Commons Sitting of 2 November 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lord Acton's Nationality Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

BRITISH PLAIN SPIRITS IN BOND (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered, "showing the total quantities of British Plain Spirits in Bond, distinguishing the quantities in general warehouse from the quantities in distillers' warehouses in each Excise collection in Scotland on the 31st day of October, 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 67, of Session 1911)."—[Sir John Dewar.]

WATSON'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Watson's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate.]
Bill reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection: That, in pursuance of Clause 1, Sub-section (3), of The Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Mr. John William
978
Wilson from the Chairmen's Panel, with, whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (EXCISE ADMINISTRATION, ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 5th April; Sir Herbert Roberts]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES AND QUARRIES.
Copy presented of General Report and Statistics for the year 1910. Part II., Labour [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Two Orders in Council under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, dated 24th October, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 24th October, 1911, approving a certain addition to the existing Regulations as to the Dockyard Ports of Chatham and Sheerness [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 24th October, 1911, entitled "The New Hebrides Order in Council, 1911" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the number of troops or guards being sent by His Majesty's Government to Southern Persia for the protection of British interests; and to what places these are to be drafted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Between 400 and 500 men are being sent to Southern Persia to reinforce the Consular escorts, pending the establishment by the Persian Government of a system which will effectively provide for security. The distribution of the reinforcements between Shiraz, Bushire, and Ispahan has been left to the discretion of His Majesty's representative at Tehran, in consultation with the local Consular authorities. The increased escorts will be withdrawn when the Persian scheme is in effective operation.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House on the condition of affairs in Southern Persia in regard to British trade routes and regarding security of British subjects in Southern Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: I regret to state that the reports received from His Majesty's Minister at Tehran show that the condition of affairs in Southern Persia is very unsatisfactory. Frequent robberies have taken place upon the trade routes, telegraph wires have been cut, and disorders have taken place at Shiraz, which threatened considerable danger to British life and property. The Persian Government are endeavouring to remedy this state of things by the organisation of a gendarmerie force; but as some time must elapse before satisfactory results can ensue, and as there is at present no adequate guarantee against the recurrence of disorders, His Majesty's Government have taken the decision to increase the Consular escorts in the towns where the danger was most imminent and may recur.
  Colonel YATE: Have the Persian Government granted any compensation to the officers and others and caravans that have been robbed?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. There are several claims pending, but I cannot say whether any money has actually been paid. I ask the hon. Member to give me notice.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received official information to the effect that the ex-Shah of Persia has resumed military operations in Northern Persia; that his forces are accompanied by Russian officers; and that Russian troops and Russian gunboats rendered him assistance in the recent engagement near Bandargaz?
  Sir E. GREY: We have received information to the effect that there have been several recent engagements between a force of the ex-Shah's followers and Government troops near Bandargaz. His Majesty's Government have not heard that this force is accompanied by Russian officers, or that the ex-Shah is receiving assistance from Russian troops and gunboats, nor do we believe that there is any foundation for the report.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that the Russian Government are sending 800 troops into Persia in addition to the 4,000 they already have there.
  Sir E. GREY: I gave the figures yesterday. If the hon. Member will refer to that answer I think he will find I gave the number as 250, but I cannot be quite sure.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the British Government supported the Russian Government in resisting the appointment of Major Stokes by the Persian Government; and whether he can now lay upon the Table all the correspondence which passed between the British and the Russian Governments and the British and the Persian Governments in reference to this proposed appointment.
  Sir E. GREY: What we have done is to refuse to facilitate the appointment of Major Stokes by accepting his resignation. The ground for doing so is that it is not consistent with the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement that we should directly or indirectly promote the employment of a British officer to control gendarmerie in the North of Persia. We might ourselves have taken objection if the Russian Government had promoted the employment of a Russian officer to control gendarmerie in the part of Persia next to the Indian frontier, and we are bound to act reciprocally. It is not proposed to lay separate Papers on this point, but I will see if they can be included in the next Persian Blue Book.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a statement of the number of Indian troops which it is proposed to send to Persia, the cities in which they are to be quartered, and the number proposed to be quartered in each city; a statement of the information on which it was decided to send Indian troops to Persia; and the communications which have

  981
  passed between the British and Persian Governments in reference to this proposal?
  Sir E. GREY: Between 400 and 500 men are being sent from Bombay. Their distribution between Bushire, Shiraz, and Ispahan will be decided by His Majesty's Representative at Tehran in consultation with the local Consular authorities. Their dispatch was decided upon owing to reports received a few weeks ago that there was really serious danger to Europeans, especially at Shiraz; against the recurrence of that there is at present no adequate guarantee. It is not proposed to lay Papers on this point separately.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether, in view of the continued state of insecurity which prevails in Shiraz-Ispahan road and on the roads in that part of Persia generally, His Majesty's Government propose to take any further steps to assist the Persian Government in protecting the lives and property of travellers?
  Sir E. GREY: The Persian Government have engaged seven additional Swedish officers to organise the Persian gendarmerie. It is hoped that, when this force has been made effective, security will so far be restored in southern Persia that no further steps will be necessary, and that the reinforcements of the Consular escorts can be withdrawn. The force now being sent will act as Consular guards, and it is not intended at present, nor would it be desirable, to extend their functions beyond that.
  Colonel YATE: Would it not have been a great advantage to the Persian Government if they had accepted the generous offer of the British Government to lend them British officers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a purely hypothetical question. The Persian Government can answer it, but nobody else.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. LLOYDasked what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard British rights in Tripoli?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that British rights in Tripoli are being jeopardised. The Italian Government have announced their intention to protect foreign subjects in Tripoli by all available means.
  Mr. MARK SYKES: Are the capitulation rights enjoyed by British subjects under the Ottoman Empire still enjoyed by them in those parts of Tripoli which are occupied by the Italian troops?
  Sir E. GREY: Where there is a state of war at present existing it is difficult to say what treaty rights are while war is actually going on. We are not admitting in any way that any treaty rights we have in Tripoli are permanently impaired by anything that is taking place at the present moment.
  Mr. M. SYKESasked whether the Egypto-Tripolitan frontier has been completely delimitated; and, if so, when this was done?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. M. SYKESasked whether His Majesty's Government will approve of the Italian Government establishing navigation laws which would prevent shipments from Italian to Tripolitan ports (and vice versâ) being carried in any but Italian ships?
  Sir E. GREY: This question is a hypothetical question that has not yet arisen, and with which it is impossible to deal at present.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that British subjects were killed and wounded during the bombardment of Benghazi by the Italian fleet, and, if so, how many; if application was made by or on behalf of British subjects at Benghazi for their removal by the British or Italian authorities before the bombardment, and if any of them were removed; and if there was any British ship, either naval or mercantile, at Benghazi to render assistance to British subjects?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government are informed that, during the bombardment of Benghazi, eight Maltese British subjects were killed by falling masonry. A shell struck the British Consulate, but the British Consul has telegraphed that commercial interests did not suffer any serious damage in consequence of the bombardment. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no application for removal was made by British subjects. No British naval ship was present, and so far as we are aware no British mercantile ship.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will use his good offices and the influence of the United Kingdom to put a stop to the killing of Arabs, men, women, and children, by the Italians at Tripoli?
  Sir E. GREY: The military operations of the Italian Government in Tripoli are a matter in which His Majesty's Government cannot interfere, and any other attitude would not be consistent with the Declaration of Neutrality that they have issued. I understand that the statement implied in the question has been denied on the highest authority, and I must earnestly deprecate the putting of questions on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons in a form that must be offensive to other Governments.
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked whether His Majesty's Government have any information regarding the resumption of lighthouse services in the Ægean and Red Seas; and, if so, whether the resumption is total or partial?
  Sir E. GREY: We have been in constant communication for some time with both the Italian and Turkish Governments on the question in order to secure the restoration of the lights. Orders were given on 21st October by the Italian Government to relight the Italian Red Sea lights that had been extinguished; but the Turkish Government have not yet seen their way to restore their lights without an understanding as to the neutralisation of the Red Sea. I am still in communication with the Government at Constantinople.
  Mr. BECKETT: Having in view the forthcoming progress of the Royal yacht through the Red Sea, will the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make any special representation on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask for notice.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the accounts of the sack of Tripoli and the bombardment of Benghazi; whether he has received any official information giving authentic particulars of those transactions, and, if so, whether he will immediately communicate such information to the House; and, if he has not received official accounts of these events, whether he will telegraph to the British Consuls asking for full and detailed reports?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have received no information to show that since the outbreak of hostilities between Italy and Turkey any event has occurred that can be described as a sack of Tripoli. With regard to Benghazi, I would refer to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Rutland. His Majesty's Government are kept informed of the course of events in Tripoli and Cyrenaica by His Majesty's Consuls in Tripoli and Benghazi, but I cannot undertake to give information except when British subjects are concerned.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Italian Government communicated to the British Government its intention of seizing Tripoli; whether the British Government assented to this enterprise or addressed any remonstrance to the Italian Government; and whether he will lay upon the Table any communications which have passed between the two Governments referring to the Italian expedition to Tripoli?
  Sir E. GREY: The first communication of any intention to seize Tripoli which His Majesty's Government received was the notification of the Declaration of War on 30th September. We at once expressed the intention of issuing a Declaration of Neutrality. As stated last Thursday, I am not prepared to lay Papers at the present time.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to this House how that is consistent with the treaty obligations which this country entered into at The Hague?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not quite see the bearing of that question. We received a notification of a state of war, and we expressed our intention of issuing a Declaration of Neutrality. There is nothing in that, so far as I am aware, contrary to any treaty obligations.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it not a violation of treaty obligations on the part of Italy?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of the actual treaty he refers to.
  Mr. KING: Are we under no obligation to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of questions regarding any treaties.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Have the Government considered the effect upon the poorer population of the various European States of the example set by a civilised Government removing its neighbour's landmarks for no other purpose than the exploitation of a peaceful country and their possessions?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member is inviting me to make comments upon a state of things with regard to which we have issued a Declaration of Neutrality. Having issued that, no good purpose would be served by my making comments on a war in respect of which we have expressed our intention of being neutral.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I wish to ask a question of which I have given private notice. What action does His Majesty's Government intend to take to express the horror and detestation which this House feels at the recent reported massacre of Arabs by Italians in Tripoli?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Colne Valley Division. To that answer I have nothing to add, except that questions of such a character ought not to be asked or answered on private notice.
  Mr. D. MASON: Arising out of that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer given earlier referred to the denial by the Italian Embassy, containing the following sentence:—
  "Those who during the fighting or immediately afterwards were found with arms in their hands were shot."
  And whether, according to Article 3 of The Hague Convention, the armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of that fact?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have already said, except to repeat that I deprecate in the strongest possible way such questions on private notice.
  Mr. D. MASON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if I am in order—having regard to the fact that all the time of this House has been allocated to the Government—in giving notice of a Resolution of Protest which I shall propose to this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is certainly entitled to give notice of any Motion he wishes to bring forward, or put it upon the Paper.
  Mr. D. MASON: Having regard to your ruling, Sir, and regarding this as a matter of very urgent importance, I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has forgotten the Resolution which forbids any Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

  Egypt and Soudan.
  Mr. LLOYDasked whether His Majesty's Government have any statistics relating to the number of adherents to the Senoussi sect in Egyptian and Soudanese territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I will inquire as to what information is obtainable, and I will let the hon. Member know when I am in a position to answer his question.
  Mr. M. SYKESasked whether there is any British officer at the Oasis of Siwah, in the western desert of Egypt?
  Sir E. GREY: There is a coastguard station at Siwah, which is the headquarters of a camel-patrol of forty men, who are under the command of a British officer.
  Mr. M. SYKES: Is the oasis of Jerbun, west of Siwah, Anglo-Egyptian, Tripolitan, or independent territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask for notice of that.

  Africa (Readjustment of Boundaries).
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked if His Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, the opportunity presented by the readjustment of territorial boundaries within the area of Africa covered by the Act of Berlin to recall to the Governments concerned in that readjustment the stipulations of the Berlin Act with regard to freedom of trade between the natives and the outer world, which stipulations have not been adhered to by the French Government.
  Sir E. GREY: It would be undesirable to complicate the negotiations proceeding between other Powers by raising other questions than those now under discussion between them.

  Congo.
  Sir G. WHITEasked when the promised Reports from His Majesty's Consular officers in the Congo State will be presented to Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: The Reports will be presented to Parliament very shortly, certainly before the end of the month.
  Sir G. WHITEasked whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to Article 1 of the Convention of May last between the Belgian Government and the Abir Congo Concessionnaire Company, whereby that company has been granted the privilege of exploiting the rubber throughout the whole extent of its original concession for another eighteen months; whether His Majesty's Government is aware that this company is now shipping rubber from its concession and sending out to the Congo a number of its ex-officials; and whether, having regard to the record of this company in its treatment of the natives, His Majesty's Government has thought fit to communicate with the Belgian Government on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: The Report of the Colonial Council, dated 15th July last, and published with the decrees, shows that for eighteen months rubber may not be gathered in the former territories of the Abir Company, either by the company or by third parties. With regard to the second part of the question, I have no information; but, if rubber is being exported, it is probably old stock. With regard to the third part, I must remind the hon. Member that this company (the area of whose territory has been enormously reduced) will in future be subject to the laws recently introduced in the Congo State. There does not appear, therefore, to be any necessity for communication with the Belgian Government.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House what was the precise claim put forward by Russia at the recent meeting of the Brussels Sugar Convention; what decision was arrived at; what action the British representatives took with regard to it; when he hopes to be able to lay Papers on the subject; and what is the earliest date at which it is possible for His Majesty's Government to withdraw from the Convention?
  Sir E. GREY: The proposal submitted by Russia to the International Sugar Commission was that she should be permitted, during the period of 1st September, 1911, to 31st August, 1912, to export 400,000 tons of sugar in excess of the amount of 200,000 tons allowed to her under the Protocol of 19th December, 1907. The Commission decided to agree to the Russian proposal in principle, provided that a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at in regard to the conditions under which Russia would continue to be a party to the Convention; and the meeting was adjourned until 8th December next, to enable the Russian Government to submit further proposals on this point. A Paper will be laid, I hope, within a week, giving the instructions to the British delegates and their report of the sitting of the Commission. The 1st September, 1913, is the earliest date at which His Majesty's Government can withdraw from the Convention; but I would point out that an earlier withdrawal, even if it were possible, would not affect the arrangements existing between Russia and the other contracting States, as we are not a party to them and are not bound by them.
  Mr. LOUGH: Are we to gather from that that Russia cannot send any sugar westward until after 8th December, the date of the adjourned meeting?
  Sir E. GREY: As I understand it, she can send westward before the 8th December to the full amount of 200,000 tons.
  Mr. LOUGH: No amount in excess of that?
  Sir E. GREY: Any amount in excess of that cannot be sent between now and the 8th December. That is under an arrangement made not with us, but with the other Powers.
  Mr. LLOYD: Has Russia so far exported her full limit?
  Sir E. GREY: She has never in any year hitherto exported up to the full limit of 200,000 tons.
  Mr. LLOYD: Are there any figures for this year?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot give the figures for this year. Russia is now in a position and desires to export more than 200,000 tons.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What is the estimated surplus above the amount allowed to be exported for this year?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the Brussels Sugar Convention and the difficulties which are being caused at the present time both to manufacturers and consumers in this country owing to the scarcity and high price of sugar, he can see his way to fulfil the conditional promise which he made to give an opportunity to the House of Commons to discuss and express an opinion upon the subject before any decision is reached by His Majesty's Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes in the course of a few days, when his information is complete, to make a full statement to the House on this subject, which I hope may be of such a character as to obviate the necessity of any further debate.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the statement being made under circumstances which will allow of some discussion—even a short discussion—which will not make any great demand on the time of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I think it would be better that it should be made by itself. I believe it will be found very satisfactory by my right hon Friend.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GUINEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission have received the report of their inspector who inspected that portion of the estate of Lord Lisle, situate in the Kanturk union, county Cork, with a view to vesting the property in the tenants who have purchased?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The inspector's report in this case has been received, and is with others awaiting ruling by the Estates Commissioners.
  Mr. GUINEYasked if the Estates Commissioners have made inquiries into the application of an evicted tenant named Timothy Moynahan, on the estate of Lord Lisle, county Cork, with a view to his re-
  990
  instatement; agreements to purchase this estate are now awaiting the sanction of the Irish Land Commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts, and when they are dealing with it in order of priority they will give Moynahan's application full consideration.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what further steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to complete the purchase of the estate of the late Major Mahony, at Dooks, county Kerry; when do they propose to send their inspector to value the property; and whether all the necessary documents have been furnished by the agent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that the necessary documents for an inspection of the estate referred to have been lodged, and the lands will be inspected, and a decision arrived at regarding purchase, as soon as practicable.
  Mr. BOLAND: Will the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners look after the interests of the evicted tenants on this property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No doubt.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to complete the purchase of the O'Donoghue estate, near Glenveigh, county Kerry, a portion of which was sold about three years ago?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements in the case of this estate, which is being sold direct by the owner to the tenants, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in December, 1908. The estate has not yet been reached in order of priority.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners intend to carry through the sale of the Lane Joynt estate at Aughanish, in the county of Limerick, at the price offered for it by their inspector; whether they are satisfied with the tenants' arrangement with regard to the upkeep of the embankments; and whether, as the tenants are willing to pay the inspector's price for their holdings, and as there are three evicted tenants on the estate, he will take steps to see that the sale is completed without further delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject on the 11th May last. Since then the Estates Commissioners have informed the owner that they were willing to reduce the sum of £500, which they called upon him to lodge to form an endowment for the maintenance of the embankments, to £300, provided the embankments were put in a proper state of repair. He has also been informed that unless he consents to the Commissioners' proposal they will dismiss the proceedings for sale before them, and they await a further communication from him on the subject.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenants on this estate have agreed with the landlord to pay the balance of £300 and have it added to the purchase money in order that the sale may be carried through at once and in order that the evicted tenants on the estate, who have been kept out of their holdings for twenty years, may be reinstated, and why is it, when the tenants are willing to pay this £300 for the upkeep of the embankments, that the Estates Commissioners will not ratify the agreement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If they can get their guarantee the matter will go through. At present they have not got it.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what funds, if any, have been allocated by the Congested Districts Board for the compulsory purchase of estates in the South Kerry Parliamentary Division; and can he state what further steps it is proposed to take with a view to acquire the estate of Mr. Myles O'Mahoney, at Beaufort, for re-sale to the tenants, seeing that the owner has refused to negotiate for a voluntary sale of his estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board having purchased the Ventry estate, and being engaged in voluntary negotiations for the purchase of other estates in the southern half of the county Kerry, do not contemplate taking any steps for the compulsory acquisition of the Myles O'Mahoney estate.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is it not a fact that this landlord absolutely refused to negotiate with the tenant, and that compulsory purchase is necessary?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not say that the Myles O'Mahony estate is not a proper
  992
  one for compulsory acquisition provided that funds were at the disposal of the Board.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when any funds will be allocated for this purpose?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I cannot.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the town tenants in Glin, in the county of Limerick, are willing to give the landlord, the Knight of Glin, a fair price for their holdings which are rented on the ground values; and whether, as the agricultural portion of the estate is being sold to the tenants under the Land Purchase Act, 1909, the Estates Commissioners will send an inspector to Glin to interview the town tenants and inspect their holdings, and put a value on them, with the view to purchase, so that they may be included in the sale of the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to is being sold by the owner direct to the tenants. If the town tenants wish to purchase their holdings they should enter into agreements with the owner, in which event the Estates Commissioners will, when the estate is being dealt with, have the premises inspected, and estimate the sums, if any, which could be advanced on the security of the sites, the balance between such sums and the prices agreed on to be lodged in cash by the tenants.

  National School, Tarbet, County Kerry.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Tuesday, the 28th February last, the principal female teacher and manager of the national school in the town of Tarbet, county Kerry, ordered three little girls, aged from twelve to fifteen years, to at once perform the menial office of cleansing the out-house to the school, which had not been cleaned for the past six months; that the children refused, but offered to pay a man to do the work, and in consequence of their refusal were instantly dismissed; whether an inquiry was held into the matter, and, if so, will he state the result, and how long the children were prevented from obtaining education provided free by the State; and what action, if any, it is proposed to take against the manager and the teacher in question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in March last complaints were made to them

  993
  that the manager of the Tarbert girls' national school, county Kerry, had expelled certain girls from the school for refusing to clean the out-offices. On inquiry it appeared that these pupils were ordered by the teacher to attend to the out-offices, and that on their refusing to do so the manager expelled them from the school, although they offered to pay a man to do this work. The Commissioners require that no child whose parents object be compelled to assist in cleaning the school premises, and they immediately communicated to this effect with the manager, advising him that, in the circumstances, the exclusion of the pupils in question from the school was not warranted, and that these pupils should be readmitted at once on presenting themselves at the school. The girls were soon after readmitted as pupils, and the Commissioners do not consider any further action as regards manager and teacher necessary.
  Captain CRAIG: Have instructions been issued generally throughout the schools in Ireland to prevent a repetition of this awful scandal?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is a matter to which I will call the attention of the Commissioners.

