendment. I have one later down, in a rather different form. In the agricultural villages we have many societies which may not be absolutely solvent. We have men for a great number of years subscribing to a society, and under this Bill all the younger members will be absorbed by some great society, and so they lose the advantage they ought to get through having subscribed for a great number of years. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this point most carefully, in order that he may not inflict any injustice on a deserving body of men. I know that he has no desire to inflict any injustice, but possibly in thinking of the larger bodies he may have to some extent overlooked the small but deserving class.
    Mr. BAIRD: I think a case of some hardship has been put before the Committee. Only this afternoon I met the representatives of a considerable number of friendly societies, and they pointed out to me that this particular class of individual who would not come under the Government insurance scheme will not benefit by the action of the State, and that consequently the proportion of the funds that will have to meet the liabilities of the friendly societies as regards that particular section of their members will suffer. They will not be affected by what the Bill proposes to do for the other branch of the friendly societies' funds. It seems to me that they are people who have done something for themselves, and
    1290
    they are to be in a position not so favourable as they have a right to expect. It is true they will be in a better position than people who have made no provision at all for themselves, but that scarcely meets the case. It is only fair that something should be done to improve their position. There is no getting over the fact that in many country villages there is a great deal of anxiety amongst these people. It may be that the particular friendly societies to which they belong will not be in a position to become approved societies. What is going to happen to them? They will undoubtedly lose the benefit of the young blood which at present keeps the societies going. Unless you do something for them you will undoubtedly be inflicting a great deal of hardship on a large section of the population. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision on the matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Member opposite asked if the Government were prepared to give an undertaking that these members would not be put in a worse position. Not only am I prepared to give that undertaking, but I will undertake that they will be in a better position as a result of the Bill.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has just given an undertaking which I presume must be in connection with Clause 55. Can he not extend that?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say Clause 55 at all.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman said they would be in a better position. There has been nothing in all the discussion on this Clause to show that they will not be in a very much worse position. The only substitute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer offers them is that they now have his permission to join some form of deposit contributory scheme, the details of which we are to get later on. Those members of friendly societies who are sixty-five have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, a considerable reserve value attached to them in their societies. That reserve value will in all probability be sufficient to make it a paying proposition for the Insurance Fund to take them in, to continue them, as approved members for the purposes of the Insurance Fund. If that reserve value is sufficient, what reason can there possibly be for their not continuing their insurance in the approved

    1291
    societies-going on just as if this Bill had not come into force?
    Mr. HOHLER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an undertaking that these men shall not be in a worse position under this Bill but in a better. I am not clear whether or not that undertaking simply means that he has said that he is going to confer an immense benefit on the friendly societies by something they will receive: consequently they will be in a better position. In my judgment that is not worth anything at all. What I want the Chancellor to give is an undertaking that in adapting the machinery to these approved societies of this Bill he will accept the whole of the obligations of those who are already insured in the approved societies. Why, otherwise, should they be in a worse position, as in my judgment they will be?
    Under this measure there is to be a double set of accounts kept; a separate account for the funds received and expended under this Bill, and a separate
    account that the societies have to keep themselves. What have these men of sixty-five to look forward to? It is a fact that it is the young blood that keeps these societies going. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the House to help him to make this Bill a good one. If we are to continue in the spirit of trying to make the Bill a good one, he will have to be more generous in the promises he makes to us in some of these matters. Consider the hardship this proposal means to the man who has been insured all his life, and who has been thrifty and prudent. You approve that, and approve it so much, that you are going to leave the man high and dry. The Chancellor shakes his head, and says, "No, no." But the Bill says that. He may have said differently in his speeches; and I ask for an undertaking to be given.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 53; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 258.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dixon, C. H.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Doughty, Sir George

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Oerby)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Forster, Henry William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Starkey, John R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Guinness, Hon. W. E.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Bird, A.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunt, Rowland

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Cator, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cautley, H. S.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Cave, George

    Lewisham, Visccunt

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. Baird.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Adamson, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clough, William

    Glanville, H. J.

    Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Gulland, John W.

    Anderson, A. M.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hackett, J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Doris, W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Barton, W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Beale, W P.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bentham, G. J.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Hayward, Evan

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Falconer, J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brady, P. J.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Johnson, W.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Munro, B.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Joyce, Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Keating, M.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Moiton)

    O'Dcwd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Lansbury, George

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Shee, James John

    Summers, James Woolley

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld. Cockerm'th)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Leach, Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lundon, T.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Maclean, Donald

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Webb, H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, Michael

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (ches., Crewe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Manfield, Harry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Captain Guest.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    The CHAIRMAN: The remaining Amendments are either out of order, or else they should be moved at a later stage.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I desire to inform the Committee that it will be necessary for us to take the Financial Resolution after Clause 2 to-morrow, because we cannot get any further without it.
    Lord BALCARRES: I presume it will not be necessary to take the Report Stage of the Financial Resolution on Friday?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unfortunately we cannot proceed with Clause 3 without the Resolution. I am afraid we shall have to take the Report Stage the first thing on Friday to enable us to go on with Clause 3.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to suspend the five-o'clock rule on Friday?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Five minutes before One o'clock.