  Boycotting (Island of Aran).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that for the past two years a criminal conspiracy has existed on the Island of Aran, directed against one Roger Derrane and anyone who associated or in any way supported him, and that this conspiracy arose immediately after the establishment on the island of a branch of the United Irish League, of which the Reverend Father Farragher is president; whether, as a result of the working of this conspiracy, one Colman McDonagh has been boycotted, with his aged mother and a young family of children; whether this Colman McDonagh, having been employed in 1909 and 1910 by the Congested Districts Board in charge of an ice hulk in Aran was this year refused employment and the secretary of the branch of the United Irish League appointed in his stead; whether he is aware that on the 16th July McDonagh attended a meeting of the branch of the United Irish League in Aran to endeavour to get the boycott removed, but was turned out by the president, the Reverend Father Farragher,
  994
  that McDonagh was attacked by a mob in Achill and badly beaten, and that certain of his assailants were prosecuted by the police; whether he is also aware that on the night of the 24th July McDonagh attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself in his own house, but was rescued by a police patrol; whether he has now been committed to the criminal lunatic asylum at Ballinasloe; and what steps the Irish Government propose to take to bring to justice those persons in Aran who have driven this man to the asylum and left his aged mother and young children to the mercy of the conspiracy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Roger Derrane was sentenced to three years' penal servitude in 1908 for conspiring to blow up the priest's house at Kilronan. Since his release he has been boycotted, but this had no connection with the establishment of a branch of the United Irish League, which had existed before his conviction. Colman McDonagh has also been boycotted. He was employed by the Congested Districts Board during the Spring Fishing of 1910, but the Board did not renew his engagement in 1911. The Board cannot say whether his successor is connected with the United Irish League. I am informed that McDonagh attended the meeting referred to and was asked to leave, which he did. On 30th June, McDonagh was followed through the village of Kilronan by a crowd and was assaulted by two boys, who were prosecuted and punished. On 24th July McDonagh attempted to commit suicide by hanging, but was rescued by a police patrol. He was committed to the District Lunatic Asylum, but has since been released. The police take all possible steps for the safety of these men, but there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution for criminal conspiracy.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Is there any authorisation for the suggestion that McDonagh was dismissed by the Congested Districts Board at the suggestion of the United Irish League; and is it not rather the inference from the facts stated in the question that he was dismissed because he was a man of unsound mind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can certainly answer for the Congested Districts Board. The only reason why he was dismissed was that he was not a proper person to discharge the duties of his office.
  Captain CRAIG: Then why was he appointed in the first place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It may be that they thought then that he was well qualified, and subsequently thought he was not.
  Captain CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the man was sent away on account of his mental condition?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I do not say so.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. GUINEYasked whether, in view of an appeal being lodged by a pension officer against the granting of a pension on the grounds of excessive means, and in which case the local pension committee considers the valuation of the pension officer excessive, the Local Government Board will accept the valuation of a recognised valuer as independent evidence on behalf of the applicant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board will be prepared to give full consideration to any evidence of value which a claimant may put forward, but they cannot bind themselves to accept in all cases the valuations of persons employed by the claimants on their own behalf.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Margaret M'Mahon (Mrs. Sullivan), of Askeaton, in the county of Limerick, applied for an old age pension, which was granted to her by the local pension committee on her producing her baptismal certificate that she was seventy years last July; that the pension officer refused it on the ground that from the Census Return she was only sixty-six years, and also on her admission that she was three years older than her brother John, who was returned in the Census as sixty-three years, but who from his baptismal certificate was sixty-seven years; whether in such a case the baptismal certificate is the correct proof of age; and, if so, will he direct the pension officer to grant her the pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board, on 30th October, disallowed the pension officer's appeal, and confirmed the pension sub-committee's decision awarding a pension of five shillings a week to Mrs. Sullivan.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mary O'Sullivan, of Shanagolden, in the county of Limerick, was in receipt of an old age pension from the 1st January, 1909, to December, 1909, and then, without
  996
  giving any reason but that she was not in the Census Returns, the pension officer deprived her of it; that at the time she got the pension she produced statements of most respectable people in the locality who knew her that she was seventy years of age; and whether he can say that the pension officer had the power to deprive her of the pension without producing proof that she was not seventy years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have twice allowed the appeal of the pension officer in this case on the ground that they were not satisfied that Mary O'Sullivan had attained the statutory age. They considered that the statements of belief referred to in the question did not upset the evidence afforded by the fact that her name does not appear in the list of her parents' family in the Census Return of 1841. Pension officers have no power either to allow or disallow pensions, this being a matter for the pension committee, or, on appeal, the Local Government Board.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Having regard to the fact that the local pension committee granted this pension, judging by her personal appearance that she was over seventy years of age, how can the Local Government Board upset that when they have not seen her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have to act as best they can upon the evidence before them. If they were simply to take the opinion of two or three people as to personal appearance the list would be much swollen.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that James Sullivan, of Askeaton, county Limerick, applied for an old age pension, and on producing his baptismal certificate showing that he was seventy-three years of age the local pension committee granted him 5s. a week; whether he is aware that the pension officer rejected his case on the ground that, having been three years in America, he had no residence in the United Kingdom, and, further, that James Sullivan went to America to see his children with the object of getting from them some money to provide for him; and, under these circumstances, whether he will direct the pension officer to grant him the pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This case has not come before the Local Government Board.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Chief Secretary whether he will grant a Return enumerating those duties entrusted to the Royal Irish Constabulary which are not performed by the Constabulary in Great Britain?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are 191 separate police forces under separate authorities in England and Wales, and the extra duties performed by the police vary indefinitely in different districts. Having regard to the variety of these duties it would be almost, impossible to give a Return with any degree of precision distinguishing between those performed by the police in Ireland and in different parts of England. The only duties performed by the Royal Irish Constabulary which cannot be said to fall on the police in England are the collection of agricultural statistics and the taking of the Census, and even here the police were called on this year to assist the Census officers, especially with regard to vagrants, and they have been employed in taking a Census of horses and vehicles for the War Office.

  Poyntzpass National School.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he will state why the principal teacher of Poyntzpass mixed national school. Roll No. 4,960, who was promoted to a higher grade on 1st April, 1910, has not yet received his grade salary, although Rule 105 (a) of the Commissioners of National Education states that teachers promoted from a lower to a higher grade receive on promotion the salary fixed for the grade to which they are promoted; if he is aware that the arrears due to this teacher up to 30th September, 1911, amounted to £18; and if it is the intention of the Government to allow the Commissioners to pay this sum?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The teacher of Poyntzpass National School has not received the salary of the grade to which he was promoted from 1st April, 1910, in consequence of the limitation of the standard numbers in the grade. This is one of the forty-seven cases referred to in my reply to the hon. Member's question of 26th October.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fulfil their obligations to these unfortunate teachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already explained to the House that so far as the Treasury is concerned they are perfectly willing to discharge their obligations to these forty-seven persons, but the Commissioners of National Education will not carry out the recommendation.

  Poor Law Service (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked what is the number of medical officers, dispensary and workhouse, in the Poor Law service in Ireland who are aged sixty-five years and upwards; and whether, having regard to the additional work, entailing severe physical exertion, which will devolve upon dispensary medical officers under the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, it is intended to frame proposals for the superannuation of those officials who have passed the age of sixty-five?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The information desired is not directly available, and could only be obtained by searching through the original appointment of all the medical officers in Ireland. A clause respecting superannuation of dispensary medical officers would hardly be germane to the National Insurance Bill.

  Captain Sarsfield's Estate, County Cork.
  Mr. CREANasked why the Estates Commissioners rejected the claim made by David McDonnell as the representative of the late John McDonnell, an evicted tenant on Captain Sarsfield's estate, Kilmoney, Carrigaline, county Cork?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not received any application from David McDonnell for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by John McDonnell on Captain Sarsfield's estate.

  Petty Sessions Clerk (Cahirciveen).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether, in connection with the election of petty sessions clerk for the district of Caherciveen, Mr. John Mannix had given an undertaking to the Lord Chancellor that he would not vote at the said election with his brother, Dr. Joseph F. Mannix; whether in pursuance of that undertaking he had refrained from voting at the elections held on the 26th May, 1910, and the 3rd February, 1911, respectively; whether Mr. John Mannix, at the election held on the 21st July, 1911, recorded his vote along with his brother in favour of the candidate, his brother-in-law, and when objected to by the solicitor for the other candidate he stated from his seat on

  999
  the bench in public court that he had previously given an undertaking to the Lord Chancellor that he would not sit nor vote with his brother, but that quite recently he had received the Lord Chancellor's permission to vote at that election, and that it was in pursuance of that permission he was voting; whether Mr. John Mannix had such permission, or had he been released from any previous undertaking; and, if so, what were the considerations which moved the Lord Chancellor to take up this position.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that Mr. John Mannix, J.P., was informed at the time of his appointment to the magistracy that he should not act on the Bench at the same time as his brother, who was also a magistrate. It is understood that he did not vote at the election of petty sessions clerk on 26th May, 1910, or 3rd February, 1911. Subsequently the question as to the right of Mr. Mannix to vote at such an election with his brother was considered by the late Lord Chancellor, and, following a decision of Lord Chancellor Ball in 1875, that the policy prohibiting father and son from acting together as magistrates does not extend to voting for appointments, but is confined to legal proceedings, whether of a civil or criminal nature, the late Lord Chancellor ruled that this decision should apply in like manner to the case of two brothers. Mr. Mannix was duly informed of the ruling of the late Lord Chancellor, and, it is understood, voted at the election held on 21st July, 1911, with his brother, in favour of the same candidate. I have no information as to any statement made by Mr. Mannix, nor as to whether the candidate is his brother-in-law.

  Crown Prosecutors (Political Functions).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. P. S. Golding signed, as Crown Prosecutor and chairman of the Ballinasloe Urban Council, an address of welcome to the hon. Member for East Mayo, of a strong political character, describing those who differed from him as traitors, on the occasion of the hon. Gentleman's visit to Portumna to attend a meeting of the United Irish League on Sunday, the 15th October last; whether Crown Prosecutors are permitted to take part in such matters; and, if not, what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. JOHN ROCHE: Is it not the fact that Crown Prosecutors in the North of Ireland frequently attend demonstrations, both political and sectarian, at which disloyal speeches and threats of war are delivered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should not like to answer the question. Mr. P. S. Golding, Crown Solicitor for the county of Galway, did sign an address of welcome to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the occasion referred to. He did not do so in his position of Crown Prosecutor, but as chairman of the Ballinasloe Urban District Council. There is no express rule prohibiting Crown Solicitors from taking part in political matters, but it is generally understood that they should not do so within their own counties, and the Irish Government considers it important that this understanding should be observed. It is Mr. Golding's intention not to seek reelection as chairman, and he will cease to be such at the end of the current year. Beyond pointing out to Mr. Golding the impropriety of his taking part in local politics while he holds the office of Crown Solicitor, the Attorney-General does not propose to take any action.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHE: Ought not Crown Presecutors in the North of Ireland to be prohibited from taking any part in these disloyal demonstrations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am quite sure the Attorney-General, if his attention is called to any dereliction on the part of Crown Prosecutors anywhere, will have much pleasure in doing it in the case of the North as in the case of the South.
  Captain CRAIG: Did this gentleman sign his name to this address of welcome to the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), not only as chairman of the urban district council but also as Crown Prosecutor for the county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Attention has been called to the impropriety of doing so.
  Mr. MOONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman forward a copy of his answer to the Crown Solicitor for the city of Belfast and Antrim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will request the Attorney-General to look after the matter.

  Evicted Tenants Act (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the Estates Commissioners intend to take any steps to provide Denis Cronin, of

  1001
  Ballingarry, county Limerick, with untenanted lands as an equivalent to the farm at Kilmeedy from which his father and family were evicted in 1886 for nonpayment of rent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 22nd February last to the question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for Mid-Cork.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: On what ground will not the Estates Commissioners give this man an equivalent for the farm from which he was evicted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have often told hon. Members that it is most important in the interests of everyone that the reasons of the Commissioners for not giving a person a particular farm or its equivalent should not be stated.

  Home Rule (Ireland).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of separate Exchequers being established for Ireland and Great Britain, the revenue to be contributed by each Exchequer for Imperial expenditure will be based strictly on the estimated true revenue for Ireland and Great Britain, respectively; and whether, in the event of the answer being in the affirmative, he can state the contribution that would be required from Ireland were her contribution based on her estimated average true revenue for the four years 1907–11?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I can make no statement on this matter.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask the Prime Minister, he himself being a Scottish Member, whether in the event of Home Rule being given to Scotland he would be willing that Scotland should contribute on the same basis?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether any communication in regard to Home Rule has been communicated to the Press; and, if so, whether he will make a similar communication to the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Captain CRAIG: May we take it that all the statements made by the Nationalists on the subject of Home Rule are the outcome of their own fertile imaginations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was asked "whether any communication in regard to Home Rule has been communicated to the Press," and my answer was in the negative.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask if it has been made to the Nationalist Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.
  Captain CRAIG: Then, it has not.

  Department of Archæology (India).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many officials the Inspector-General of Archaælogy in India has in his department; and what are their duties?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Director-General of Archæology has, strictly speaking, no department. The Archæological Survey Department is officered by a Director-General, who advises the local governments, and twelve superintendents and assistants, whose duty it is to investigate, report on and conserve the ancient monuments of their respective circles. These officers are responsible to the local governments, and their activities would, of course, not be affected even if the proposal of the Government of India to abolish the Director-Generalship were carried out. I may add, perhaps, that the Secretary of State in Council, after the most careful consideration of the proposals of the Government of India in all their aspects has decided not to sanction the abolition of this post. It would not be possible to explain the situation in an answer to a queston, but my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is making a statement in another place this afternoon.
  Captain MURRAY: May I ask what is to happen to the other Inspectors-General, the abolition of whose posts was I understand recommended at the same time?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The offices of civil veterinary, agriculture and cantonment inspectors-general are to be abolished. The Secretary of State has decided not to sanction the abolition of the Inspector-General of Sanitation, and, as I have said, of the Director-General of Archæology. He has asked the Government of India to reconsider their recommendation with regard to the Inspectors-General of Forestry and Excise.

  Joint Stock Banks (Unclaimed Balances).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Companies Consolidation Act by requiring the annual returns of joint stock companies to disclose the amount of unclaimed dividends in their hands, with a view to the same being handed over after the lapse of a given period to the Public Trustee?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): As at present advised my right hon. Friend does not think that any useful object will be served by requiring the annual returns of joint stock companies to disclose the amount of unclaimed dividends in their hands, and he does not therefore propose to introduce legislation amending the Companies (Consolidation) Act in this respect.

  Gold Production.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has in his possession in support of the statement that the great production of gold at the present time is causing a depreciation in its value and a consequent rise in the prices of all products; if such gold is not now being readily absorbed; and if there is any evidence of this beyond the fact that the value of many articles has risen?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is not possible to deal adequately by question and answer with the relations between gold output and the level of prices, or to summarise in brief form the nature of the evidence which may appear to justify the belief that the rise in world prices in recent years is at least partly traceable to the very considerable increase in gold output.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if some statement cannot be made by the Board of Trade on the subject as it has already been referred to by a Cabinet Minister?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the Board propose to look into the matter. Beyond that I cannot go.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his Department has any evidence that the increase in the production of gold is in excess of the world's trade and the consequent demand for gold?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I should say it would be very difficult to state whether such evidence exists.

  American Tariff (British Soap Factory).
  Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if Messrs. A. and F. Pears made any application to the Government to assist them in combating the heavy duty levied by the United States on their products; was such application granted; and, if so, what was the reason why no reduction of such duty was secured?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The only representations made by the firm of which the Board of Trade have knowledge were made to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, and were directed against a proposed increase of the duty on soap under the last United States Tariff Bill. These were conveyed to the United States Government. The duty was eventually fixed at an ad valorem rate, which is understood to be appreciably less than the specific rate originally proposed.
  Mr. LYELL: May I ask whether the imposition of a tariff in this country would have had any effect on the power of Messrs. A. and F. Pears to sell their articles profitably in the United States, and—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  Motor Cars (Imports).
  Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that of all the motor cars of different makes and power offered for sale in this country only 37½ per cent. of cars are manufactured in the United Kingdom; and will he consider the advantages to British industry and British labour of imposing a substantial import duty on motor cars and accessories?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of the source from which the hon. Member derives his figures. The only official information as to the extent of the motor manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom is that contained in the Report of the Census of Production which related to 1907. The conclusion there arrived at was that the motor vehicles of home production sold in the United Kingdom in that year substantially outnumbered those imported (including imported chassis). Judging by the very satisfactory expansion in recent years in the exports of British-built motor cars the industry is not one which appears to stand in need of protection.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware—assuming the accuracy of the figure in the question that 62½ per cent. of foreign-made motor cars are used in this country—that they have been purchased by Tory Tariff Reformers?
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Walsall himself (Mr. Cooper) is continuously riding in an imported motor car?

  Royal Dockyards (Workers).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether it is proposed to extend the arrangements made with regard to taking on outside labour at His Majesty's dockyards to all labour required for Government Departments?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Arrangements have already been made by various Government Departments for the engagement both of skilled and unskilled labour through the Labour Exchanges.

  British Wagon Works, Swansea.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a dispute has been in existence for several weeks at the British Wagon Works at Swansea; that the employer has refused to agree to conciliation or arbitration; and will he say if the Board of Trade has taken any action to bring the dispute to an end; if so, what action, and is it proposed to do anything further?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: An officer of the Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department has had interviews with representatives of the parties to this dispute, and I understand that offers of mediation have been made by influential local gentlemen. It does not appear that any further action can usefully be taken at the present time, but the developments of the dispute are being carefully watched, and should the parties desire it the good offices of the Department will be placed at their disposal.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is not it a fact that one of the parties, that is, the workmen, have made appeals to the Board of Trade for their intervention?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have just stated that an officer of the Chief Industrial Commissioners' Department has had interviews with the parties.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not answer my question. Is not it a fact that an appeal to the Board of Trade was made?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no direct information, I presume that something of the kind has taken place.

  Boycott of Irish Products.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the threatened boycott of Irish products, with the exception of linen from Ulster, on the passing of the Home Rule Bill; and whether he proposes to take any, and if so, what steps to safeguard the normal development of trade relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think that this suggestion (of which I had not previously heard) need be seriously considered.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that publicity was given to this statement in a letter published in "The Times," on October 31st, and has he calculated the effect in increasing the cost of living in Great Britain if farming produce to the extent of £35,000,000 a year was kept away from England by purely political prejudice?

  Sale of Stamps.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether there is any way of ascertaining what proportions of the sale of stamps are for postal and other purposes respectively?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The proportions are ascertained by actual count, or by estimates based on returns. The amount in respect of Inland Revenue Duty is estimated on the basis of the sales of the receipt stamps in the last year when special stamps were used for receipt purposes, with a certain fixed additional amount each year for probable increase.

  Post Office Sorting Clerks (Oxford).
  Viscount VALENTIAasked why postmen who have passed no Civil Service examination to qualify them for duty as sorting clerks and telegraphists are employed or have been at the general post office at Oxford on that duty, their own duty being in the meantime provided by casual labour?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Postmen should be employed as substitutes for sorting clerks and telegraphists only in cases where the performance of overtime would result in undue pressure on the remaining sorting clerks and telegraphists. I fear that at Oxford there has been some misapprehension on this point, and steps are being taken to put the matter on a proper footing.

  New Postage Stamps.
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet been able to see his way to alter the character or design of the new postage stamps, as they continue to be criticised in many parts of the Empire as very unworthy specimens of British art and a bad likeness of His Majesty as reproduced in the printing?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certain changes in the engraving of the new penny stamp have been decided on. But as these changes entail the preparation of new master plates and working plates, it will not be possible to issue the improved stamps before January next.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the new postage stamps of a higher value than 1d. will be issued?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): It is proposed to issue the new 1½d., 2d., 2½d., and 3d. stamps about the commencement of the year, and those of the remaining values shortly afterwards.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by that time the King will have been on the Throne a year and three-quarters?
  Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now satisfied that every possible improvement has been attained in the printing, adhesiveness, and other qualities of the new 1d. and ½d. stamps?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is proposed to issue greatly improved stamps of these denominations about the commencement of the year.
  Mr. KING: May I ask whether the paper on which it will be printed will be of British manufacture?

  Cost of Living (Postal Servants).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the increase in the cost
  1008
  of living shown by the retail food prices index number prepared by the Board of Trade, and to the fact that the increases of pay granted to postal servants since the Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the subject have been partly or wholly discounted by the increased cost of living; if he is aware that several Continental Governments have recently raised the pay of various State workers in order to compensate them for dearer living; and if he will see that the money wages of British postal servants are adjusted in order that their real remuneration shall not fall below the standard recommended by the Parliamentary Committee?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no adequate information available of the extent of the increase in the cost of living and of its variation in different parts of the kingdom. As the Prime Minister announced on Monday, the Board of Trade are undertaking an inquiry into the matter. At the request of the associations of the Post Office staff the Government has assented to another investigation by Select Committee of this House into the wages of Post Office servants and their other conditions of employment. In view, however, of the fact that the alterations in scales of pay recommended by the last Committee took effect so recently as 1st January, 1908, it is not proposed to move for another Committee until the Session after next. The results of the Board of Trade inquiry will then be available for the information of the Committee.

  Pillar Letter Box (Essexford).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he received a communication from the inhabitants of the parishes of Killany and Inniskeen, South Monaghan, through the medium of the rector, requesting an evening collection about 6.15 and the erection of a pillar box on the public road near the railway station; whether he is aware that such a pillar box at Essexford would convenience not only residents in the county Monaghan, but also those on the border in the county Louth; that the pillar was half built and the box about to be placed in position, when the postal authorities suddenly ordered the work to be stopped; can he state why their decision was reversed at the last moment; and will he give instructions to have the scheme completed that the residents may enjoy postal facilities to which they have been looking forward?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The facts are as stated. The erection of the box was suspended because of local opposition to its substitution for an existing box near its site. The matter was fully explained to the rector by letter on the 16th August.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of all classes in this particular district are very anxious that this pillar box should be erected, and why will he not carry out what was the original intention of the postal service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have had no evidence to that effect, but a very numerously signed petition reached me protesting against the removal of the box from the previous site, also a resolution from the local district council.
  Captain CRAIG: Why does the Department allow itself to be dictated to by the United Irish League? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is purely a political move from that body?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that the placing of a pillar box is likely to be a matter of political controversy.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present box is close to a public-house and that it is particularly desired by the United Irish League that it should remain there?
  Mr. FLAVIN: Would the Postmaster-General seriously consider the advisability of converting the hon. Member into a pillar box?

  Vaccination of Children (Scotland).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Lord Advocate if there is any specified number of marks required by the Scottish Local Government Board for the efficient vaccination of children, and, if so, how many; if he is aware that children of poor people who are vaccinated gratuitously at the Sanitary Chambers, Glasgow, are vaccinated in twelve places, and, if so, will he take steps to put a stop to the practice and to make it more conform to the practice observed by private medical practitioners; and if he will state if vaccination operations at the Sanitary Chambers, Glasgow, are performed exclusively by duly qualified medical practitioners, and, if not, by whom?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am informed that the Scottish Local Government Board do not specify the number of marks required for the efficient vaccination of children. They are aware that children are vaccinated gratuitously at the Sanitary Chambers in Glasgow and that all primary infantile vaccinations are performed there by duly qualified medical practitioners. The Board are further informed that it is the case that twelve separate punctures are made in primary vaccination of infants, such punctures being very close together. A general description of the method of vaccination in the Sanitary Chambers, Glasgow, will be found at page 19 of Appendix VIII. of Final Report of Royal Commission on Vaccination, 1897 (C. 8614).

  Development Fund (Harbour Grant).
  Captain WARINGasked whether the Report of the Committee of the Fishery Board, with reference to harbour grants from the Development Fund, is now completed; when this Report will be laid upon the Table; and whether an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the recommendations in this House?
  Mr. URE: Reports under the Development Act are made for the information of the Development Commissioners, and I cannot come under any undertaking that they will be published. It would obviously in any case be inconvenient that publication should take place while communications are passing between the Commissioners and the Departments interested. In the circumstances I cannot hold out prospects of discussion in this House as suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Captain WARING: Has this House any right to consider the policy to be adopted in the disposal of this money?
  Mr. URE: Yes.
  Captain WARING: Will an opportunity be afforded for discussion?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Lord-Advocate if his attention has been called to a Report, dated 7th September, 1911, published by the Assistant-Registrar for Scotland, regarding the affairs of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society; and whether, in view of the references contained therein to a previous Report made by an

  1011
  inspector appointed under the Friendly Societies Act in 1904, it is his intention to deal with these two Reports and the Papers relating thereto?
  Mr. URE: My attention has been called to the Report referred to by the hon. Member, but, on perusal of it, I see nothing to call for any action on my part.

  Salmon Fishings (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the Commission which inquired into the question of salmon fishings in Scotland recommended that, in letting these, the Office of Woods and Forests should in future give a preference to fishermen working such fishings for a livelihood; if so, will he say whether this recommendation has been always followed by the Scottish Office; and, in particular, will he say why fishermen were not preferred in letting the salmon fishings in Loch Ridden, Kyles of Bute?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the Crown Rights in Salmon Fishing in Scotland, in their Report made in 1890, recommended that the Commissioners of Woods should allow local fishermen to fish on suitable parts of the coast, on payment of a licence, the practice down to that date having been to let the Crown Salmon Fishings on lease for a term of years after competition by public tender. The policy of granting licences was adopted on many parts of the coast of Scotland in 1894 and continued for some years, but the demand for licences gradually diminished and eventually died out and the scheme was abandoned. The Crown Salmon Fishings in Loch Ridden let by the Crown, were in lease for a term of years, when the license scheme was instituted. This term did not expire until 1902, before which date the scheme had been abandoned, and a fresh lease was granted in 1903, after public tender, for another term of years.
  Mr. WATT: Do I understand that the fishermen have not now any preference over others?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The whole system seems to have fallen into disuse.

  Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the unrest and dissatisfaction existing amongst the Scottish
  1012
  school teachers in consequence of the treatment of the Scottish Education Department in relation to the superannuation scheme; and whether he can now inform the House at what date the new scheme for superannuation for Scottish teachers will be introduced.
  Mr. URE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject on Monday last to the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.

  Employment of Children.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that numbers of children who are working as half-timers are also engaged in other miscellaneous employment out of school hours contrary to The Employment of Children Act, 1903, Section 3 (3); whether it is within the power and duties of a factory inspector to institute prosecutions either of the parent or of the employer in such cases; and, if so, whether he will instruct the factory inspectors, acting in co-operation with local education authorities, to search out such cases and secure the due observance of the law?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The duty of enforcing the provision referred to in the question is placed by the Act on the local authority, and not on the factory inspectors; and I have no information as to the extent to which children who are working half-time in a factory or workshop are also employed in other occupations. The factory inspectors have instructions to report to the local authority any cases of the kind which come to their knowledge, but it would take them away too much from their proper duties of inspection under the Factory Acts if they were instructed to search out these cases as suggested by my hon. Friend. If, however, the facts of any cases are brought to my notice, I shall be happy to communicate with the local authority in regard to them.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average period between the first receipt of proposed by-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, by the Home Office from local authorities, and the final confirmation of such by-laws; and whether he can see his way to introduce more speedy methods of prcedure in this matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: The information asked for by my hon. Friend could not be obtained without a search through a great many papers, and it would not, I think, if obtained, give any useful results, as the time occupied in each case varies according to the nature of the proposals submitted for consideration, the number of objections received, and whether it becomes necessary to hold an inquiry with regard to the by-laws. Every effort is made in the Department to deal with these by-laws as expeditiously as possible, and as regards the recent Halifax case, which I understand my hon. Friend to have in mind, there was no delay at any stage in the Department in dealing with the by-laws. In the majority of cases the by-laws are settled without any difficulty.

  Libel Actions (Selection of Jurors).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the political libel action in which the hon. Member for East Wilts sued a Mr. Alfred Beesly for damages for libel arising out of criticism by the defendant of an election leaflet in which a certain statement was falsely attributed to the hon. Member for Waterford; whether he is aware that the plaintiff admitted that the cost of the leaflet was included in his election expenses, that the statement in it was false, and that if he had known it was false he would never have circulated it; whether he is aware that a special jury awarded £350 damages against the defendant; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to secure that in future political libel actions shall not be tried before a jury selected on a high property qualification?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have only seen the newspaper reports of the case; but in these reports the circumstances are as stated by my hon. Friend. As my predecessor said in answer to questions in this House on 20th March and 27th April, the Government propose that there should be an inquiry into the present system of selecting jurors. I hope that circumstances will permit this inquiry to be undertaken shortly.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to ensure that all actions brought against a Radical are adjudicated upon by a Radical jury?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of
  1014
  the poorer districts the only class of persons who have the necessary property qualification to serve on these juries are those persons who are connected with the licensed trade, and that in Bermondsey, out of 132 persons on the special jury list, 111 are connected with the licensed trade?
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Will the inquiry to which the right hon. Gentleman referred be by a Departmental Committee or by a Royal Commission?
  Mr. McKENNA: That will be a subject for consideration by the Government.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Commission also inquire as to the advisability of stopping the practice of appointing judges from among supporters of the Government of the day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is wholly irrelevant.

  Home Office Prosecution (Deduction of Fines from Wages).
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the prosecution recently taken by one of His Majesty's inspectors of factories and workshops against Messrs. Russell and Woolven, down quilt manufacturers, of Clifton Street, Finsbury, in the course of which it was shown that fines at the rate of 1d. per minute for time lost had been deducted from the wages of girls earning, respectively, 6s. and 8s. a week; whether the magistrate who heard the case dismissed the summonses on the ground that, although the deduction of 1d. a minute for girls earning such small wages was not reasonable, he would not convict, because the fines had been tactfully administered; and whether, in view of the effect of this decision upon the administration of the Truck Acts, he is prepared to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received a report of the proceedings in this case. The magistrate, in giving his decision, said he wished it to be clearly understood that he did not consider the fine provided for in the contract to be a fair and reasonable fine if enforced systematically, but he felt himself bound by the words "having regard to all the circumstances of the case" which are contained in the Act, and, having heard evidence that led him to believe that the contract was not harshly carried out, and that the fines were often

  1015
  remitted if an explanation was given, he came to the conclusion that the circumstances did not warrant a conviction. I cannot agree with this view, but I have now no power to take any further action in the matter. Should a similar case occur, an appeal will, if possible, be taken to the High Court.

  Prison Officers (Hours).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked whether in some of His Majesty's smaller prisons the female officers are kept on continuous duty for 100 hours per week on what is termed the long week, and seventy-two hours on the short week; and if he will take immediate steps to have these hours of duty for these female warders materially reduced?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot accept the figures which have been furnished to the hon. Member. The hours of duty for a week of seven days average sixty-one hours forty-five minutes. Officers are kept in turn for evening duty, but all such overtime is compensated for by an equivalent time off duty. I do not know how the times mentioned by the hon. Member are made up, but I suppose they include in addition to hours of duty, meal hours and all such time as the officer has to herself in the prison. I will, however, consider the whole question further as regards both female and male officers.

  Development Grant (Sea Walls).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether contributions from the Development Grant are available to strengthen sea walls against irruption of high tides; and, if so, whether he will make a grant to the Somersetshire Commissioners of Sewers, within whose area, at Kingston Seymour, there is danger of inundation, and who have inadequate resources to maintain and strengthen the existing sea-bank?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I fear that the strengthening of sea walls against the irruption of high tides would not be a purpose for which a Grant could be made from the Development Fund, but I hesitate to express an opinion on the subject without having a full statement of the facts before me. In any case, as the hon. Member is aware, the Treasury is unable to make an advance from the fund unless the Development Commission recommend it.

  Revenue Act, 1911 (Devon County Council).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked if the Secretary to the Treasury is aware that the sum handed over to the Devon County Council from the proceeds of carriage licences within the county area for the year 1910–11 was £4,428 less than was actually received by the Treasury from such licences during the year; is he aware that the amount so paid entails a burden on the ratepayers of the county; if the £4,428 is paid over to the Road Board by the Treasury, will he explain why all applications for grants toward the cost of road improvement made by the council to that body have up to the present been refused; and will he consider the necessity of repealing Section 18 of the Act of 1911 under which this action is taken?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The loss which the Devon County Council appear to have suffered through the operation of Section 18 of the Revenue Act of 1911 has been the subject of correspondence between the council and the Treasury. I have not been able from official records to check the figures given by the council, but it is of course inevitable that in any commutation of variable payments on the basis of the figures for a particular year loss must arise in individual instances. With regard to the latter part of the question, I understand that the county council were asked on the 19th April last to furnish certain information which the Road Board required to have before deciding on the grants to be made, and the Chairman of the Board, accompanied by the Consulting Engineer, proposed to make an inspection of the roads and to meet representatives of the county council in June last. The inspection was postponed because the information asked for in April had not been furnished. The Board will proceed to deal with the applications when they receive the information required. I see no reason to repeal Section 18 of the Revenue Act, 1911.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: Will the Prime Minister state what is the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday and the following days we will take the National Insurance Bill.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. BOOTH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to a copy of the Votes and Proceedings distributed among Members this morning, and to point out that five Amendments were made to Clause 32 of the Insurance Bill which are not named in those Votes. They consist of an Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, one by the hon. Member for Pontefract, one by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, another one by the hon. Member for St. Pancras to omit paragraph (c), leaving out three lines, and a further one to omit Sub-section (2) from the Clause, leaving out twenty-three lines. Then, I think, an hon. Member complained that the Clause was truncated. Further, I find that there is no reference whatever to Clause 33, which was added to the Bill in Committee yesterday. I would like to ask you, Sir, what is the explanation.
Mr. SPEAKER: The explanation is a very simple one, and one that I have given before. It is this: that the hon. Member must not look at the Votes and Proceedings as being a record of what is done in Committee. If the hon. Member wants to know what is done in Committee, the Bill, which is always to be found at the Table of the House, is the record. The Votes and Proceedings refer only to those cases in which divisions take place. No record is kept in the Votes and Proceedings of the different Amendments made or rejected.
Mr. BOOTH: With all deference, the reason I raise the point is that the first Amendment on which no vote was taken is recorded.
Mr. SPEAKER: The reason of that is because the Committee started work on that, and that is what is commonly known as the "tag" from the day before. It shows the point at which the Committee resumed its deliberations, and that is the reason why it is given.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Bill further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 1st November.—SIXTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  CLAUSE 34.—(Special Provisions with Respect to Married Women.)

    PROVISIONS AS TO SPECIAL CLASSES OF INSURED PERSONS.
    (1) Where a woman who, having before marriage been an insured person, marries,
    1018
    and is supported by her husband, she shall unless she continues to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, be suspended from receiving any benefits under this part of this Act until the death of her husband, and if she is a member of an approved society any sums credited to the society in respect of her, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall be carried to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed, but if at any time after such death she again becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, the period between her marriage and the expiration of one month from death of her husband shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears:
    Provided that where such married woman again becomes employed within the meaning of this Act before such death contributions shall thereupon again become payable in respect of her, and she shall cease to be suspended from receiving benefits, but the period between her marriage and the time when she so again becomes employed shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears.
    (2) Where a woman who was a married woman living with and supported by her husband at the commencement of this Act at any time subsequently either before or within one year after the death of her husband becomes an employed contributor and a member of an approved society, she shall be entitled to full benefits notwithstanding that at the time of so becoming she is over the age of sixteen.
    (3) Where any arrears of contributions have accrued due in respect of a married woman during coverture such arrears shall, on the death of her husband, be disregarded, and she shall be thenceforth entitled to benefits as if such arrears had never accrued due.
    (4) A married woman shall not be entitled to become a voluntary contributor, and if a woman is before marriage a voluntary contributor she shall on marriage not be entitled to continue to be such a contributor.
    (5) Save as aforesaid, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to a woman who has been married, both during and after coverture, in like manner as if she had never been married.
    (6) This Section shall apply in the case of a woman who is legally separated from her husband by divorce or otherwise as if her husband had died at the date at which such separation took effect.
    Mr. FORSTER: I would like to ask what general scheme of procedure is to be adopted on this Clause, which really amounts to a new proposal. We have had very scant opportunity of considering it. Perhaps I may venture to suggest that we might have some general discussion on the Amendments, but I am very anxious if we have the general discussion that that should not preclude any Member of the Committee from moving and discussing Amendments which he may wish to make. The reason is, speaking for myself, I am so imperfectly acquainted with the full bearing of the Amendments which the Chancellor has intimated his willingness to accept that until the matter has been explained more fully I cannot say whether or not I think Amendments ought to be made. That is the sole reason I do not want to obstruct in the slightest.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I need hardly say that no one who has followed the way in which the hon. Gentleman has conducted the proceedings on the part of the Opposition will ever suspect him of desiring to obstruct. I agree with him it would be desirable to have a general discussion upon the Clause as it is practically now proposed by the Government. The only part of the suggestion with which I do not quite agree is that in which he rather suggests that we should have the same discussion twice over.
    Mr. FORSTERindicated dissent.
    Mr LLOYD GEORGE: That would probably be the effect. If we are to have a Debate on all the Amendments of the Government taken collectively, and a second Debate upon each individual Amendment, then I think that would be taking it twice over. I certainly support the suggestion that we should have a Debate practically on the same terms as the Debate we had on Clauses 32 and 33. It would be really in the nature of a Second Reading Debate on the whole of the Government's proposals. If that is acceptable to you, Sir, I propose to make a general statement as to the effect of the proposals.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I desire to ask whether a general discussion would interfere with the opportunity to have Divisions on Amendments on which hon. Members might wish to have Divisions. It is obvious we do not want to have the discussion twice over, but it may be that the House may desire to express an opinion on a given question.
    The CHAIRMAN: As a general rule in Committee I do not think it is desirable to have Motions to leave out Sub-section (1), for instance, and then begin to discuss the whole Clause. Of course that is a rule which cannot be applied universally. There was a clear exception to that on the Clause as to Post Office contributors, and I think in some degree this Clause dealing with married women has a similar plea. It is rather an exception from the main framework of the Bill, and therefore I think the request which has been made to me is a very reasonable one. It is for the Members of the Committee itself to say whether the discussion, if I allow the Motion to leave out Sub-section (1) is merely of an explanatory character or argumentative. If it is merely explanatory then clearly subsequent Amendments can be argued on their merits, but if, on the other hand, it travels over the whole field of argument, I should have to exercise my discretion later in order to prevent the repetition of arguments already used. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) that, of course, will not prevent hon. Members subsequently moving Amendments and taking the decision of the Committee upon them. The only thing which I cannot allow when we get to the consideration of Amendments is Amendments which are practically destructive of the whole Clause, whose object is more properly arrived at by negativing the Clause and the bringing on of a new Clause at a subsequent stage.
    Mr. FORSTER (for Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    4.0 P.M.
    I confess I fell very ill-equipped for the purpose of throwing any light upon the proposals on the Paper which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to circulate. May I make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In the Actuaries' Report which the Government have circulated, there are indications of half-a-dozen further points of great importance in reference to which the Government have Amendments or alterations to make in the Bill, but the terms of which are not yet on the Notice Paper. I appeal to the Chancellor to put those Amendments down at the earliest possible moment, because it is almost impossible for anyone fully to grasp the differences that may be involved. It is a matter of extreme difficulty to put out of one's mind the general bearing of these various

    1021
    questions one upon another, and to become acquainted with a wholly new outlook or a wholly new relation between various parts of the Bill as they affect each other. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us as long notice as he can of the proposals he has still to make. I think the Committee generally will congratulate itself upon the fact that the proceedings upon which we are engaged at the moment show that we were fully justified in the criticism that we made upon the Bill as it was introduced, namely, that the proposals as they related to women were not fair. I think we were also right, and the Report of the Actuaries bears me out, in contending that the amount of money provided by the women's contributions was in reality greater than was required to pay the benefits they were to receive. Anyone who studies the present Report of the Actuaries cannot fail to reach that conclusion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the proposals which he is to make or is willing to accept, will reconsider the observation that he made with reference to the danger of malingering on the part of married women. I hope that as the result of the further investigation and inquiries which he has no doubt made, he has been led to correct the impression which he had previously gathered, that there was greater risk of malingering on the part of married women than on the part of any other class affected by the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never said that there was more malingering among married women. I have corrected that repeatedly. What I said was that there was much greater difficulty in checking malingering among married women, because employment is such a check upon malingering. That is the only thing that I have ever said, and it is rather different from what is suggested.
    Mr. FORSTER: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. I am bound to say, now he has called my recollection to it, that I think he is perfectly right, and that that is what he did say. I hope he will accept that correction on my part. As far as I understand the proposal at present, it seems to me that the scheme of insurance which we are creating for women is really speculative. Unless my understanding in the matter is wrong, I am rather afraid that there will be difficulty in finding societies willing to accept women as members under this proposal. I am rather driven to that conclu-
    1022
    sion by the Report of the Government Actuaries. Anyone who reads the Report of Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt will see that they are proceeding upon assumptions which almost appear to have been forced upon them. There seems to be an element of reluctance in regard to the basis of their calculation. They do not seem to have approached the calculation with the degree of willingness with which they approached the original calculation. If you read between the lines of the Actuaries' Report you will see, I think, that they entertain very considerable apprehension that it may be difficult for women to find entrance into approved societies. I will refer to details in a moment. I hope the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will to a very large extent remove my apprehension on that and other heads.
    I should like to ask why it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently finds himself unable to include in his proposals married women who are not insured before marriage? Further, whether he has considered the case of the young woman who works at home up to the time of her marriage and does not come into insurance at all, because she is not an employed person? There is a further class which does not appear to be affected by these proposals, although it is, I think, a comparatively numerous class. Take the case of a domestic servant who leaves service in order to take care of her father or mother or some other relative, whom she looks after for so long that she drops out of insurance altogether. Eventually she goes back into domestic service and has to resume her insurance. There is nothing to protect her re-entry into insurance. For her, as I understand, there is no reserve value, and she will have to pay the rate equivalent to her age. That, I think, represents a comparative numerous class of persons to whom we ought to pay attention. The last three lines in the printed Clause as circulated by the right hon. Gentleman introduce a limitation which was not originally in the Bill. I should like to ask what is the real effect of that limitation, and whether it means that in the case of women affected by it they are to undergo a new qualifying period before they get the benefits. Under the Bill as it stood the Government proposed that during marriage and up to the death of the husband, arrears should be disregarded. It appears to me that this proposal means that arrears are not to be disregarded. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt explain how

    1023
    that matter stands. I am putting my questions very badly, because I do not want to take up time. Another question with regard to the reprint. It states that where a married woman who was at the date of her marriage a deposit contributor is suspended from the ordinary benefits under this part of the Act, two-thirds of the sum standing to her credit in the Post Office fund shall be applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III. of Schedule IV. until the same is exhausted. Why is only two-thirds of the sum to be applied in the case of a deposit contributor? In the case of a member of an approved society two-thirds is all that you can apply, because you must keep the remaining third to provide the reserve value when she re-enters insurance. But there is no reserve value in the case of a deposit contributor.
    Then I come to the question of the transfer and reserve value for a person re-entering insurance. I speak on this question with great diffidence, because it is a matter of extreme difficulty. I suppose it is a matter of difficulty even for anyone who has a very acute and clear financial mind. I am sorry to say that I have neither an acute nor a clear financial mind, and to me these are matters of extreme difficulty. Sub-section (10) states that the transfer value for the purpose of this Section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners prescribe. I take it that these transfer values will have to be subject to periodic reconsideration, because it may very well happen that the scale of transfer values in the first instance may, in the light of subsequent experience, prove to be at fault. In this matter we are proceeding wholly in the dark.
    We have not got enough experience upon which we can base anything like accurate calculations. I suppose that the Insurance Commissioners will be bound to review their table of transfer values periodically, if they are to make membership in this matter in any way attractive to the approved societies. From what fund are the transfer values to be derived? What is the fund out of which the transfer values are going to be paid? Is it the ordinary fund, or is it only to be a fund relating to married women, and exclusively for them? I suppose the latter. I suppose the fund into which transfer values will be paid,
    1024
    and from which transfer values will be paid, is one relating exclusively to married women? This is a very important point that requires to be brought out. I think it would have a very distinct bearing on this insurance to spinsters and unemployed women. Then if this fund from which the transfer values are to be paid shows a deficit the deficit is to be made good under Clause 40. I think the effect of that will be still further to postpone the date at which the fund created under Clause 40 will be liquidated. That is the only way in which it can be done, unless you create a new paper debt. Even if we were to create a new paper debt, that in itself would mean that the debt which we meant to liquidate would have to be larger. That again would mean that the time during which the liquidation takes place would have to be extended for the due reduction of the debt so created. It is difficult to explain quite clearly, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has got the point I desire to make quite rightly?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. FORSTER: It would mean prolonging the period from fifteen and a-half years onward; and, in fact, it seems to me, as long as that liability lies upon the fund created under Clause 40 you cannot lay down any period in which the debt will be liquidated. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell me how long, in view of the new proposals, he calculates the liquidation of the debt will take? In relation to the question of benefits, or rather the way in which the money is to be expended—that is the cost of the benefit—I see that the actuaries have based their calculations upon the cost of medical benefit taken at 6s. per head. Is there any reasonable prospect of being able to secure medical benefit for married women at 6s. per head? Have the medical profession been consulted upon the point? I think I remember certain speeches, or articles, or letters in which members of the medical profession made it quite clear that they were not prepared to undertake the treatment of married women for anything like so low a flat rate as 6s. per head. If they are unable to do this; if the arrangements with the medical profession are not to be carried through; and there is not to be a flat rate of 6s. per head, it seems to me that the financial part of the scheme will be seriously jeopardised.
    I note that the estimate for the administration of management expenses is taken at only 3s. per head. On what is that based? I think this will not be an

    1025
    economical form of insurance to administer. There is a good deal of going and coming, of going into and passing out of insurance, of suspension, and so on, and we must not think that this is going to be an economical fund to administer. After all the voluntary help which is now given by those who manage our great friendly societies, the average cost of administration, or the usual cost, is 4s. per head per year. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell me on what the actuaries base their assumption that 3s. per head per annum would be enough? One further point. I see a paragraph at the bottom of page 17 of the Actuarial Report of Mr. Watson, dated 23rd October, which makes him a little apprehensive. Mr. Watson says:—
    "Generally I regard the provisions of the Bill as to the re-entry of disabled women as very serious financially to societies, unless the sum that is to be transferred to the societies in such cases will be so calculated as to take into account the possible liability respecting each individual widow; or some other special arrangement is made."
    I do not know what proposal is made by the Government to meet the objection or the fear which is expressed by Mr. Watson. I quite see that the reserve value for each widow is set on one side, and that this is to be paid to the society when she resumes her insurance; but the reserve value is concerned wholly with age. There is no allowance for disablement in the reserve value which is created under the Bill, and which will be credited to the society which the woman practically rejoins on becoming a widow. Unless some provision is made to meet the expression of uneasiness and grave doubt of Mr. Watson, I think that we shall run considerable risks. On the whole, of course, I think that the scheme is a vast improvement on the original proposals of the Bill, but unless it can be shown to be financially sound, unless it can be shown that it is going to be sufficiently sound, at any rate to enable the societies to take women as their members, we shall be holding out false hopes if we include it in this Bill. I have every hope and expectation that when the Chancellor deals with all these points he will be able to satisfy us. I quite admit that the doubts which are entertained may be the result of the short examination which it has been possible to give to these most important proposals. In that hope I shall very confidently await the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a very considerable number of questions, but he has a very
    1026
    sure touch. He has dealt with all the material features of the scheme. Every question he has put is a question which lies at the very root of the financial soundness and efficiency of this Clause. Therefore I propose to answer categorically those questions, because I think that is the best way of explaining the new scheme. Before I take his questions, may I just answer one or two of his preliminary comments. He said our new proposals were an admission that our original scheme was not fair to women; an admission that the benefits which we proposed to give to women for the money which they paid would be lower than that money would fetch. That is equally true of the contributions of the men. I have always informed the House, and the actuarial reports have repeatedly stated, that over and above the benefits which we promised under the Bill there is a very considerable margin which will enable societies to declare additional benefits. When you come to the money paid by women, I made it clear at the start that the intention was that the women's fund should be kept quite separate from the fund of the men, and although there might have been unfairness between one section of women and another, there could not have been any unfairness to women as a whole, because every penny paid into that fund was distributed to the women.
    The House as a whole was rather anxious that a proportion of those benefits which would otherwise have inured to another class of women should go to married women. The difficulty of the woman was expressed in every quarter of the House, and I undertook to consult the actuaries as to a scheme for carrying out the wish of the Members. The only difference between this scheme and the original scheme is that there is a different distribution of the surplus. That surplus is now utilised for the purpose of enabling married women, or single women contributors, to come in after marriage upon the payment of a small weekly fee. There is no difference in this scheme so far as women as a class are concerned. The hon. Gentleman made an observation about what he considered to be the reluctance displayed by the actuaries to support the present scheme. He rather imagines that he discovers traces in their reports that the scheme has been forced upon them, and that they are very reluctant to give it support. Quite the reverse! They have given that assistance with great alacrity. Not only did they assist us in

    1027
    the actuarial calculations, but they assisted us in framing the scheme, and some of the most valuable suggestions came from the actuaries themselves. They entered whole-heartedly into the organisation of the scheme, and they authorised me to say so. Therefore, so far from there being any reluctance on their part, it was the very reverse. They naturally called attention in their calculations to contingencies. There are some contingencies. You cannot possibly avoid that. This is quite a new scheme of insurance; there is no absolute data upon which you can build the scheme, and when I explained this scheme to the Committee some of the calculations may in some point or other be an underestimate, or even an over-estimate. It is quite impossible to reach anything approaching absolute accuracy, because there is no absolute data. But I think it will be found that the margin allowed by the actuaries will on the whole be ample to meet all these contingencies. I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the last question to paragraph 4 in Mr. Watson's report as to which he expressed some doubt. The answer to that is to be found in Table 2 on the last column of page 22, and the actuaries assure me that that margin ought to be sufficient to cover all contingencies referred to by Mr. Watson in that particular paragraph.
    I come now to explain to the Committee what the difference is between the old scheme and the new, and I shall answer the questions put to me in the course of that explanation. Under the old scheme the single women paid their contribution up to the date of marriage. If they worked for an employer after marriage they still paid as employed contributors receiving full benefit. If after marriage they did not work for an employer the insurance was suspended up to the period of widowhood, and the position of a married woman was for insurance purposes on marriage wiped out, but on the death of her husband she assumed the position as if not a single day elapsed between the date of her marriage and the date of her widowhood. That involved this, that after the date of widowhood, if she was ill, she would get benefits at once, because the marriage period would not have counted. She would get her thirteen weeks' pay at 7s. 6d., and when that had expired she would get 5s. up to the date when she would get the old age pension, without having paid a penny piece in the mean-
    1028
    time. She would get medical and sanatorium benefit and all the other benefits of the scheme without having paid anything in the meantime. She could go on afterwards in insurance either as a voluntary contributor or as an employed contributor, with the same provision, of course, as to arrears after her husband's death. If she neither continued her insurance nor was under a condition to contribute, then her insurance would lapse, just like the insurance of anybody else so long in arrear that he or she would not obtain the benefits of the arrears Clause of the Bill, and her money would be merged in the general fund. The Committee as a whole felt that something should be done for the purpose of helping women already in the fund before marriage, after marriage. I think that was the general feeling. I took that as an instruction from the House of Commons, and I set to work to try and meet it. I want to say here I received very valuable assistance from a Committee of Members of this House and from several persons outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, my hon. Friend the Member for York, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe gave me valuable assistance. I had the opportunity of consulting them, and I must also mention Mr. J. P. Brook, of the Christian Social Union, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham, who also took a very keen interest in the matter; and amongst the ladies I must mention Mrs. Llewelyn Davies. Her suggestions were most valuable, and I think it only fair to recognise the assistance given by these ladies and gentlemen; and I should also say Mr. Watson has helped me very materially, not merely by criticism, but by suggestions as well. This scheme is made up of the labours of the officials, together with what assistance I and my colleagues have been able to render. Now what does it mean?
    Instead of taking the whole of the reserve value for the purpose of insurance it is decided to take one-third of it. I do not think that is adequate, and the actuaries in their estimate say one-third is not adequate, and here comes the question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has hit on the weak as well as the strong points of the Clause. I will explain to him how that deficiency is covered. A woman pays contributions for five or ten years before marriage. She has not drawn anything like her part of the money paid in. The money is in the fund. That

    1029
    fund is utilised for the purpose of creating for her the right of re-entering for insurance any day at which she is a widow. It may be when she is thirty or fifty, when if she tried to enter a friendly society it would be very difficult for her to do so. Here she is able to enter on insurance at the same premium as when she was sixteen years of age. But, instead of utilising the whole of her money for that purpose we propose to utilise one-third of the whole, and I will explain what we do with the rest. There is a deficit on that one-third, and the way it is met is by placing it upon the general fund.
    It was felt that, after all, both men and women had an interest in seeing that something was done for the widow. It was felt that it was not merely a liability that ought to be placed upon the women, and therefore the deficiency in that sum, whatever it is, will fall upon the general fund. Now the hon. Gentleman says to me very properly, "If there is a deficiency that must postpone the period at which the sinking fund would have come to an end and additional benefits would be declared." No, it does not necessarily mean postponing it. As a matter of fact, it means keeping it alive, because if it is a deficiency it is a continuing deficiency, and merely postponing the period would not answer the purpose. What it means is, you must keep the operation of that sinking fund alive in order to pay that deficiency. You need not postpone the period of declaring additional benefits by a single day, but it means the additional benefits declared will be proportionately less. It means not postponing, but reduction. The men and women will have to make that sacrifice for the sake of the widows, for the sake of those whose husbands have died. I hope I have answered the question put by the hon. Gentleman.
    I come now to the question of what happens to the remaining two-thirds. I ought to say this. If you take the whole of that burden upon the general sinking fund you could not justify the right of re-entry at all. I think they ought to bear some proportion, at any rate, of the cost of re-entering. Now what happens to the remaining two-thirds. I propose that women within one month after marriage should exercise an option as to what they will do. It must be exercised in a month unless with the consent of the society, otherwise women might, if they felt their health giving way, would exercise an option then which would be an option against the
    1030
    society. They have to exercise it a month after marriage, or otherwise with the consent of their own society. That is a risk to the society. There are two options. The first is voluntary insurance at reduced terms. A married woman may say, "I should like to continue my insurance at reduced rates," so we propose she should be charged 3d. The two-third reserve value will be put into this insurance in order to eke it out, and the State will pay one-fourth of the benefit. That keeps us within the terms of the Resolution. It is not quite paying one penny; it is a little more: it is 3d. and two-thirds, with one-fourth of the whole of the benefits.
    Now what are the benefits? Medical attendance is the first. With regard to medical attendance I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that some members of the medical profession do not like the prospect of having to attend married women, and there have been a good many letters written and, perhaps, speeches made upon the subject, and I think there has been an article in "The Times" that the general insurance scheme was breaking down upon the married woman's side owing to the fact that medical attendance was much heavier, and that the number of day's sickness was also much heavier. It is not quite so. The remarkable thing is that sickness among married women in Germany is more prolonged, but when you come to the average number of days per member there is very little difference between sickness among married women and sickness among men, and the only explanation I can offer is this: Men give up much more readily. A woman who has got a headache sticks to it, but when a man gets the headache, he thinks he is done for, gets alarmed, runs to the doctor, and coddles himself. A woman does not give up nearly so readily, and that is a reason why, although their sickness is more prolonged, the average number is pretty much the same, because they do not go to the doctor except when they are really ill, and a man goes when he fancies he is ill. I do not think there is quite so much cause for anxiety on this point for that reason. That will be the first benefit. I do not think there is very much to complain of in regard to the medical benefits. Take the medical men who are doing very well in the mining districts and who undertake the cure of a whole family, man, wife and child, as a rule, for 3d. I know in some parts of the world they get 4d.
    Mr. HILLS: In my county they get 19s. a year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, but that is much higher than the average. This means 3d. for doctoring a man, wife and child, including drugs. Now what is the second benefit? They get sickness, amounting to 5s. for the first thirteen weeks, 3s. until the death of the husband, and sanatorium benefit from other sources. The reason is obvious, because otherwise they might exercise their option against the society. The maternity benefit will be paid by the insurance up to that date. You cannot add to the risks, and we have been obliged to leave the maternity benefit out of that and compel them to take the maternity benefit of the husband and be satisfied with that. The sickness benefit is contributed up to the death of the husband. Now there are three alternatives. The woman at the death of her husband can become an employed contributor at full benefits of 7s. 6d. or 5s., or she can be a voluntary contributor, also at the full rate, or she can continue her insurance at the reduced rate, getting 5s. and paying her 3d. and getting medical benefits, 5s. for thirteen weeks, and 3s. for the rest of her days.
    Now comes another case. Supposing she is employed during marriage or widowhood what happens to her money? The 3d. is deducted out of the wages, 3d. is paid by the employer, and she is given the option of either becoming an employed contributor with full benefits, or of paying 6d. into an account which will be used for the purpose of liquidating her 3d. a week. The reason for that is this: If the woman is likely to be continually employed she would naturally be in favour of the higher rates, but supposing she only gets an odd job now and again, then she would rather her 6d. should go into the society and be credited with 6d. as against the 3d. which she would have to pay. There are two classes of married women. There is, in the first place, the class whose work is continuous. A woman in this class would be inclined to say that she would rather be treated as an employed contributor at full rates and get 7s. 6d. than 5s. Supposing, in the second place, she was a married woman taking an odd job now and then and could not depend upon continuous employment. She would rather her 6d. should be paid to the society and not go on at the reduced 3d. rate, the money paid going in to help the fund. She would go on working, say for a month, then there is
    1032
    2s. paid by the society. That is an equivalent to two months, but the following month she would not pay because she has a 1s. to her credit for the following month. I have dealt with the married woman who is in favour of continuing her insurance, and now I come to the married woman who does not insure and, in fact, does nothing. What happens to her? She still gets her surrender value, and it is placed to her credit in her society, and it can be drawn on until it is exhausted on the deposit principle. If hon. Members will look at the figures on page 18 of the White Paper they will find there some idea of what the amount will be of these reserves. A married woman fifteen years in insurance will have £4 10s. to her credit. One-third of that will be set one one side to enable her to purchase the right of re-entry, and then there is the balance of £3 to be placed to her credit in the books of her society, and she can draw upon that for two purposes. She can draw 5s. a week during confinement or she can draw the 5s. in times of unemployment or distress. She gets the whole of her money in one way or another, the society determining the period and the time. I think I have explained generally all the points put to me.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What do you mean by distress?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I mean unemployment, and times of exceptional pressure upon the household. The society will be allowed to determine what this distress means. It will include any great strain upon domestic resources, and in such cases an application could be made for permission to draw upon the fund during the period of strain and distress.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will that power be specially given to that society?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, it will.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could explain the provision in Sub-section (4) relating to the deposit contributor as to why she was only to have one-third of her surrender value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a question which entails a great deal of perplexity. I put to my advisers exactly the same question as the hon. Gentleman put to me, and I was satisfied with the answer I received. I will give that answer to the Committee and allow hon. Members to

    1033
    judge whether it is a complete one or not. You must not make it worth while for persons to become deposit contributors by this Bill. If you give the whole of the amount, then every young girl who anticipates or contemplates marriage would prefer to come in as a deposit contributor if the whole amount were available to be drawn upon after marriage. That is the reason, and in fact it is the same argument in, regard to death. In the case of death we have limited the amount the next-of-kin are entitled to draw, and in the same way we are limiting the amount which the insured woman is entitled to draw, otherwise the temptation would be for every young woman to join the Post Office fund rather than join a society. I think that would be a very great mistake for them as well, and it would be far better for them to join the society, and continue in the society at the reduced rate.
    An hon. Member asked me why existing married women could not be included. May I point out that that suggestion involves millions of women, and the burden would be enormous, and even if they were put upon the men's fund, it would postpone the date of increased benefits for several years, and would take an enormous sum of money. For that reason, we thought it was much too serious a question to contemplate, and we could not see our way to do it. I think that represents all the questions which have been put to me. I agree that this is a better proposal than the one in the Bill, and I am very grateful to those who have helped me to find a better method. I appealed to hon. Members to assist me to improve this measure, and the response to my appeal have not only improved this proposal, but has improved the Bill in many other respects. For these reasons, I confidently submit this proposal to the Committee.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. HILLS: I think the Committee will agree that the scheme which is now outlined is a very large advance upon the scheme as it appeared in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the two schemes were really identical. I quite agree that the question is to whom are the benefits given and what time are they given. Our objection is not that the whole class of women was hurt, but that the married women were hurt. I welcome the scheme as a whole as a real attempt to settle a difficult problem. You have, in considering schemes of this sort, to look at them from two points of view. You have
    1034
    first to look at what I may call the paper scheme, the scheme in its spirit and plan, and then you have to see how far all classes of women are brought inside that scheme. It is obvious the scheme may be a good one in principle, and yet not include all the classes that ought to be included. As far as the principle of the scheme goes I believe it is a sound and wise scheme. It is the right way to say that upon the marriage of an insured contributor one-third of the amount standing to her credit shall be carried forward to give the right of re-entry to widows, and that two-thirds shall be applied for her immediate benefit.
    I should like, before going further, to get quite clear the exact position of that one-third. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that one-third of the surrender value of each married woman is carried forward to give the right of re-entry for widows. As the Bill stood, it was not only widows who had the right of entry, but all the women who became employed when married. I understand they have taken away from the married woman who leaves on marriage the right of re-entry except at a rate for age. I think that is a real hard case, and I do not believe it is the intention of the Government. The new Clause says distinctly that where a woman is continuously employed after marriage she can stay on as an employed contributor at full rates, but where two or three years after marriage a woman is forced out into the labour market again and her employment is thus discontinuous, she cannot get back on to the full rate of an employed contributor unless she pays the full rate for her age. The Clause as originally drawn did not contain that; it allowed all employed women, whether employed before or after the death of their husband, to come back on the fund at full benefits. If I read the report of the actuaries aright they allowed for the re-entry of all employed women, continuous or discontinuous, to the full rate of benefits. The new Clause applies only to those who are employed continuously from the day of marriage. I think it is pretty clear from Mr. Hardy's report he intended to include all women who were in employment. Look at the absurd position. When a woman is married, unless she goes back to work immediately the honeymoon is over—I suppose the Government allow her a honeymoon—she cannot fret on to the full benefits unless she pays full rates for age. I believe that is a real flaw in the Bill. and I do not believe it is intended. I

    1035
    understand the right of re-entry is going to take a good deal more than one-third of the surrender value, and the deficiency is quite properly charged on the men's fund.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the general fund.
    Mr. HILLS: Well, on the general fund. Why should not the charge take the form of extending the period of repayment of the deficiency rather than the Government plan of keeping the period of fifteen and a-half years and paying smaller additional benefits. Would it not be better to charge this deficiency by way of an increase of the period of the repayment of the loan rather than to charge it by taking it off additional benefits? The great vice of the German scheme is that they have not paid off their initial deficiency. It is the millstone round their necks. Are you not doing the same? Are you not carrying forward a deficiency you could pay? It is a very real point. I believe the deficiency on this one-third will be a great deal more than the Government think. The cost of invalidity pensions will be far more heavy than the Government imagine. It is quite right and proper they should be charged on the general fund. It is certainly good for the community that they should, but ought not that charge to be paid off in a limited period, and not carried forward and charged to posterity?
    There is a further point which I think ought to be mentioned. The scheme only applies to women who join approved societies. How are you going to compel societies to take married women as members? I am rather afraid they will not be very valuable members. When you come to pay the reduced benefits, when you use the two-thirds of the surrender values to pay the lower sickness pay and so on; then you have got a watertight fund. I have reached my point in a clumsy way, but it is a very difficult subject. The two-thirds of the surrender value, plus 3d. from the women and 1d. from the State, are set aside to pay the reduced benefits. I understand that is a self-supporting fund. It is a self-contained fund, and the deficiency on that fund is not charged to the general fund. Two-thirds of the surrender values will be barely sufficient to pay the reduced benefits, because, although the Government actuaries have worked out the figures to show a margin all the calculations of sick-
    1036
    ness and invalidity are really based on men's lives. There are no real figures of women's invalidity. Whoever sees a domestic servant or a shop assistant or a mill hand of sixty? It is perfectly clear long before they reach the age of sixty or seventy, they will be entitled to physical or mental incapacity benefit in the terms of Clause 8. They will be entitled to their invalidity pension. The Government have reckoned that out of five women only one will come on the invalidity fund. It is the opinion of a great many that is very grossly underestimated. Assuming that is so, these two-thirds of the surrender values have to pay certain benefits which no approved society can afford to pay. Will they take women as members at all? Will not the effect be to segregate women into their own societies, and will not those societies be insolvent? This is a very important point, because it cuts at the root of the whole plan of reduced benefits.
    I quite agree the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an excellent one, but do let us see it is watertight. Do not let us find in two years' time we have allowed women's societies to be formed for the purpose of paying these benefits and that, through no fault of their own, they are bankrupt and cannot, on the money allowed, pay the benefit. I turn now from the scheme itself to the door and passage of the scheme to see who you are going to get into it. At the very beginning of your Clause you exclude all women who are not insured at marriage. I should like the Committee to realise what that means. Take two concrete cases. Take one where a girl is living at home, a comfortable home, but with a father who does not care to spend 6d. a week to insure her voluntarily. She marries at 25, and is absolutely out of your plan. She does not get the reduced benefits, and cannot get the full benefits without paying a rate for age, and that is prohibitive.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All the other women have got a reserve value which they themselves have created. This woman has paid nothing. Is she to come in at the expense of the other women?
    Mr. HILLS: I should say at the expense of the general fund. She will be a married woman, and you have got to insure her. You cannot leave things as they are. It is not a thing that will spot after the Bill has been in operation a few years. It

    1037
    is a blot that will remain, and a very large number of women who were not insured at marriage will not get the benefit of this Clause. The second case is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster). Take the case of a domestic servant who leaves service to look after the household of her brother who supports her. She is to all economic purposes a married woman. She has left the labour market and gone to her brother's home. Assuming that after a few years her brother marries, or she marries, she will not come into the scheme at all, for it may well be that her brother has not paid the 6d. a week to insure her voluntarily. These are very large classes which are left outside the Bill. I do not believe the cost of bringing them in would be very great, and it is surely a perfectly fair charge to place on the men's fund.
    I have mentioned the case of women who are not continuously employed during marriage. I will just repeat my point in two words. As the Bill was drawn you allowed the women to come back in full benefit if they were employed before or after the husband's death. In your new Clause a woman can only come back as a widow unless she was continuously employed from the date of her marriage onwards. That seems to me to be a most unreasonable distinction. In addition to that, it does not correspond with the facts. I believe it is a mistake owing to the late time at which the report was received. I believe the failure is due to the draftsman who did not understand the meaning of Clause 11 of the report of Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, which provided for the continuance of full insurance to all married women who, whilst married, are employed persons. There is no suggestion that the employment must be continuous. It is not part of the actual scheme, and I do suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is very hard to make a married woman who stays at home for two or three years after marriage come back at the rate per age. She can only come back at the full rate for her age, she may be thirty-five or forty years old, and might therefore be charged a prohibitive amount.
    There are some smaller points I must trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer with. A woman besides being continuously employed after marriage must have been employed before marriage. Why do you only allow women to come on the full benefit if they are employed before marriage? What you want to do is to give
    1038
    that woman her surrender value. What you want to know is whether a woman is insured by marriage, and if you restrict the Clause in this way, you will cut out a very large class of women. Lastly, I come to the case of women who are now married. It is, I admit, a vanishing class, and as times go on the hardship will be very great, but I am afraid the women who are now married, unless they come on as fully employed contributors, will not really get any benefit. At any rate it is a diminishing benefit. Another point I must mention is both important and intricate. It is a point on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed his mind. He has abandoned his earlier and better intention. The Committee will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme for the married woman's benefit provided for a payment of 3d. per week from each married woman, but he has not provided for the fact that this woman may desire to move into another scale. In fact she might go to work for an employer who pays 3d. per week in respect of her, and the scheme as placed on the Paper does not cover her case. The employer has to pay 3d. per week and she was to pay nothing. That has been changed. She is now to pay 3d., and the employer is also to pay 3d., and the whole 6d. is to be carried to the account of the society. Part of it is to be devoted to paying her 3d., and the balance can go in payment of arrears or in extra benefits for her. The first scheme whereby she was absolutely excluded from all payment and came in on a non-contributory basis was submitted, but, in spite of strong protest in certain quarters, it was rejected. I quite agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to look at the opinion of the Committee on that point, but I ask this Committee to see what has been done. A great many of us who have considered this woman's case have been convinced that the arrangement is unfair to her. The Government has said in certain cases that where a married woman has been in reduced benefits, and then goes out to work, she is to pay 2d. or 3d. per week on her employment. Undoubtedly the reasons for charging that woman the 3d. were strong. A married woman might be working alongside an unmarried woman, and it was unfair that an unmarried woman should have 3d. taken out of her wages while nothing should be deducted from the married woman's wages. It was also felt that the woman working at

    1039
    home could throw the 3d. on the employer. You were encouraging the work of married women outside their homes, and the result was that an employer could draw on a class of work people not subject to a deduction of 3d. per week from their wages, and the effect would be to give the whole benefit of the exemption to the employer. These are objections which can be met by legislation. I believe if we are to have a real scheme for the women, it must be a solely non-contributory scheme, and I hope that in the time that elapses between now and the Report stage, the Government will reconsider the whole question. I think on the lines I have indicated it will be possible to find a real insurance for these women, but that outside those lines you cannot do so.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I have had some opportunity of discussing this question with the representatives of the women's organisations who have been consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to be allowed to say something on this Amendment from the point of view of those who were dissatisfied with the Clause as it orignally stood. The Clause as it stood gave women a real and just cause for protest. The first point is that out of the whole working class, married women were picked out, prohibited by a voluntary contribution, and forbidden to receive their share of the State Grant. Girls were compelled to insure at the age of sixteen when they got very little benefit from the Bill. They were young and strong, but year by year their contributions grew greater. Simultaneously the transfer value of the girl grew larger and larger, but when she was married she was prohibited from going on with that transfer value except at a loss. I know that in reply to this the actuaries of the Government say that these transfer values are not lost and that the woman if she became a widow had the right of re-entering the scheme during the whole period of her married life. The transfer values were put aside in order that the reserve value should be given to the society, so that it might not collect her arrears during married life. I regard these special provisions on behalf of widows as one of the most beneficent features of this Bill, and none of the women's organisations which have followed up this question are, I believe, willing to abandon them. The question is this, What is the right source from which money ought to be provided
    1040
    for making special provisions for widows? Is it right that the money for the special provision should come out of the savings of unmarried girls? Surely the answer is that the duty of making provision for the widow, if it rested upon anybody, rested upon the husband. It was a joint family charge which should come out of the joint family purse, and it ought to be spread over men and women alike. Take the case of a professional man, a doctor, who is going to get married. He has to make provision against the contingency of his death. He probably insures his life, but he does not say to the lady whom he proposes to marry, "I am going to insure my life. I get nothing out of it; it is for your benefit, and, therefore, in order to pay my premiums, I propose to take the savings which you made before we were engaged." That would be a novel proposal, yet it was the original proposal in the Bill. Therefore, we welcome the suggestion that in future one-third of this transfer value shall be taken for this purpose and that the remaining two-thirds should be given to the woman for her own benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the two options which the Bill allows. This two-thirds is calculated by the actuaries to produce a sum between 30s. and £3, according to the age. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that the woman could use that money either to take her into the voluntary insurance or for special benefits.
    One special feature of this scheme of voluntary insurance for married women is that it will be found that the benefits which have been provided do not allow for any payment by the woman to the general sinking fund. By this scheme married women will be the only section of the population—outside the deposit contributors—who will be receiving a State Grant and who will not be paying anything week by week to wipe out the initial deficiency with which the scheme starts. We recognise that that is a special privilege. It is a special privilege really founded on justice. In the case of the other voluntary contributors, or the compulsory contributors, although they pay to the sinking fund, each of them, on the passing of the Act, receives from the sinking fund a reserve value appropriate to his age, which he takes to the society. Although, therefore, they pay to the sinking fund they get their share out of the sinking fund. But in the case of these married women the reserve value which they take into the married women's insurance is provided not

    1041
    by the sinking fund, not by the State, but by the two-thirds of their own surrender value which they themselves have contributed. All that the Amendment says is, that as they got nothing out of the sinking fund, they need pay nothing into it. I should like to point out to the Committee that this special privilege will not impose any charge at all upon the general finances of the scheme. When the actuaries made their original calculation that the payments of contributors under the Bill would pay off the sinking fund in fifteen and a-half years, they, of course, considered the contributors who were in the Bill at the time they made that calculation. But this special class of married women contributor was not permitted to come into the Bill at that time. The actuaries made no estimate whatever of that; their calculations are not based upon any expectation of payments by this class of women to the sinking fund.
    There is another special thing in this married women's insurance I should like to explain to the Committee. They will have noticed when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the benefits they were to receive, that these benefits were all at the flat rate; that is to say, a woman at whatever age she entered, a young age or an old age, received the same benefit. It is clear that the women who entered in at the older ages, if they were to receive the same benefits as the rest, must take with them into the societies a higher reserve value than the rest. This higher reserve value is not to be provided by the State. The thing works out quite simply. She marries at a later age and has a higher reserve value, but because she marries at a later age she has for a longer period been accumulating her transfer values. The flat rate system, therefore, works out quite equitably without any contribution from the State and without any injustice as between one woman and another. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) put a question with regard to what he said was a new provision in the Amendment. I do not know whether his question referred to this, at any rate, it is a point which is new. In drawing up this scheme, a certain difficulty revealed itself. That difficulty is not created by the Amendments; it is already adherent in the Bill. The difficulty is this, the Bill says that when a married woman returns to employment she shall go back to full benefits, and the society to which she belongs shall have a reserve value appropriate to her age. Sup
    1042
    pose she returns for only one week, the State has to pay the society her reserve value. At the end of the week she leaves her employment, but for the next thirteen weeks she is in benefit. She does not fall into arrears or out of benefit for thirteen weeks. That benefit will include her maternity benefit of 30s. Of course, it would be very well worth while, especially just before the period of maternity arrives. Therefore it has been essential to introduce a waiting period into this Clause, and to lay down that the benefits shall not begin to run until six months have elapsed. I would point out to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that he was right in saying that this introduced a new penalty into the Bill, or made the provision a little harder. If he will look into the matter again, he will see that the Amendments allow a woman to avoid that penalty. These Amendments say that if she is a voluntary contributor she can claim a right of exemption. She can be exempted from the necessity of entering as an employed contributor, and from the necessity of going through this waiting period. She can simply say, "I will go straight on in my voluntary fund," and in that case the 3d. which is deducted from her wages will pay her 3d. contribution to the voluntary fund, and the employer's contribution will be put to special benefit on her behalf, to be administered by the society. The Amendment does really overcome the difficulty without any great hardship.
    Mr. FORSTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. He has made his explanation exceedingly clear. Can he tell me what effect the alternative would have upon the societies? Which will pay the societies better? I should like to know whether he has considered that point.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I think the societies will probably be paid better by the employed contributor system. In that they get a 2d. State Grant. Under the voluntary system there would be a 1d. State Grant. May I say a few words in regard to the position in which this Amendment leaves widows. The Committee knows that the Bill as it stands lays down that if after the death of her husband a widow re-enters employment then her whole married life is for this purpose wiped out. She re-enters insurance without any arrears, for full benefits, and the society gets the whole reserve value appropriate to her age. That right is maintained by the Amendments, but the Committee will notice that the Amendments

    1043
    at the same time provide more important rights still. She can come back if she is employed, but if she is not employed she can come back as a voluntary contributor, either at the ordinary 6d. rate or she can enter the special married women's fund at the 3d. rate. A very important feature in the proposal is that whether or not she has been a voluntary contributor during her husband's lifetime she comes back as a voluntary contributor at full benefits. She comes back giving her society the reserve value appropriate to her age. The one-third which was taken from her transfer value when she got married, pays for her re-entry whether she has continued as a voluntary contributor during marriage or not.
    One very difficult question in connection with deposit contributors is solved by these Amendments. It is a difficulty not created by the Amendments, but inherent in the Bill. As the Bill stood, when a woman deposit contributor got married she lost her savings. It was impossible to justify this. In the case of the ordinary contributor, a member of a society, there was a justification, because you said, "Yes, you take her transfer value, but you use it in order to bring her back into insurance if ever she becomes a widow, to provide the large sum of money necessary to give the society the reserve value appropriate to her age." For the deposit contributor, if she became a widow, no reserve value was necessary. She merely returned to the Post Office. It was impossible to justify it. I think these Amendments provide a solution. As the Chancellor pointed out, every girl would know that if she became a deposit contributor she got a dowry on her marriage and if she belonged to a society she got nothing. This would have made the Post Office a very dangerous competitor for the societies and would have defeated the intentions of the Bill. Now, by these Amendments, any woman who is a member of a society gets on marriage two-thirds of her transfer value without any danger to the deposit contributor. The other third will be distributed amongst the depositors as a class, so that the girls will get their share of that before their marriage.
    There is one further point to which I wish to call attention. I would very strongly indeed support the appeal which was made by the hon. Member (Mr. Hills). The Bill as it stands, without the
    1044
    Amendments, gives a woman when she is married, if her husband gets ill or breaks down and she has to go out to work, the right of coming back into the scheme with full benefits, and it wipes out the period between her marriage and the time of her re-entering into employment, and it gives her society the reserve value necessary for the purpose. The Amendments first of all introduce a waiting period of six months. That is inevitable. Under an Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer she has not only to pass through a waiting period, but she has to go back at the rate appropriate to her age. She comes back without any reserve value. She comes back just as if she had been in arrears all the time of her marriage. In this respect the Amendments leave her worse off than she was under the Bill. It means that in reality it will be impossible for her to come back because the rate appropriate for her age will in practice be prohibitive. My own view of the matter is this. The Amendments take one-third of her transfer value. I think it is very much open to question whether in order to make provision for widows you ought to take anything at all from the savings of unmarried girls. Still the Amendment does take one-third, and in my view that third ought to cover the right of re-entry with full benefits, not only of a widow but during marriage. It would not be right to sit down without saying that Members who have taken a special interest in this question, and the representatives of women's industrial organisations, wish to express their very high appreciation of the cordial and generous manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met their proposals. It is worth while to point out that he has achieved this with an extraordinarily modest demand upon his finances. Apart from the 1d. which he gave to the special married woman's insurance, the only charge is the contingent liability on the sinking fund in case the one-third of the transfer value is not enough to put the widows back into the scheme. It is my own personal view that if the Committee will accept these Amendments the agitation which has been conducted against this Clause as it originally stood will no longer have any material for just continuance.
    Mr. AMERY: I think all those who took any part in the discussions of the Committee over which the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) presided will readily recognise

    1045
    the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met their claims. It is undoubtedly a great improvement on the original Clause. The narrow, hard and fast regulations have been superseded by a varying scale of benefits more in accordance with the needs of different classes of the community. I might express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into the further case mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Hills) of women who were not in insurance before marriage. There is a still wider case which my hon. Friend touched upon, but did not enlarge upon, and that is the question of invalidity. The Committee knows quite well that what is called disablement benefit is not an invalidity benefit, but is a benefit for complete disablement—a bedridden benefit. It is the difference between the bedridden benefit and the invalidity benefit which, I think, accounts for the extraordinary difference between the actuarial estimate of disablement—one in five—and the very much higher figure of women who will, in practice, be invalided and unable to maintain themselves after a certain time. I should like to suggest that an option in some way or other of insuring against real invalidity on the part of women is a thing that they need more than anything else. An enormous number of women who enter this scheme will not really require sickness benefit. If they are domestic servants they get it in any case. If they are wives living with their husbands, though they may suffer by illness, the earnings of the family do not disappear with the husband's wage. A real invalidity benefit would be of far greater value than any of the benefits conferred under the present Clause.
    The hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) while acknowledging the conciliatory spirit shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointed out that he was not over generous. He said the only case in which he had given somewhat more was in the matter of contingent liability in case the one-third of the reserve value was not sufficient to meet the liability put upon him. I submit that even in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to spend anything. In so far as the period of the loan is extended, there will be less money available in the men's fund for extra benefits, for which they pay 2s. 9d. The thing is as broad as it is long. The Chancellor is giving a little more to the women and a little less to the men. He is not showing any substantial generosity
    1046
    in the matter at all. I think, too, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite correct in saying that the liability did not protract the term of the loan. It is quite true that, being a continuous liability, after the loan is wiped out there will be a small liability left to be drawn from the men's fund, but meanwhile, inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to increase the 1 5–9d. by some small fraction, undoubtedly this money, by reducing the 1 5–9d., must extend the term of the loan. It may be only for a few months if the liability is not very heavy, but the Chancellor was not accurate in saying the term of the loan would not be prolonged by a single day. I should say it would be prolonged by some months, perhaps a year or a little more. I feel very considerable sympathy with the closing argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Hills). That is, that you must consider the case of women on a different financial basis from that of men. I do not go as far as he does. I would not advocate a purely non contributory scheme, but I think the principle which the Government have already recognised in giving the women two-eights instead of two-ninths, might with great advantage be carried further. They might be given as much as three-eighths in the way of State help. The case of women is more difficult, and from the national point of view is more, in a sense, a national asset than a man—she represents the continuity of the nation where the man represents individual effort—and there is a very strong case on general grounds for giving women a somewhat larger benefit. I might suggest that if the finance of the scheme had been somewhat differently arranged, if you had a flat rate of State contribution instead of this two-ninths, if you would alter the period of the repayment of the loan, you would have had a good deal more in hand, and you could have increased the amount which will be given to women sufficiently to meet the needs suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Hills), and even have a real invalidity benefit.
    Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: The most admirably clear statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the further explanation given by the hon. Members (Mr. Hills, and Mr. Lees Smith), have made the advantages of the new proposal clear to anyone who has gone into them carefully, but there is a point at which the Clause might be amended with benefit, and that is in reference to the two options which,

    1047
    6.0 P.M.
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, were to be given in the Bill for married women. I put my Amendments first of all on the Paper, and I thought the wedding benefit ought to come before the furniture benefit, but the Chairman put the furniture benefit first, and this proposition of mine comes now in a somewhat different form. I suggest that, in addition to the two options given by the Chancellor, there should be a third option by which a married woman, within a month of her marriage, should be at liberty to take a small sum by way of solatium for her not having to make any further contribution and not having to receive any benefits during her time of marriage. My impression is that that would make the Bill vastly more acceptable to all those who come under its operations. If you look at the position of married women it makes one feel one can in candour say how hardly they are used and how patiently they bear it in the general long run. When you tell them that there is to be a deduction from their wages they will be greatly astonished. The employers will tell them they have to submit to a similar burden, and the two will moan together over the fact that it is inflicted upon them. There will be something said, no doubt, about the 2d. or the 1d., but where that is coming from or whom it is going to neither the woman nor the employer will know at all. Those who have to explain this Clause to the persons whose interests are involved will find themselves in extreme difficulty. We have already experienced considerable difficulty with reference to the contributions which make up the 8d.—the 3d. from the woman worker, 3d. from the employer, and 2d. from the State. But when you come to read this Clause itself to a committee or meeting of persons concerned, and to explain the advantages under the Bill, they will find that a third of the insured woman's value is to go to somebody or other, or to some fund. If anyone asks an employer, or a canvasser, or a committee of women, what is the meaning of the third of the transfer value of a woman, I am sure there will be no possibility of making clear what is meant by the Clause, or the scheme formulated in the Clause. I say it would be an advantage if you could put something in the Act which would be tangible, concrete and clear, and which would enable an employer to say to
    1048
    a woman: "I must deduct 3d. from your wages, and I will be mulcted myself in 3d., and you will be able to get the benefits under the Act some day or other." You would make the scheme more attractive if a woman could say, "There will be benefit for me if I happen to be sick or disabled," and, as she would be able to say if my proposition were adopted, "The Government are going to give me a small sum on the occasion of my wedding." I put it at two guineas. I believe that sum is well within the margin provided by the Bill. I am not in the least bound by two guineas, and if either more or less could be given as a minimum I would naturally expect the Government to yield to that extent. If you put the women who are affected by the Clause in the position of knowing that they will have a small definite sum given to them, you will do away with an enormous amount of prejudice against the Bill. It would be well worth while paying something to get rid of that prejudice.
    We all live under compulsions. We came into the world by compulsion; we pay taxes by compulsion; and in all the affairs of life the atmosphere and the pressure of compulsions press upon us in some way. If to that you add the new compulsion of having 3d. a week kept off your wages, there will be created an amount of discontent far disproportionate to the sum itself. Therefore let us have a little solatium, particularly in the case of women, let them know that when they are married they will have a small sum paid to them, and give them that concrete proof of the benefits of the Bill, and that they will not be cut off until widowhood, which they do not wish, is reached, until sickness or disablement, which they do not expect, is reached, or until they enter sanatoria or asylums, which they hope they will never get into. Although in this magnificent scheme something must be done by compulsion in the new development of society which we are going through, I think if you can make it possible in some small way to give women some justification for joining the scheme you will do something beyond the mere dull routine which is as dull as the speeches of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith). I was astonished at the wonderful power these speeches contained, but there was no inducement in them for anyone to belong to an insurance society. I do not wish to press the point beyond saying to the

    1049
    Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should remember the old maxim:—
    "A bird in the hand is better far
    Than two that in the bushes are."
    If he will give a sovereign or two sovereigns to every young woman on being married, I am sure he would make the scheme popular in the country.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after he had finished with his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), went on to blame the Unionist party in general for not having assisted him in moulding this Bill. But I think this afternoon we have had a very good instance of how impossible it is, however good the intention may be, for any of us to assist really in the moulding of certain parts of this Bill. We are dealing at the present time with an intricate Clause. The speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Durham, and others, showed that the matter is really one of extreme complication. Undoubtedly by these new Amendments the effect of the Clause is entirely altered, and not only have none of us had any opportunity of considering what these alterations will mean, but we have not had an opportunity of consulting with our Constituents and those who are particularly interested in the Clauses. To those of us who are against woman suffrage this has been a very difficult Clause, because undoubtedly you are going to compel women to come into this fund, and you are going to take away their money from them after they marry. It does seem that there is in this a considerable argument which has not hitherto existed in favour of giving women some chance of protesting against this treatment. It is sometimes difficult to say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in favour of or against woman suffrage. I do think there could not be a more flagrant instance of rushing things through than there has been with respect to this Clause. There has been no time whatever for considering it, and the very fact that so few are able to get up and discuss the Clause at the present time shows that it is impossible to do so on account of hon. Members not having had further time to consider it. I certainly agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery). If, as in the case of this Clause, which has been thoroughly gone into by a small Committee and entirely altered, a similar
    1050
    sympathetic attitude had been adopted with regard to the deposit contributors, we might have had an opportunity of passing something more satisfactory than the Clause that was forced through yesterday. Although I cannot vote against this Clause, I am not able to regard it with the favour which might have been possible if more time had been allowed to consider it and to see what the effect of it will be.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I find that under the amended Clause married women who have been members of approved societies will have the right of continuing as voluntary members on payment of 3d. per week. That, no doubt, is a considerable advantage, and I believe it will be generally approved throughout the country. But I think I am right in saying that it will leave out of consideration a very large number, perhaps the larger proportion, of married women. I mean those women who are not members of friendly societies or approved societies, and who ought to receive, if possible, benefit and other help during their married life. I have been wondering whether the Government could by any means introduce an alteration in the scheme by which married women could be voluntary deposit contributors. If that were done it would introduce an element of help which would be very acceptable to a very large number of married women. It would mean that they would be able to accumulate a certain amount of reserve, and they would have a considerable sum given to them in case of sickness. It would mean also that they would have the advantage of sanatorium treatment and medical benefit. I hope the Government will take this point into consideration and see whether some means cannot be devised whereby married women could be deposit contributors under a voluntary system.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly am not going to introduce a discordant note in the discussion we have had this afternoon, or to take up any other attitude than that taken by hon. Members who have spoken in congratulating the Government on having produced the new proposals now before us, embodying a very much more satisfactory scheme than that which was embodied in the original Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown very considerable readiness to accept criticism and to welcome suggestions, and I do not know that anywhere has greater improvement in the original proposals resulted than in the Clause we

    1051
    are discussing to-day. Of course, I feel that, the Bill as regards women is practically settled, so far as we are concerned, by the decision to which the Government has already come outside the House. The proposals of the Government were only before us in a consecutive form, I think, forty-eight hours ago, and the report of the actuaries on the women's side of the scheme was not available until the same time. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that in the short time available for its consideration no material alteration can be made in the Clause as presented to us with the Government's Amendments. I do not therefore propose to traverse some of the wider questions that might have arisen, and which I think would very usefully have arisen, if we had been working under circumstances where any considerable modification of change could be introduced. I am going to deal with the proposals of the Government as they stand, and in doing so, from the necessities of the case, I must regard them as in the form in which they will ultimately pass. I wish to ask for an explanation of one or two points which arise out of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was part of the original Bill, and it was part of the new proposals of the Government, that every penny of women's money should go to women, and that the difference between the original proposal and the present was not that formerly the sums which women contributed went to men and women and that now they are wholly reserved to women, but was in the distribution of the women's money among the different classes of women.
    I have no doubt the intentions of the Government in that respect are the same now as they were when the Chancellor made his declaration much earlier in our discussion. But what I want the Government to tell us is where is it in the Bill as originally presented? Is there any Amendment they have put down on the Paper, is there one single word which would give effect to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far back as a speech in which he followed me on the Second Reading, declared that from the start it had been the intention of the Government? I cannot trace a line in the Bill or a word in the Amendments in reference to the separate pooling of women's funds as apart from men. I have felt myself met with great difficulty in trying to
    1052
    deal with this question at all, because there is not in the Bill any provision to carry out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says has always been his intention; but after all that is all a form of criticism. We know the answer. It does not occur. What we really want is an indication from the Government of the steps which they are going to take to carry out that decision. I am not quite certain myself that it is in the best interests of women that the fund should be separated, and I think it is certainly very undesirable that at the last moment some new Clause should be put in the Bill or some Amendment introduced to carry that out at a moment when nobody has time to consider it, in either the friendly societies or in women's organisations, or in this House, and that it should go in automatically without any discussion of the consequences that may possibly follow. In the next place, I want to make a suggestion to the Government which I think they will readily accept, and which will, I think, commend itself to the House. Women are to have an option as to what is to be done with the surrender value, but they have got to make use of the option within a month.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: Longer if the society allows.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very important that every woman should clearly understand when she has got to make an option, and what the options are. What I suggest is that it should be obligatory on the society to serve the woman with a notice—I think it must be done by the society—but that care should be taken that the woman is served with a notice, that a case has arisen that she must within a certain time—that time being a month if the society does not otherwise determine—exercise this option. It should be explained to her what are the different alternatives she has, because many of us who try to understand this Clause know that it is not a simple or an easy matter, or one that a woman unaccustomed to Parliamentary Clauses and public Bills would readily understand or even easily ascertain for herself. That is a practical suggestion which I hope the Government will accept. If they accept the idea, words to carry it out had better be drafted by their advisers and proposed by them, and I shall be quite satisfied if it is done on the Report stage. I would not think it fair to ask them to draft words before we leave the Committee stage of this clause. There are two

    1053
    thirds of the surrender which are not specially transferred to reserve. As to the one-third, which is that, as I understand, from the Government, goes to the credit of reserve value. But will it give a sufficient reserve value, as the deficit must be made good out of the general fund?
    Mr. LEES SMITH: There are absolutely no figures available at the present moment to give an answer to that question.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member says that there are no data from which it is possible to tell whether that one-third would be sufficient for the purpose for which it is set aside or not.
    Mr. BOOTH: It is a rough estimate.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that probably, on the whole, it will be found to be not sufficient, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself clearly felt that it probably would not. In that case I understand the deficiency has got to be met out of what he calls the general fund. It is the fund created to meet the reserve values which are brought into being at the commencement of the Act, and if this one-third of which I am talking is not sufficient then not only on the commencement of the Act but in perpetuity you will create, as it were, fresh reserve values, and you cannot close the account, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) suggested, because the deficit will be a recurring and repeating deficit. That fund was a fund, perhaps not entirely, but almost entirely formed by paying in, in the original form of the Bill, for sixteen and a-half years. Under the new form of the Bill there is a recognition of a fact which, I think, has been present forcibly to the minds of all of us, that you must treat a married woman as having some claim upon the man. You cannot say that the man has no responsibility for the wife, who is not technically employed, but in fact gives her life to keeping his home as long as he is there. I am glad that the Government make that recognition, and I for one would not criticise if, in attempting to face some of the cases thrust upon them, they drew upon the joint contributions of men and women a little further for the assistance of these women. Coming to the deposit contributors, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us very frankly that when the scheme was propounded by his advisers he wanted to know why one-third of the surrender value of the deposit contributor was to be forfeited, and he gave us the
    1054
    reasons which had been given to him, and he said it was for the Committee to judge whether they were satisfactory or not. I speak with great hesitation and diffidence when I offer an opinion on such short consideration, but they do not seem to me a sufficient reason for depriving the deposit contributor of that one-third.
    He is an unhappy individual for whom we cannot, do very much, but for whom we should do as much as we can. If you say that the Chancellor's objection to giving the deposit contributor the full benefit of her surrender value—for we are talking of women—is that that would be an inducement to women to become deposit contributors rather than to join societies, I really do not think that the inducement is sufficient to become a danger, if you allow them to withdraw on marriage the whole of their surrender value in a lump sum, and you might even guard against their doing, or being allowed to do, a thing of that kind by taking out as it were a policy of endowment upon marriage instead of other benefits contemplated under the Act. But if you do not allow that, then I do not think the fact that the benefits which are pooled will continue for a longer period than would otherwise be the case, would be a sufficient consideration to deter a young woman or girl from joining an approved society. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's fear is exaggerated, and I believe that with the limitations which are, I think, contemplated by the scheme of the Chancellor's Clause, which, in any case, I admit would be necessary as she must not have the whole sum as an endowment on her marriage, it would be safer to allow the deposit contributor the full benefit of any amount standing to her credit as surrender value at the time she ceases to be an employé. I do not want to enter into the controversy of yesterday, but I do myself see great difficulty. The deposit contributor is not in the real sense of the word an insured person under the Bill, and I feel, when you make a contract of insurance with people, their money may properly be forfeited, as far as they are concerned, if the contingencies for which they insure do not arise; but when you insist upon people forfeiting a compulsory thrift account, that is what the position of the deposit contributor is.
    He is obliged to save money by compulsion when you force him to save money by compulsion, and do not give him the benefits of general insurance and a return for it. I think he ought to have the full

    1055
    benefit of the money he has saved. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right to consider that matter, and to hear the views of this Committee about it. I hope the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. Masterman) will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes into the House what I have said on this subject, and that we shall have favourable consideration from the Government for it. There is one other matter I want to deal with—one of some importance to the success of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster), in his opening observations, expressed the fear that women desiring to come back might not be found acceptable to a friendly society, that they might not be desirable lives for the society, because, though there would be compensation for age, there would be no compensation for weaker health or any injury they might sustain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based himself on a paragraph in Mr. Watson's report, on page 17. He says:—
    "Generally, I regard the provisions of the Bill as to re-entry of disabled women as very serious financially to the societies, unless the sums to be transferred to the society in such cases will be so calculated as to take into account that probable liability respecting each individual widow, or some other special arrangement is made."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred for the answer to the second table on page 24 of the report, as showing that the margin in the last column of that table is quite sufficient to make those lives eligible to the society and to compensate the society for the greater risk they run in taking them. Is that really so? If you look at the figures the margin is very small in many cases, and it is non-existent in others. In the main, women of this class would be women of a certain age from the necessities of the case. Some may come back quite young, but the majority, from the necessities of the case, will be women of a certain age. The margin is less than 1 per cent., and that seems to me a very small margin. That is after forty. When you reach forty-nine it is not merely a very small margin, but it is a margin on the wrong side. In the Actuary's Report it is shown that the deficit increases as the age increases—forty-nine, fifty-two, and fifty-five in each case with the rise of age the deficit grows. I cannot feel any great security that that margin is sufficient in the cases where it will be most needed, and if the margin is not sufficient, or if the provision is not sufficient to induce societies to wel- 1056
    come these women, what is going to happen? They will be driven into forming some kind of little pool of their own, or society of their own, and that society, I think, will inevitably become bankrupt. It will not be able to meet the charges that will fall upon it. I confess I do not think that under the circumstances a private Member could really put forward an alternative proposal on a matter of this kind. I think the Government ought to seriously and carefully consider this question about the sufficiency of the margin which is provided.
    Another point, which is really connected with my opening observation, is as to the separate pooling of women's funds. We do not know what the Government proposal is. It is very important that we should know it, and know it well. Does it mean that the women's funds in a particular branch of the society must stand by themselves, and be solvent or insolvent in themselves, or are they part of the funds of the whole branch or society? Is the society as a whole, with its funds, wholly responsible for the solvency of its women's branches, or does the idea of the Government of pooling the women's contributions and to keep them separate from the men's exclude the women from the general solvency of this society? I really do not know the answer, and I do not raise the question in a hostile spirit, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that the matter is of great consequence, and the Committee should know at the earliest possible moment what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this matter. That is all I desire to trouble the Government with. I will only say again, in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I said in his absence, that I think he has greatly improved the scheme, and I think under the circumstances in which we now stand, we must regard it as being the scheme which is in substance to be accepted, and the observations I have made only apply to points of detail.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very favourable reception he has given to this scheme, and perhaps I may also be allowed to thank the Committee for what I think has been one of the most amicable and important Debates that have been held, certainly during any afternoon in which I have been engaged in connection with this Bill. I think

    1057
    in all quarters of the Committee, as to this, and also in reference to another Clause, it is recognised that we have tried to do our best to meet the various criticisms in connection with this women's problem, and I think I can say that the criticisms which have been made this afternoon have been in the main criticisms which have accepted the Government work as satisfactory work. There has been no suggestion that we should have proceeded on different lines, as far as married women are concerned. My object in rising is to answer certain specific questions put to me from various parts of the House, especially one or two questions which I think arise from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the actual new Clause as it is issued. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a suggestion which I may say is a very satisfactory suggestion, and which I think without consultation with my right hon. Friend I may promise he will consider, and it is this: The alternatives we now offer to women from which to choose on marriage, he said, should be very fully placed before them in some form or other. Either they have got to choose what is voluntary insurance, or they have to choose practically to come out of the insurance scheme sooner or later. Therefore, I think we quite agree that it is important that some of those suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman should be carried out, and that there should be some words inserted which would enforce that the choice to be made should be fully and clearly laid before the women during the month in which she has to make her choice.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not at present put down any Clause dealing with the separation of the men and the women's fund. I think he said, though I am not quite sure, that that separation was desirable in the interests of women. All the demand of those who speak for the women has been for the separation of those funds; and it was in response to that demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that the separation should be clearly placed in the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said, the provision or supplement of one-third the reserve value paid under this scheme, has the general approval of the Committee, and that widowhood should be a burden on the men of the country and not merely a burden on the women of the country, as far as insurance is concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr.
    1058
    Hills) asked whether this scheme is designed to separate the new voluntary insurance fund at a reduced rate from the ordinary funds of the women's branch of the friendly society or the women's trade union. There is nothing in the Bill at the present time to provide that. That is a subject to be raised in connection with the valuation. Of course, if it were provided that there was to be a complete separation, we should have to frame some means of restoring solvency to the reduced benefit, even if it happened to be insolvent, and that would have to be done by a scale of reduced benefits.
    Mr. HILLS: I assume from that last statement of the hon. Gentleman that the two-thirds which is assigned to meet those reduced benefits is not charged upon the general fund—any deficiency is not charged upon the general fund—but must be met by reduced benefits. It is a self-contained fund, and there is no charge on the general fund.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is nothing to make it a self-contained fund. The alternatives are either to make it a self-contained fund or leave it to the friendly societies to establish the two funds separately. Either of these alternatives really involves the further question of the hon. Member, whether friendly societies would be inclined to take up this work, considering the risk involved.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand the position yet of the hon. Member. I want to know whether the separation of the women's fund from the men's which the Government have in mind involves the separation of liabilities for solvency; whether, in fact, women and men in one branch jointly are responsible for the solvency of benefits offered to the men and women, or whether you will have to make two branches, one for men and one for women, the men being responsible only for the solvency of the benefits payable to men, and the women responsible only for the benefits payable to women.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That was not the question I was trying to answer.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was the question I put.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question I was trying to deal with was that of the hon. Member for Durham, as to whether these new voluntary women with reduced benefits should be kept separate from the general women's fund. The right hon.

    1059
    Gentleman asks if the women's fund is to be separated from the men's fund, or whether solvency should be regarded in each branch separately and a separate levy made.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My question in the simples form is, Does the separation between the two funds contemplated by the Government make it necessary that a branch should be wholly a male branch or wholly a women's branch, or can you have a joint men's and women's branch under the scheme on which the Government have embarked?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That question did arise in one of the earlier discussions, and to have a wholly male branch or a wholly woman's branch is not necessarily involved in the complete separation of the fund. They may belong to the same branch, but at the same time the separation of the men from the women does involve a separate declaration of solvency or insolvency, and therefore separate arrangements to make good deficiencies on insolvency. There was one other point raised by the hon. Member for Durham, I think under a misconception. He said we were not allowing all insured persons to come in under the new scheme. That is not so. Under the Bill as it stands, not only can all employed persons come in, but all insured persons can come in too.
    Mr. HILLS: My point was this, that it only allows employed women to obtain the full employed benefit after marriage, and that an Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the original Clause limited the right to full employed benefit of women employed before marriage. I never said the whole Clause would limit it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I want to make clear that any women who are not employed, but who are insured from the age of sixteen upwards, and then married, will get in one form or another the full suspense or surrender value of what they paid. That ought to be made clear even if it were not the point put by the hon. Member. Another point that has been largely discussed is that of which the hon. Member for Durham complained, that one of the changes which had been made resulted in the fact that the women who went to work sometimes after they were married no longer received the full reserve value, whereas under the old Bill
    1060
    they did so. I must point out to him this fact. Under the old Bill there was no provision that any surrender value should be given to married women at all. Married women will now draw their full surrender value, and that makes a profound difference. Under the old Bill there was no provision that a woman could continue to be voluntarily insured after marriage with reduced benefits and receiving a State contribution to those benefits. There is now an arrangement, which I think has been recognised as satisfactory, by which there is a provision in Sub-section (8) whereby a married woman who is a voluntary insurer, but who is compelled to go into work for a short time, can obtain the employer's contribution in order to be used for such benefit and in such manner as the society may determine. The best use of it we think would be in order to frank her for some future voluntary contribution at a reduced rate.
    Another point that was very strongly impressed on us before the new scheme was formulated was not only the unsatisfactory nature of the scheme which made no provision for women, after they were married, at all in benefits, but also the unsatisfactory nature of the scheme which would result, as it were, in the squeezing out of women from the friendly societies and from the trade unions on their marriage, when before they had been active members of those societies. That has been one of the substantial reasons why all parties in various Committees outside this House and in the House itself have so strongly welcomed a scheme by which you keep a very considerable portion of the married women on voluntary conditions. It is not quite true, as the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) said, that the only additional financial advantage we are giving married women was by the application of a possible deficiency in the one-third reserve value to the general central fund. We are also giving one-quarter of all the benefits which are being given under our reduced insurance scheme. That will mean an increase at present, and as the numbers of married women increase there will be a substantial increase in the amount of the money given to the women.
    Perhaps I may sum up the chief advantages which we are now offering by this scheme. The first, as I have said, is that we keep married women in the friendly societies and trade unions, and if they go on paying 3d. per week we give them very

    1061
    substantial benefits of a kind suitable to their condition. We have taken the best actuarial advice we could. We have had the good fortune of a report by Mr. Watson, and to have the report which has been presented to the Committee of our men. They all come to the conclusion that this scheme is well within actuarial possibilities, considering the sums involved. The second new feature meets a criticism which, I must confess, was a very strong one, immediately this Bill was produced, namely, that married women who either could not afford to keep on paying the extra threepence as a voluntary contribution, or did not do so under the original scheme, lost every halfpenny they put in except the money they had drawn out in early life on sickness. We have devised a scheme which, I believe, is a better scheme than that of a dowry, so enthusiastically advocated by some. Although it was difficult to find the best benefits under which that money could be shared, a great wish was expressed that part of it might go towards increased maternity benefits, whereby the child would have the advantage as well as the woman, and that the other part of it should be given to the women's trade unions or women's friendly societies. The third advantage is that we keep women at widowhood, and we have improved upon the original scheme, and we now give her instead of one choice three alternatives. She can either come back with the whole of her married career wiped out as a full contributor, with no loss as to her age, and receive full benefits. She can, on the other hand, continue at reduced benefits. That, I think, is the great advantage of the alteration. If she wishes to continue to pay threepence and is not employed and is supported, for instance, by her children, as many women are, she can continue to receive reduced benefits, and as a third alternative she can pay the full sixpence per week and receive full benefits as if she was employed. Those are all three satisfactory alternatives, which, I think, will be very largely used, and the threepence per week for the woman who does not work is a new feature.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Member point out where is the first alternative?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The first alternative is created, I think, under Sub-section (5), which provides that the whole time she has been married shall not count. I am not sure whether those are new words,
    1062
    or whether they were in the old Bill, but, anyhow, the provision is there now. The fourth great advantage, which I think has also been recognised, is the special provision for married women only employed for a short time. The right hon. Gentleman made some criticism as to our scheme with regard to Post Office contributors. He will recognise that that criticism is much less important now than it would have been before the Amendment we accepted yesterday, because the question of the number of women who will become Post Office contributors and marry in the two and a-half years before the Post Office scheme is reconsidered is a very small question indeed. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government agree that there was a good deal of cogency in the criticism of our answer if the Post Office scheme was to continue permanently. An hon. Member below the Gangway rather contrasted what he considered the friendly and reasonable attitude towards criticism on this Clause with what he termed the cast-iron and defiant attitude of the Government with respect to the Post Office contributor. I can assure him, as one who has had the pleasure of being associated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the start in this matter, that we have been as anxious during all these months to obtain suggestions as to the treatment of Post Office contributors as we have been to obtain suggestions as to the treatment of the women. If we have been unable to satisfy the House in connection with the Post Office contributors, as we have been able to satisfy them in connection with the women, it is because the problem is a question of far greater intricacy. I can assure the House the Government will continue to preserve the same open mind in connection with the one as with the other, and I hope before the two and a-half years expire that we can, in such a friendly Debate as this, solve the one question as satisfactorily as we have solved the other.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am very much in the position of some other hon. Members who have admitted that they do not clearly understand the text of this amending Clause. I only saw the White Paper since I came to the House this afternoon, and I confess it is very much of a puzzle to me. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire raised the question of women's separate societies, because I have often

    1063
    wondered, when reading the references which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to that matter, where he derived his authority from the Bill in its original form. I understand that he admits now that there is nothing in the Bill but that he intends to bring forward some Amendment by which that idea will be incorporated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated this afternoon that the average rate of sickness amongst married women was much about the same as the rate amongst men. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman obtained his figures, but from general observation I doubt the statement very much indeed. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, true, namely, that it is not that women have less sickness, but that the doctor is called in less frequently than in the case of men. But will it not follow, when women are insured, that they will stop work and call in the doctor much more frequently than at present? I was very much surprised to hear the Under-Secretary for the Home Department say that it was the wish of the women and those who are looking after their interests under this Bill that the women should be incorporated in separate societies. I heard that for the first time, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any real foundation for the statement. So far as I know he has been grossly misinformed. I object to this separation of men and women, for this reason, amongst others I believe that if women were confined to separate societies not one of the societies would be able to maintain itself in a solvent condition under the Bill. The excessive sickness amongst women arises from causes for which the women themselves ought not to be made responsible. There are natural reasons why women are more disposed to suffer from sickness than men. I think that that should be a social responsibility, and that the State should shoulder the burden of the excessive sickness amongst women to a greater extent than is proposed.
    I asked the Under-Secretary just now for his authority for the statement that the provision in the Bill as it stands was incorporated in the suggested Amendments—that is, that a woman who had been an insured person before marriage and became unemployed on marriage, and remained unemployed and, therefore, uninsured during a more or less lengthy period of married life was entitled to
    1064
    re-enter as though she had never been suspended from membership of the society. There is some reference in the first Section which possibly might bear that construction; but if it is intended to do so it wants to be made more clear than it is. The hon. Gentleman referred me to a Clause which does not touch the point at all. It says that a woman who was a married woman living with and supported by her husband at the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to full benefits. That is a very different thing. That applies not to women who are single now and employed, and therefore insured, but to women who are married at the time the Act comes into operation. If the statement of the Under-Secretary is correct, I do not understand that long argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon on the subject, because, so far as I understood, he was giving reasons for the excision of that part of the original Bill which entitled married women who had previously been insured to come back on the fund, and he was pointing out how unreasonable it would be for a woman who had become disabled during married life to come on disablement benefit within a month of the death of her husband. That is a most important point and requires to be cleared up.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that I said it was unreasonable for a married woman to come on the fund if disabled?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No. When giving reasons for the alteration of that part of the original Bill which entitled a woman who became a widow to come back on the fund provided she had been insured before marriage, the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understood, that it would be—"unreasonable" was not the word; at any rate he pointed out the unfairness, or shall I say the financial danger, of taking the responsibility of a woman who might be an invalid when she became a widow, and therefore entitled at once to disablement benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a complete misunderstanding. The first scheme provided that. Under the present scheme provision is made for carrying one-third of her reserve to value. If it involves a deficiency I propose to put it on the general fund, on the ground that it is the duty of the men to bear their share.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that that is covered

    1065
    by the first Sub-section of his amended Clause? That is my point. I am not a lawyer, and the matter is not clear. It certainly is not covered by Sub-section (5). On the whole, though I accept no responsibility for the Clause, either in its amended or in its unamended form, because I believe it is based upon the fundamental heresy of making the poor pay for working out their own social salvation, I am inclined to think that the amended Clause is an improvement upon the Clause as it stands in the Bill. I would point out how unfairly, even in its amended form, the Clause is likely to act. If a woman becomes a voluntary contributor, paying 3d. a week, she will be entitled to certain benefits, including sickness benefit of 5s. a week for thirteen weeks and 3s. a week for the second thirteen weeks, and disablement benefit of 3s. a week. An unmarried woman earning less than 9s. a week under the amended proposal will pay nothing at all, but will, be entitled to 7s. 6d. a week sick pay and 5s. a week permanent disablement pay. This woman will pay nothing, but will receive 50 per cent. more benefit than the woman who pays 3d. a week. The Bill will really benefit but a very small section of the married women of the working classes, because they cannot afford to pay 3d. a week. At present a man will pay 4d., and probably 2½d. under the unemployment part; and the woman is expected to pay 3d. That makes 9½d. a week. It is an utter impossibility for a large mass of the working people to pay an additional weekly contribution of that amount.
    I wish to refer also to the prohibition of women to become voluntary contributors. I very much regret that in making these drastic Amendments the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not removed that objectionable provision. I understand that the reason he refuses to make that concession is his fear of malingering. If that be his only reason for preventing married women who can afford it from becoming voluntary contributors—and I believe they would be very few—it applies equally to all three alternatives under the Bill. Therefore I see no reason at all why in one case he should consider it to be of sufficient importance to deprive married women of that right and not in the others. Another very grave injustice in my opinion is that a woman if she accepts one of these alternatives is to be called upon to pay 3d. per week. I understand that by an Amendment to be moved by the Government the State contribution will be 1d.
    1066
    Take, again, the case of a woman earning less than 9s. a week. She will pay nothing, but the State will pay 2d. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify the difference? The State contribution is altogether inadequate and cannot possibly be justified. In the second line of the amended Clause are these words, "Where a woman who having before marriage been an insured person marries and is supported by her husband." I intended to put down an Amendment to omit those words, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already done so. How the words came into a Parliamentary Bill I do not know, but the person responsible sadly needs education about the economics of women's labour. He certainly had never studied the modern women's movement. As a matter of fact, the husband in the case of the working classes at any rate, does not support his wife. The wife supports herself, and is contributing by her labour to the economic upkeep of the home. I am glad, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed the words which not only are untrue, but would have been distinctly offensive to the women of the country.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the new Clause is a very great improvement on the Bill, but I think the Committee have a grievance in that it was not circulated earlier, so that we could have studied it better. Several points have been raised about the difference in the positions of some of those who come back at the age rate, and some who come back as if they were sixteen. It is almost impossible to follow, without very close study, to which of the classes the one provision or the other applies. Nevertheless, I think we may welcome the proposal as a distinct improvement on the Bill, and better than the suggestion of a dowry of which I and others have been guilty. I shall not move my Amendment in regard to a dowry, because I recognise that this proposal is a great deal better. On the other hand, if we had not put down our Amendments with regard to a dowry, and got the actuaries to see that there was a considerable margin which could be applied for the benefit of women, I am not at all sure that the new Clause would have been as comprehensive as it now is. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department has improved upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman claims to be rejuvenating people, but the Under-Secretary is wiping out the

    1067
    effect of marriage. What is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to mixed lodges? I understand the idea to be that a society may in future take both male and female members, and that the funds will not necessarily have to be separated in the lodge itself. I want to know whether there are going to be any regulations of the Insurance Commissioners, or otherwise, to deal with the question of voting, because the women's part in such a lodge as that will be, in my opinion, constantly in difficulties. Are men to vote in that lodge as to whether the women's benefits are to be reduced, or a levy made? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to think that position over carefully. I do not believe it is possible to have a mixed lodge with a mixed fund. I believe even if the same society is male and female in its membership there will have to be separate funds, and a separate male and female section. In such a case they might as well be treated as separate societies—under one management if you like—but with a separate vote for the male and female sections of the lodge. It is a relatively small point, but there is nothing in the Bill at present, even with these Amendments, to give any guidance to the Committee upon it.
    There is a much more important point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) raised. Although I have listened to the answers given I regret to say I do not understand the position. Is there going to be a women's fund, a central fund for the women, or is it to be left to the societies to say whether or not there shall be a men's fund and a woman's fund? Because I am going to urge very strongly upon the Government not to make the mistake which they have made with the other portion of the Bill, what I call the general or male portion. Here with the women there are very few friendly society lodges. They are few indeed. Relatively you are opening new ground altogether in providing insurance for the women. It is quite possible, therefore, without any trouble, as it seems to me, to set up a woman's central fund. By that you will do an enormous amount to protect the various friendly societies who are desirous to take up the administration of women's benefit. You will do much to protect those individual societies from insolvency
    1068
    if you will keep at least a large portion, of the contributions and the subsidies for benefits in the central fund. In that way you will prevent one small society by the selection of lives getting very good risks and another society getting very bad risks. You have not done it for the men, but you may do it for the women, because certainly you have not got anything like the same difficulties you would have to encounter. I do not understand the Government is pledged in any way at present with regard to the method of the separation of the women's fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it was his intention to keep the fund separate. Notwithstanding the questioning that he has submitted to on these points he has not made me understand what he intends to do.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me fully understand what the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is. Does he propose that the whole of the women's contributions throughout the country should be pooled in one general fund, and that you should not allow the separate societies to run their own contributions and benefits?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would like very much to answer that. I do not propose that all contributions by and on behalf of women should go into one central fund. I do suggest that a large part should go into one central fund. I will take half and half. That will do for my purpose. I will explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how I believed it would work out. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes one half of the contributions by and for women into one central fund, and lets the local society take the other half of the contributions in respect of their own particular members, there would be in effect a reinsurance against half the risks of the small societies by the administrators of the central fund. You would protect the fund. You would give much greater stability to each separate fund by having it reinsured in the central fund. At the same time you can arrange these proportions in such a way that the better management the more profits. They would make out the proportions which they themselves paid. It seems to me that there is much less difficulty in establishing this in regard to women, and—if I may say so—much more necessity in establishing it in regard to women than to men.

    1069
    The greater necessity is this, that throughout the actuaries have assumed that the rate of sickness for women is the same as for men. I do not think they will expect that to actually occur in practice. At any rate, a large number of people do not think that it is likely in practice to prove the case. They have taken those figures because there are no other figures to take. I think they expressly hedge in their calculations by saying that they have had to take those figures which were the only available figures. Therefore there is some probability of whatever calculations are based upon those figures turning out to be disappointing. It is therefore the more necessary to reinsure the risk by spreading it over the widest possible area, or else you will have the country dotted about with bankrupt societies, or, rather, societies with reduced benefits or increased levies. The Government, it seems to me, are not pledged to any particular course, and I hope that before they do finally pledge themselves upon that they will consider this suggestion.
    Another point: If the central fund such as I have suggested were in fact established it would be more easy for the Government at some future date to give a grant for health or for sex much on the lines as they have been given a grant for age. The grant for age has been necessary to equalise age values, and women will never be properly treated, in my view, until a special grant is made for them because of their sex. I believe it will be found that the sickness liability will be greater in the case of women than in the case of men. Should that be found to be the case, if you have a central fund there is a fund from which the grant will be made, and from that fund should radiate all the societies who are endeavouring to administer benefits. I think this Clause is an infinite improvement upon the previous proposition. I hope the Government will give real consideration to the suggestions I have ventured to make before they finally pledge themselves as to the methods of setting up the women's account.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not know what support of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton caused the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce this scheme. I quite grant that it is an able scheme, and is a well-meant effort to solve the difficulty; but I cannot allow the Clause to be adopted without saying that,
    1070
    in my opinion, those who administer this Clause, will be heading for a financial morass. The great difficulty in regard to the general scheme is the amazing increase in the rate of sickness. If this Clause comes into operation the recorded sickness of women will go up by leaps and bounds—not the actual sickness. I do not suggest for one moment that this will do anything to increase that actual sickness, but the recorded sickness will go up at least 40 per cent. I do not see anything like that margin in the Bill. The hon. Member who is responsible for the Chancellor's adoption admitted that he wished to give some special privileges to married women. My own voice was first raised in this House when the Bill was introduced appealing for better terms for women. I took the responsibility of saying that I did not think the Bill was quite fair to that sex. Since then meetings of members have been held, so I am told, of those who identify themselves with the women's cause. I yield to no one in a desire to make this quite as fair and quite as generous to women as it can possibly be made, but I want to point out that if you give special privileges to women, and particularly to married women, it admittedly places them in a preferential position. You are giving an inducement to men to bar the door against receiving them into their societies. If you give privileges to any one under this scheme do not flatter yourselves that those privileges will not have their effect. The rank and file of the approved societies will pass a rule to keep the women out. I would like to guard against that difficulty, that very grave danger. Candidly, I do not want to go through the Clause piecemeal. I rejoice there will be no Division, because I could not take the responsibility at this short notice of voting against the scheme so well-meant and which has such distinguished sanction. But I do honestly feel it my duty to disclaim any responsibility for its financial working. I do not see that it can be done. I could not take the responsibility of urging any Holloway, or deposit society, or any other institution which has a pride in its past to work this with any other idea than that it would be a very large drain upon their funds. It may be that the sacrifice will have to be made. I shall not be the one to dissuade them from it, but I cannot be a party to leaving them in any state of misapprehension.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question which earlier in the evening I put to the

    1071
    Under-Secretary. Will the Government consider the desirability of allowing married women who are not able to join any approved society to become Post Office depositors on the reduced scale of Table D in the fourth Schedule? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down urged that there was some danger of this scheme not being acceptable to the friendly societies. If the married women come in under the deposit scheme they will get advantage, and the great bulk of married women will probably in those circumstances join. I shall be, therefore, glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this proposal his attention. Of course, it will cost more, but the cost will be a final one. There will be no deficit to be met on the funds of the friendly societies. By this means all the married women who desire to do so will have a reduced scale, and can become Post Office depositors and get the advantages of the scheme so long as that deposit lasts. They will also get the advantage of sanatoria treatment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a serious proposition. It is our desire rather to keep the Post Office depositors' schemes within as restricted limits as possible. It would devolve a very very serious charge on the Exchequer, and could only possibly be applied to that class of married women who are well off and could pay 6d. a week at least before they claimed any contribution from the State. For that reason married women who are well off have special advantages given to them; whereas the idea rather in this Clause is to enable those who are able only to pay 2d. to come in.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I desire that the married women should be able to pay 3d. towards the deposit scheme, and to get the State to help it would make it worth their while. I do not wish to press the matter, but I think at this or some other time it would be very desirable to have it in the Bill.
    Mr. FORSTER: I moved this Amendment for the purpose of clearing up some points of obscurity which necessarily existed owing to the short notice at which we had to deal with this Amendment. Perhaps now the Committee will now allow me to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon.
    1072
    Member for Durham (Mr. Hills)—in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "who having before marriage been an insured person"—is one about which I have some doubt, and I am not quite certain that I understand its purport. If it means to put an additional charge upon the scheme it will not be in order. I think it would also make the Clause a protection.
    Mr. HILLS: I move this Amendment—
    The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Gentleman must not move it. I am inviting him to tell me what it means.
    Mr. HILLS: Very well. Dealing with your last objection first, I think the Clause would not be made ineffective, because the only effect would be if my Amendment were carried that certain people outside the Clause now will be brought inside it. With regard to the question of finance, I submit that with the estimate for ordinary insurance this Amendment would not increase the charge upon the Treasury, because I should propose that the deficiency should foe charged upon the men's fund in the same way the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested earlier, and therefore the Treasury would not be subjected to a bigger charge, though the period of the sinking fund would be prolonged, and additional benefits payable would be postponed. My Amendment is shortly this. Assuming that we weaken the fund, you have a certain capital sum to bring into insurance persons who are insured before marriage, and that is done without an additional charge upon the Exchequer by means of prolonging the period over which the 1 5–9d. is paid, and thereby providing a larger sum than the Exchequer provides for reserve balances.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that ingenious arguments like that would do away with the Money Resolution altogether. The Amendment, therefore, cannot be moved.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "and is supported by her husband."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "unless she continues to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act,"—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "any" ["be suspended from receiving any benefits"], and insert instead thereof the words "the ordinary."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "any sums credited to the society in respect of her, calculated in the prescribed manner," and insert instead thereof the words "one-third of her transfer value."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed," and insert instead thereof the words "a separate account called the married women's suspense account."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "such" ["and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "the." It is merely a drafting Amendment, in order to insert a consequential Amendment, namely, after the word "death" ["after such death "], to insert the words "of her husband." I do not think it makes any real difference, but the true intention of the Clause is carried out on the death of her husband.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the absence of the Law Officers, I am willing to accept the advice of the hon. and learned Member, and I am thankful for it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "arrears" ["for the purpose of reckoning arrears"], to insert the words "and there shall be transferred from the married women's suspense account to the society of which she is a member the proper reserve value calculated according to the tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners."
    The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment which has been handed in by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), which proposes an addition to this Clause. The hon. Member is not here.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May we know the nature of that Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not moved.
    Sir H. CARLILE: As a matter of form, I beg to move it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member would read it.
    Sir H. CARLILE: I have not got it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the
    1074
    words "such married woman again," and to insert instead thereof the words "a woman who, having been employed within the meaning of this part of this Act before marriage, proves that she continues to be so employed after marriage, she shall not be so suspended so long as she continues to be so employed, and that where a married woman so suspended from the ordinary benefits."
    Question, "That the words 'such married woman again' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
    Mr. HILLS: I beg to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a very real inequality which will occur if these words are inserted. If he will turn first of all to Sub-section (5) of the new Clause upon the While Paper he will see that in the case of existing married women they will get back to full employment benefits at any time during marriage or after the death of their husbands at the flat rate. In the case of women who are unmarried when the Bill passed, they have to fulfil all the conditions of coming back to full employment benefit. In the first place, they must have been employed as well as insured beforehand, and they must be employed after marriage. I do not think the Chancellor means to give better treatment to women who are married when the Bill passes and have no reserve value against their names, than to women unmarried and insured, and who at marriage will possess a reserve balance. The effect of the Bill is that a woman married when the Bill passes, gets advantages which the unmarried woman who is insured when the Bill is passed does not get. Why should a woman married now get better terms than an unmarried woman who pays her contribution to form a reserve. If you want to discriminate, you ought to discriminate in favour of the woman who insures herself now. A woman married now need not pay a penny until she becomes a widow, and then it is not as if her age was sixteen. The woman who insures herself and then marries comes in under less favourable terms. The Clause on the White Paper and this Amendment will not fit. I quite agree I cannot expect the Chancellor to accept any Amendment now, but if he will assure me he will remove this inequality I will be satisfied. It is a very real inequality and will hit very hard

    1075
    the woman who is unmarried now and marries, it may be in a year or two, and then comes into employment. She cannot get back to benefit, unless she pays a rate on her admission, which may be 1s. In the figures of the Government Actuaries, they have allowed for all women employed during marriage, whether before or after the death of their husband, coming back at a flat rate. I am certain that is a mistake, and I hope the Chancellor will look into it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure that I follow the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he has some basis for it as he knows the problem thoroughly, but I do not understand the grievance. You cannot have it both ways. We have got to protect the societies, and the women have to decide which course they will take if they want to use their suspense fund. They get these alternative benefits and they cannot say afterwards we made up our mind to take it the other way.
    Mr. HILLS: Why does this class come in and not the other?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have all got the same opportunity as long as they pay.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a very difficult point, especially to one who does not pretend to understand all the details as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me my hon. Friend has made out a case which requires the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer between now and the next stage of the Bill. What I understand my Friend to argue is that a woman who is married at the passing of this Act is in a better position than a woman who marries subsequent to the passing of the Act. The woman who at the passing of the Act is married and comes in under Sub-section (5) in its amended form will be in a better position than the same woman would be if, instead of being married at the passing of the Act, she married five years after, and that in spite of the fact she is a better proposition in the second place than she is in the first place. In the second place, she has accumulated by the time of her marriage a certain reserve value, having been an employed person. Assume that she has worked five years as an employed person after the passing of the Act, and then marries. She has a reserve value, and yet she is less well treated than the woman
    1076
    in the other case. My hon. Friend says surely the woman who has created a reserve value ought to be rather better off than the woman who has not created such a value. I do not think this is a matter we can settle now across the Table; but it seems to me there is more in my hon. Friend's point than the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to think. I press the right hon. Gentleman to give this point his serious attention.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will promise to consider this point very carefully, but I should like a little more time to consider it. As far as I can see it refers to persons who will get a special reserve value, because they come in at the passing of the Act. We are giving special terms to all those who at the beginning cannot possibly come in at all unless you rejuvenate them. Those get special terms. I will consider the point very carefully, and if I find there is a grievance I shall certainly try, with the assent of the Opposition, to put the matter right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "receiving" ["suspended from receiving benefits "], to insert the word "ordinary."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the period between her marriage and the time when she so again becomes employed shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears," and to insert instead thereof the words "subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, she shall for the purposes of those benefits be treated as if she had not previously been an insured person."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. HILLS: This provision compels a married woman who comes back to full benefits during marriage to pay the rate for age. I would rather she came back on the flat rate, but I regard that as part of the bargain. My grievance on the other Amendment is quite apart from this.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (2) to insert:—
    (3) Where a married woman being a member of an approved society is so suspended from the ordinary benefits as aforesaid she may, if she so elects within one month after such suspension or,

    1077
    subject to the consent of the society, after the expiration of that month, and notwithstanding that she is not engaged in any regular occupation, become whilst so suspended a voluntary contributor, subject to the following modifications, but not otherwise:—

    (a) The rate of contributions payable by her shall be three pence a week;

    (b) The benefits to which she shall be entitled shall be—

    (i) medical benefit, and

    (ii) sickness benefit and disablement benefit at the rates and subject to the conditions specified in Table D of Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act;

    (c) No part of her contributions shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of discharging their liabilities to approved societies in respect of the reserve values created under this Act.

    Provided that where a married woman elects not to become such a voluntary contributor she shall be entitled to have a sum equal to the remaining two-thirds of her transfer value applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act until the same is exhausted, except that where a reserve value was credited to the society in respect of such such woman at the date of her entrance into insurance so much of such sum as aforesaid as may be prescribed shall not be so applied but shall be written off the amount of the reserve values credited to the society.
    (4) Where the husband of a married woman who has been so suspended from ordinary benefits as aforesaid and who is a member of an approved society dies, she may, if she is qualified to become a voluntary contributor, and elects to do so within one month after the death of her husband, become an ordinary voluntary contributor paying contributions at the rate which would have been applicable to the case had she become such a contributor at the date of her entry into insurance.
    Provided that she may, whether or not so qualified, if she so elects within one month after the death of her husband, continue to be or become a voluntary contributor on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as above provided as respects married women.
    In either such case there shall be transferred from the married women's suspense account to the society the proper reserve value calculated as aforesaid.
    (5) Where a married woman who was at the date of her marriage a deposit contributor is by virtue of this Section suspended from the ordinary benefits under this Part of this Act, two-thirds of the sum standing to her credit in the Post Office fund shall be applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act until the same is exhausted.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suggest in Sub-section (5) of the proposed Amendment, the leaving out the words "two-thirds" ["two-thirds of the sum "]. This deals with the point I raised in the general discussion to which the Under-Secretary for the Home Department gave a very sympathetic reply on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has been pointed out to me, and pressed upon me very strongly, that this will affect thousands of the domestic servant class. In this way they would get cash, whereas we ought to press them to join friendly societies. This is better for them still, since we have amended the Clause. I was told that it would be a very dangerous thing to do, that it would be destructive to the friendly societies, and damaging to the women themselves. I am afraid if this alteration is made this class would say: "We would rather be Post Office contributors, because we should get our money back." That is the real reason.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I desire that people should not be attracted to the Post Office fund in preference to going to friendly societies. I agree most wholeheartedly that it is very much better for them that they should become members of an approved society rather than that they should be merely deposit contributors. My difference with the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers is as to whether we should allow the deposit contributor the full benefit of the money standing to her credit. Under these circumstances I do not think this would be such an attraction as to cause them to make that choice in preference to joining

    1079
    an approved society. To the bulk of such women the offer of a kind of dowry on marriage or a lump sum down would be the most attractive alternative though not the best for them. I agree it would be dangerous to offer them that, but that is not the scheme of the Bill. The Bill only allows them to take benefits and take out two-thirds of the money that stands to their credit in subsequent benefit. My proposal would allow them to take the whole out in subsequent benefits, not at their own discretion, but in accordance with the Schedule, and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioners. I really cannot myself believe that that would have the damaging consequences which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks, and though I will not divide the Committee on this point, I will just press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should consider further this point and consult the special representatives of women upon it. I shall be satisfied without moving my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind and will consult the special representatives of women as to whether this might safely be done.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have considered this point very carefully with my advisers, and they were perfectly unanimous in saying that it would be a most dangerous thing in the interests of the society and in the interests of the young women themselves. In this proposal there is something more than being the next-of-kin, for it means two-thirds of the sum standing to their credit, and it includes not only their own contribution, but also the contribution of their employers. All we give to the next-of-kin is the whole of their own contribution, and that is a far different thing. By this proposal you are giving them more than you give to the next-of-kin, and in that case we all agree that it was very dangerous to go beyond that. I believe that was the general feeling of the Committee when we last discussed the matter. I will certainly consult further the representatives of the societies on the point, and those who have been urging the claims of married women upon the Government. I will further consult with them, and, if we come to the conclusion there is no real risk, I shall be delighted to agree to the elimination of the two-thirds. At present, I think the right hon. Gentle-
    1080
    man is not prepared himself to take the responsibility of the elimination of the two-thirds without further consideration.
    Question, "That Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of the Clause (as proposed to be amended) be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONmoved, at the end of Sub-section (6) of the Clause (as proposed to be amended), to insert the words:
    "Provided that where an unmarried woman is prevented from qualifying for insurance, or where such a woman's insurance has to lapse, by reason of the fact that for a period her services are given to attend an infirm or disabled parent or other relation or the children or household of a relation by whom she is maintained, the same rights and privileges in regard to arrears and subsequent entry or re-entry into insurance shall apply to such period as are applied by this Section to a period of coverture."
    It is a rather complicated Amendment, and perhaps I can best indicate its object by giving two instances. Take an elder daughter who remains at home and looks after her parents and does ordinary household work. She is not able to be insured. She may have a younger sister, also unmarried, who is able to be insured because her services are not required at home, and she is able to go out into ordinary employment and become an employed contributor. The young woman who remains at home is not able to become an employed contributor. I think that is a grievance in the Bill, and I should like to see that class included. There is also another class, a class which was referred to by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster). There is the domestic servant who perhaps leaves her domestic service in order to look after an infirm parent, or the family of a widowed brother or some other relation. That woman would actually be penalised on account of her own self-sacrifice and unselfishness. I mention those two cases to show the sort of class I want to include in this Amendment. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, who deserves the gratitude of the community for so enormously improving the Clause, would still further earn the gratitude of the community if he could include those two classes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have just been studying the hon. Gentleman's Amend-

    1081
    ment, and I am afraid this means an additional charge by bringing in fresh persons.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think as a matter of fact it would actually cost more money, because I believe there is a considerable margin within the limits of the Bill. I have been in communication with one or two actuarial gentlemen, and they seem to think it would probably cost nothing.
    Mr. POLLOCK: My hon. Friend's Amendment deals with two classes of persons. There are the persons who are at home and who have not had the advantage by being employed or by becoming a married woman or coming in this section. My hon. Friend argues the inclusion of that class would not impose a greater burden. That may or may not be the case. It seems difficult to say. My hon. Friend's Amendment also deals with another class already in the Bill and already insured, and its object is to prevent their losing that insurance. They are persons who being in employment leave that employment for a short time owing to ill-health at home or for some other family reason, and then go back. My hon. Friend asks that those persons should go back without any disability attaching to the fact that temporarily they have lost the advantages to which they had become entitled. The Bill covers those persons and charges are granted in respect of them. All he asks is that they should not lose advantages they have already gained, and that there should not be a surplus piled up as a result of their misfortune.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in the first part of his remarks there was a new charge, and of course it is my duty to be very vigilant in this matter.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I agree, if I may respectfully say so.
    The CHAIRMAN: And I am afraid I am obliged to rule the Amendment out on that ground.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4) of the Bill, as printed, at the beginning to insert the words "Except as provided by this Section."
    Mr. HILLS: I wish to make a last appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1082
    to leave out this Sub-section which nobody wants. It is no good to him. When the Bill was first introduced he informed the House he had prevented married women insuring themselves voluntarily, and, when he was rather gravelled for an argument, he founded himself on the fact that it was hard to check malingering of married women. That reason has gone by the board. It has been thrown overboard in the case of the whole of this new Clause which is based upon the fact that married women have got the right to insure themselves, that they do not malinger any more than men, and that it is not any more hard to check it among them. Surely it is not a big concession, and at first sight it would seem ridiculous that we should have to press for it. Surely if a woman chooses to pay the employer's contribution as well as her own she should be entitled to benefit in a scheme of national insurance. How can you exclude her? She chooses to come forward and pay the employer's contribution as well as her own, and you keep her out. It is absolutely indefensible on any system of logic. I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want this Sub-section, and I do not believe the Treasury want it. Surely it is only common justice if a married woman chooses to pay her 6d. a week she should obtain the benefit of this scheme.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These words extend the Clause in the direction the hon. and learned Gentleman wants.
    Mr. HILLS: I want the whole Sub-section left out.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If these words go in you cannot subsequently strike out the whole Sub-section, because, having put in words necessary to have a sequence, the Chairman, by the Rules of the House, would not accept an Amendment to delete the words which stand. It seems to me this is really a revival of the earlier scheme. The words which are added to the Sub-section, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, are themselves a step in the direction in which my hon. Friend desires to go, and if the Sub-section is to stand it is much better with the words the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes than without them. It seems to me, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has no reason for the Sub-section now remaining in the Clause. The scheme of the Bill has been so altered that this is not a necessary part, but an excrescence. I really cannot understand why, when you

    1083
    admit married women to insurance on the general principles laid down in the Clause, you should say there is one form of insurance contemplated by the Bill which under no circumstances shall be open to them—that is, to become voluntary contributors. If my hon. Friend went to a Division I should vote with him against the insertion of these words with a view to the deletion of the whole Sub-section.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If you cut out these words the effect will be to make it impossible for us to introduce the scheme which we have submitted to the House. It is quite impossible to introduce married women as a body at all ages into the scheme at the present moment. That would involve an enormous addition to the deficiency. It would postpone for years the additional benefits which will inure to all insured persons fifteen and a-half years hence and which makes it an advantage for the young people coming into the scheme now. If married women are admitted indiscriminately and without regard to age, it will mean an enormous addition to the amount of the deficiency. That would be a very serious thing to do by means of an Amendment of this kind without having some particulars submitted to the Committee to show what the effect of it would be. Nobody has really asked for it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is the only one who has pressed for it. The only pressure brought to bear upon me by the women's societies and committees has been in favour of those who are already insured, the young women who become married. This is the first time I have had pressure brought to bear on this point. It means postponing the benefits for all people who come now into the funds, and postponing them in the interests of the better class of married women—those who can afford to pay their 6d. a week. It is not in the interests of the poorer working women, it is in the interests of the pick and cream of working class, and it will postpone the benefit for all classes and for those who earn but 9s. or 12s. weekly.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described this proposal then I have misunderstood it, and I agree it is not acceptable if it is the case that every married woman—not having previously insured and not being insurable—is to be accepted. But I think "permissible" is the term used generally throughout the Bill. If
    1084
    they are to be allowed to come in and have the full reserve value placed to their credit it will indefinitely postpone the setting free of the sums allotted for the extinction of those values, and I agree the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot for a moment accept them. But is the right hon. Gentleman right in that view? I understood that this was a proposal to admit married women to become voluntary contributors in the same way as men may become voluntary contributors. What happens when a man becomes a voluntary contributor? There is no reserve value created for him. That is where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is mistaken.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Look at the proviso.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to the extent of the proviso the proposal is impossible, but I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not allow them in on the terms of the first Sub-section without the proviso. They might then become voluntary contributors if they liked at the rate appropriate to their age. It would then be a very small matter, so far as cost is concerned, while it might afford a valuable insurance to some few women who would be glad to take it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that. I must, of course, get the full actuarial figures. It may really amount to a very serious proposition, and I certainly should not like to say now that I will accept it. The proposition is, however, very different to that put forward by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills). After I have got a reply from the actuary I will inform the right hon. Gentleman what I have to say about it.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, after Sub-section (4), to insert:
    (5) If a woman, whilst a voluntary contributor at such reduced rates of benefit as are provided by this Section, becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act she shall be entitled to a certificate (to be granted in manner hereinbefore provided) exempting her from liability to become an employed contributor, so, however, that such exemption shall not exempt the employer from his liability to pay contributions in respect of her, or deprive him of his right to recover such part

    1085
    of those contributions as is payable on her behalf, but of each weekly contribution so paid by the employer threepence shall be treated as her contribution as a voluntary contributor and the balance shall be applied for her benefit in such manner as the society may determine.
    (6) If at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed on it by this Section the deficiency shall be made good out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created by this Act.
    (7) Transfer value for the purposes of this Section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.
    (8) Where a deficiency has been found in respect of the society or branch of which a woman is a member at a valuation previous to the time when she became suspended from ordinary benefits under this part of this Act, and that deficiency has not been made good at that time of her marriage, or where a woman is in arrears at that time, such adjustments in the sums transferred to the married women's suspense account, and the balance of her transfer value, and in the rates of benefit to which she is entitled under this Section, shall be made as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have to propose as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (7), and to insert instead thereof the words "The transfer values and reserve values for the purposes of this Section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe, and the tables thereof shall be periodically revised and adjusted in such manner that they shall, as nearly as may be, represent the transfer and reserve values which, according to the experience of the Insurance Commissioners, are actuarily appropriate to the several ages."
    This Amendment is really intended to give full effect to what I believe are the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the new Clause the women's fund is to bear any shortage which may arise on the widow's reserve value and the women's reserve fund. The Amendment really provides for that purpose a table of reserve values, which is to be periodically revised and to be kept up
    1086
    to date. If the insurance goes on developing, as I suppose it will, an obsolete table of reserve values, if it is allowed to operate, would result in the women's fund, I believe, being very heavily penalised. Suppose the reserve value table is £12 as the reserve value of a woman re-entering at fifty-five years of age. I believe that is the figure which the actuaries have taken into account. But suppose £15 is necessary for the purpose of reinsuring at that age, as the Clause stands the society would lose about £3 by taking her back as a widow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will notice at the end of Subsection (3) it says:—
    "In either such case there shall be transferred from the women's suspense account to the society the proper reserve value calculated as aforesaid."
    And Sub-section (9) says:—
    "If at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed on it by this Section the deficiency shall be made good out of the sum retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created by this Act."
    I take it there are three funds: there is the general reserve fund under Clause 40; there is the women's fund which I believe the right hon. Gentleman means to set up; and there is also the women's society; and the purpose of this Section in the new Clause is to reimburse the women's society. Surely it would be better that this should be done in full, and not in part. I think the Insurance Commissioners should always have a table of reserve values brought up to date so as to ensure that the women's society shall not be stopped. If it is only the shortage on the women's fund that is going to be replaced out of the general fund it does not really imply the women's society. It only refers to the women's central fund. If the women's central fund has not enough money to hand over to the women's society on account of the table of reserve values not being up to date, it is the women's society that will lose thereby.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is really not appropriate to this particular Clause at all. It is appropriate to Clause 40, which is a separate Clause dealing with the question of reserve values. If there is anything the hon. Gentleman thinks is inadequate for the purpose there, all he has to do is to move an Amendment to

    1087
    Clause 40. I am not challenging the substance of the Amendment or his contention. If he thinks that Clause 40 does not cover the point, I shall be happy to accept any Amendment upon that. If he thinks that amendments dealing with reserve values and tables should be inserted in every Clause in which they are mentioned then Clause 40 becomes quite unnecessary.
    Mr. HILLS: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we shall see these tables under Clause 40? It is most important that we should see them, because Clause 40 is to be reached in a few days, and it will be placing the Committee in a very unfair position to ask us to discuss Clause 40 unless we have an opportunity of considering those tables. It is reported that the tables are ready. Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer see his way to circulate those tables?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter later on, I do not wish to press the Amendment. I think he does agree that, supposing the table of reserve values is not brought up to date and you have an obsolete table of reserve values, it is obvious that the women's society will suffer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite accept that statement.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. POLLOCK: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for certain information? I do so because I find great difficulty in following the Sub-sections which appear in the White Paper as (9), (10), and (11) and on the Amendment Paper as (6), (7), and (8). I want to know what (8) on the Amendment Paper means. It says: "Where a deficiency has been found in respect to the society or branch of which a woman is a member that a valuation previous to the time when she became suspended from ordinary benefits," etc. I understand these words cover a lodge or a society which may be comprised of both men and women. At any rate it does not refer to lodges in which men are segregated and women are segregated. If I understood the answer of the Under-Secretary to the Home Department, he said that the deficiency would have to be ascertained by taking the men and the women who are insured separately. Then the Clause goes on to say that if that
    1088
    deficiency has not been made good at the time of her marriage, then the adjustments in the sums transferred to the married women's suspense account and the balance of her transfer value, and so on, shall be made as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe. It is to be noticed that in Sub-section (6) on the Amendment Paper, that if at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed upon it by this Section, the deficiency shall be made good out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners. Primâ facie if you read (6) and (8) on the same Paper, it would not seem to be necessary, even if there were a deficiency in respect to the married women's suspense account, to readjust the one-third and the two-thirds. The one-third of her surrender value is to be kept in abeyance so as to enable her to come back ultimately as an employed contributor, while the two-thirds is kept and carried to a separate fund in which she gets reduced benefit. The two questions I ask are these, Do these paragraphs have the effect, when there is a deficiency found in a society, although the person herself may not have contributed to it at all, or may not be responsible for it, of defining the deficiency as meaning a separate deficiency of the man or woman, and, if so, are not some words necessary to make that clear? Lastly, is not the question of the women's suspense account already sufficiently dealt with in (6)?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The two deficiencies are quite different accounts. The one in (6), which I explained when I spoke first this evening, is a deficiency where the one-third, which is retained for the purpose of insuring the right of re-entry, turns out to be inadequate. It is then proposed that the deficiency in that account shall be placed on the general sinking fund. Sub-section (6) deals purely with that. Sub-section (8) deals with a special deficiency in the case of a particular society where that society is insolvent. Then there are general provisions in cases of that kind for a levy or reduced benefits. If a man belongs to a society which has any deficiency, then a man's transfer value is not as high as if it were a solvent society. We simply prescribe the same rule with regard to a married woman. The two deficiencies are quite different.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Is it not necessary to have some words referring to this deficiency in (8) in order to show that that deficiency is to arise not merely from the

    1089
    general account of the lodge in which there are mixed men and women, but a deficiency in respect of the portion which should be allocated actuarily to the woman? I understood the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to say that these deficiencies were to be calculated actuarily and in separate departments.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I point out that the question will arise when tie Government put down their words dealing with the important question of the separation of men and women.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has time, I should be glad if he would read the last Sub-section and then suggest to the draftsman that he should couch it in more simple language. The preposition "in" seems to be lacking, while the last sentence seems to have been fetched from Germany and not quite put into English ground.
    Original Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (10) of the Clause (as proposed to be amended) leave out the words "who is legally separated from her husband by divorce or otherwise" and insert instead thereof the words, "whose marriage has been dissolved or annulled, or who has for a period of not less than three years been actually separated from or deserted by her husband."
    Leave out the words "separation took effect" and insert instead thereof the words "dissolution or annulment took effect, or as the case may require at the expiration of such period of two years."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. POLLOCK: I should like to ask what we have really done? Does anyone completely understand the scheme? I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer does, and I consider him a very happy man, but does any other man completely follow out what has been done in respect of Clause 34? Under these circumstances must there not be some opportunity of knowing and considering whether this question has been sufficiently dealt with, and also an opportunity of considering, when our Constituents have got some sort of inkling of what has been done, whether or not this Clause sufficiently meets the cases that ought to be included in it? Everyone has paid a compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I desire
    1090
    to join in any compliments which are flying about in the sense that a great deal of skill has been shown, but I should like to reserve my right to criticise this Clause when I do fully understand it, because, like many other persons inside and outside the House, at present I have a very hazy notion of what it does include, and I desire to associate myself with those who also desire to reserve their full criticisms when they really understand the Clause.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Some such observations as those of my hon. Friend really were required before we part from this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of what man did when he got a headache. If any man wants to find out what he has to do when he has a headache he has only to try and understand this Clause. After an afternoon's work, I can say from personal experience that he will be very near having a headache if he has not actually got one. I think everyone who has given attention to that feels that the proposals which are now embodied in the Bill are a great improvement on the Bill as it originally stood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has worked it out, and other people have worked it out, and the scheme is undoubtedly very much better, but this is not legislation by the House of Commons, and we had better not pretend that it is. There is not one man in 100 in the House of Commons who knows what the Clause is, or could give an intelligible account now, if called upon to do so, of what would be the result of our afternoon's work. If it is a good Clause, it is a Clause made outside the House. The House has not had an opportunity to consider the proposals of the Government fairly, to put alternative proposals if they desire it, or fully to measure what the effect of those proposals will be. That is the misfortune of trying to discuss a Bill of this complication and of this difficulty under the conditions in which we are now placed.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Special Provisions as to Aliens.)
    (1) This part of this Act shall apply to persons over the age of sixteen at the date of entry into insurance who are not British subjects, subject to the following modifications:—

    (a) No such person shall be qualified to become a member of an approved society for the purposes of this part of this Act;

    1091

    (b) No part of the benefits to which such persons may become entitled shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;

    (c) The rate of sickness, disablement, and maternity benefit shall be reduced, in the case of men, to seven-ninths, or in the case of women to three-quarters of the rate to which they would otherwise be entitled under this part of this Act;

    (d) No part of the sums payable in respect of such persons for medical benefit and sanatorium benefit or towards the expenses of administration of benefits shall in the case of such persons be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

    (2) For the purposes of this section a widow who, having been a British subject before marriage, has ceased to be a British subject by reason of marriage with a person not being a British subject, shall be deemed to be a British subject.
    (3) This section shall not apply to any person who is transferred to an approved society or the Post Office Fund in pursuance of an arrangement with the Government of any foreign State.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "over the age of sixteen at the date of entry into insurance." I move this in order to get an explanation from the Government as to why those words are inserted. I daresay they have a very good reason, but on the face of the Bill it is not clear why they should be there.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The point is extremely simple. It is not intended that the special provisions which apply to aliens should apply to such aliens if they are under the age of sixteen. It is that alien children under sixteen, who are in employment are probably qualified for citizenship. For that reason, the special provisions otherwise applied to aliens, it is not proposed to apply to them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out the words "British subjects" ["who are not British subjects"], and to insert instead thereof the words "domiciled in the United Kingdom."
    I submit that this distinction between British subjects is not a fair one, and is
    1092
    not right, and is contrary to true policy. Of course, by the Amendments and alterations which have been made in Clause 8, a British subject who is not domiciled in this country is prevented from getting any benefit of any substance whatever, so that substantially almost the only case which can be considered is that of an alien permanently resident in this country. The words I propose do not mean a mere passing residence, but a person who has set up his home in this country, and who, without absolutely becoming naturalised, has fixed his lares and penates in this country and has settled down to make his permanent home amongst us. It is very unfair that a man in that category should be in any way exempted from the advantages of the Bill. After all, such a man is, just as much as any British citizen, paying his taxes and contributing to the Government share of the money which has to be paid under the Bill, and surely in the name of justice the question you have to ask yourselves when you are deciding whether a man shall or shall not have the full benefit of the Bill is, "does he make a full contribution to the Bill?" A foreigner domiciled in this country is paying every penny that a British subject pays. He is paying his share as an employé, and his employer is paying the full contribution for him. I cannot see on what grounds of justice it can be pretended that this person ought not to receive the full benefits of the Bill.
    It is suggested that he ought to have taken the trouble to get naturalised, and that he ought to go to the expense of getting naturalised. Possibly he ought to submit to what is to almost everybody, certainly to an Englishman, the mortification of indefinitely abandoning his own nationality. It is very curious that any one who holds that view could support Sub-section (2) of this Clause which stipulates that a British woman who has deliberately and for her own purposes abandoned her nationality and become a foreigner, is not to be excluded from the Act. Surely it is rather inconsistent to say that when a man comes to England and makes his home here he is to be penalised, and that his wife, if married in this country, is to suffer no penalty. That seems to me really absurd, and I cannot see on what ground of justice the distinction can be made. This Clause would probably be of much more importance if they were going to be treated as would appear from the wording of the Bill, but I understand that some arrangements are being

    1093
    made for the treatment of seamen which are at present unknown to us. I am informed that when these arrangements are known this Clause will not have any particular effect on the position of seamen. I submit that it is not right that British subjects not domiciled in this country should be led to suppose that there is to be a distinction between them and Lascar seamen and Chinese seamen. There is no distinction between a British subject and a foreigner as regards benefit, and nevertheless I am certain that any person would think on reading the Clause that the British subject was going to get some advantage compared with the foreigner. Therefore I submit there is no justification for making this distinction. The words "British subjects" ought to come out of the Clause, and the question of British domicile should determine whether people are to receive the full benefits under the Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend desires that if an alien is domiciled in this country he should be treated for all the purposes of the Bill exactly as if he were a British subject. Well, the Bill, as a matter of fact, deals I think not ungenerously with aliens. They will be allowed, as my hon. Friend knows, to join approved societies. They will get the benefit of their employer's contribution as well as their own, and really the only difference between what he proposes and what is in the Bill is that no alien will be entitled to receive the State contribution of 2d. unless he becomes naturalised and throws in his lot with us. I do not think that the Committee will regard it as an unreasonable distinction to draw. If an alien comes to this country at any age and becomes a British subject by a process which is not difficult or costly, he will then become entitled to the full benefits of this measure, but I do think we are entitled to ask that he should become a British subject before he receives the special assistance which the State offers. As I have said, he will get all the other advantages. He will be in a position to join an approved society, and if he subsequently becomes naturalised he will then be able to obtain all the benefits of the Bill. I do not think that it can be regarded as harsh treatment if the Committee decides that an alien should become naturalised before obtaining the whole benefits. My hon. Friend has referred to the case of seamen. There will be an Amendment placed on the Paper dealing with the special case of seamen,
    1094
    and I can assure him that in that respect his arguments will be taken into serious account.
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer of the Home Secretary is unfavourable to the Amendment, and I confess that I should like to know a little more clearly before I vote in favour of the Amendment what is meant by domicile. I want to vote in favour of an Amendment which will give the benefits of the Bill to the alien who has thrown in his lot with us to all intents and purposes, although he has not become naturalised. I want to vote in favour of that man being admitted to the full rights under the Bill. But I do not know whether, if I vote in favour of the hon. Member's Amendment, I should be voting in favour of a man who has been resident only a comparatively short time in the country. Therefore I want to know what is the legal interpretation of domicile. I can see at once that a man who has lived in this country for a period of five years and upwards has given very strong evidence of his intention to throw in his lot with us. You may say, "Why does he not become naturalised?" To start with there is a fee to be paid, but I am told on very good authority that that is not by any means the only stumbling block. The Home Secretary stated that it is a matter of no particular difficulty or expense to be naturalised in this country, but I am assured that although the examination they have to pass may be described as a fairly easy one, in point of actual practice it is really difficult. I am assured that a considerable number of aliens are prevented becoming naturalised every year solely on account of the difficulty of the examination they have to pass.
    I do not see why we should expect a greater literary standard from those who become naturalised than we expect from people of our own nationality, and I do not see why we should expect people who wish to become naturalised—people who come here at the age of twenty, thirty, or forty—to pass examinations which many of our own people of the same age could not pass either. I am entirely in favour of there being a certain test and certain fees to be paid, because we are naturally proud of our nationality and do not wish to make access too easy. At the same time we do not want to make it too difficult. I mention that by way of illustration of the difficulty which some people find in the way of becoming naturalised. Why should aliens who have lived among us five years

    1095
    or more, who pay the same taxes we pay, and discharge practically all the same duties of citizenship that we discharge, not be included in the full membership this Bill proposes to create? I cannot understand it. I can understand a man who takes a blind and prejudiced view saying, "Under no circumstances whatever will we admit any alien to the benefits of this Bill." I can understand a man who is actuated solely by prejudice. But when we reflect that aliens are actually paying their proportionate share of the contribution the State is going to give to members of our own nationality, then I am bound to say that you have practical evidence of their intention to throw in their lot with us, and I cannot see why we should deny them access to the full scope of the proposals. As already indicated, I do not know whether I can vote for the hon. Gentleman's Amendment or not, not knowing what the precise meaning of domicile is; but what I have said will make it plain that if I do not vote for this Amendment I can vote for an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans).
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: I find myself very much in the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) in not being able to ascertain exactly what is meant by domicile. Personally I must take exception to the remark of the Home Secretary that the terms on which an alien or foreigner can be naturalised are easy. They would have been easy if his predecessor in office had fulfilled the promises made to a certain number of my co-religionists as to reducing the fee when he contested North-West Manchester. I hope that my right hon. Friend now that he occupies the same position will move in that direction. I believe that aliens or people who have taken up their residence amongst us who have shown themselves good citizens, who have passed physical tests as regards their health, would be desirable as members of approved societies, and there is no reason for not giving them that benefit and also giving them State assistance. In fact, I believe that it is generally admitted that a good many members who are regarded as aliens may be looked on as some of the best lives which a great many of the approved societies would be ready to take. We all know that these aliens are temperate, that they lead sanitary lives and spend more money
    1096
    on solid than on liquid food. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tower Hamlets, or even one not so strict as that. I feel myself very doubtful whether I will be justified in supporting the Amendment, which is rather vague, of my hon. Friend.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. WARD: I would just point out another danger with reference to this matter. I remember quite well the discussion on the Workmen's Compensation Act in this House in 1906 when a similar proposition was debated. The question was whether aliens should be entitled to the protection of the compensation laws when working on the works or in the factories of the country, the same as British subjects. It was eventually decided that it should apply to foreigners working in this country just the same as to other workmen. This is exactly the same question in principle. Therefore I would like to point out one of the dangers that arise if we tamper in any way with the proposition contained in the introduction to this Clause, which says that this part of this Act shall apply to persons over the age of sixteen at the age of entry into insurance who are not British subjects, and the modifications that go on give things that can be dealt with when we are at the stage to deal with them. We are now deciding whether practically this part of the Insurance Bill shall apply to persons resident in this country who are British subjects. You will be placing the whole alien portion of the community at a very serious disadvantage if you do not make the law apply almost entirely the same to those who are not British subjects as to those who are. I can quite imagine many cases of employers in various kinds of work who, if you ventured to say that there was some way by which if they employed foreigners they could get out of the provisions of this Act, would have a tendency to give employment to foreigners in preference to British subjects. Once you decide that the employer must pay the same, and that the workman must pay the same, I do not see how you can do otherwise than decide that if they pay the same they ought to reap the same benefit. I feel certain we should be doing an injury to our own workmen in this country if we did not insist upon the foreign workman resident here having exactly the same working conditions as ourselves.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I rise to oppose this Amendment. For once I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke. If you want to make a certain provision it ought not to be here, because this, as he says, applies to persons who are not British subjects. If you want to modify it at all it should be done under one of the sub-Clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has put down an Amendment which does that in the right place. I oppose this Amendment because it is to leave out "British subjects" and insert "domiciled in the United Kingdom." It is some time since I had to know as a matter of daily bread and butter what "domiciled" is. The law I believe is that a man is domiciled here if he comes over here with the intention of remaining. How on earth is it possible, even for the almighty Insurance Commissioners, to inquire into the intentions of a man who is living over here? It is quite impossible. But there is a real grievance which is contained in the whole Clause as it stands now that it interferes with unnaturalised foreigners, who have resided for very many years in this country and who are members of friendly societies. It would not be proper for me now to discuss this question. I have an Amendment on that subject, and, besides, it would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. But this particular Amendment is, as the hon. Member for Stoke says, in the wrong place, and whether it is out of place or not it seems to me to be thoroughly bad, and I will vote against it.
    Mr. STUART SAMUEL: I speak on behalf of a conference of Jewish friendly societies, representing between 30,000 and 40,000 members, held recently to consider this question. Very considerable numbers, probably about two-thirds of the societies, are not of British nationality. The Home Secretary rightly says that the aliens should cast in their lot with the rest of the nation. Nobody is more anxious to cast in their lot with the rest of the nation than the aliens themselves. If the Home Secretary makes citizenship of this country depend upon their residence here, and upon respectability of character, I think he may be assured that a considerable number of aliens will be reckoned, as is desired, amongst the respectable citizens of the country. But when the right hon. Gentleman comes to impose upon the workmen the practically impossible test of providing a money payment, which,
    1098
    together with the fees, amounts to between £7 and £10, and, in addition to that, imposes a test as to literacy which is not imposed upon the native-born workman, I think he throws difficulties in the way of the very object which he has in view. The Government, by imposing this money test, will deprive alien workmen of the benefits to which he is entitled with the rest of the inhabitants of the country, because the alien workman is poor and unable to provide the money the Government proposes to make him pay. I have nothing to quarrel with in its being required that the alien should be fairly well acquainted with the language of the country to which he proposes to belong when he has to exercise the vote and in other ways to interfere with the affairs of the country. But naturalisation has nothing to do with insurance against sickness, even though the man is an alien, and is unable to provide £5, or has not got £5. He is just as likely to be a burden on this country if not insured as any other individual. Sickness knows nothing about reading or writing English. The illiterate are just as liable to sickness as anyone else. Nevertheless, the Government imposes upon the alien tests which would deprive him of the benefits of the Act while professing to be anxious that he should throw in his lot with the general members of the community. The real fact of the matter is that the Government will not facilitate the aliens to throw in their lot with the general lot of the country. I will go further, and say that the test that is put in regard to reading and writing is an extremely unfair one. I know an instance in which an alien was requested to write to dictation the Section of the Act which refers to the naturalisation of aliens. A skilled lawyer might possibly be able to do so, but I would say that the average workman would certainly not be able to write out the legal phraseology of the Act. So long as the Government impose the test of respectability upon foreigners in this country there is nothing to be said against their proposal, but as soon as they impose a highly literary test, and a large monetary test in addition, they, as it were, put up the citizenship of this country to auction. I would suggest that no monetary equivalent can be compared to citizenship of this country. It ought not to be a question of money, but of respectability and longstanding in this country.
    Mr. DUKE: As was said just now, there is great difficulty in determining the

    1099
    question of domicile. Apparently, in the case of persons who are to be qualified by reason of domicile under the proposed Amendment, it will be necessary in a great many cases to ascertain whether a man was domiciled or not. As lawyers know, you cannot have a more difficult or more uncertain inquiry. For my own part, I could not vote for the Amendment, but I feel a difficulty with regard to the words proposed to be contained in the Section. I cannot help thinking with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) that you cannot discriminate between workman and workman on the question of citizenship or naturalisation. With regard to citizenship, a great number of estimable people are bearing the burdens of life in this country who could not possibly become naturalised. The right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Bar, and has practised at the Bar, will remember quite well what stringent conditions are contained in the Naturalisation Act of 1870 which governs the matter. It is quite impossible that the larger proportion of these workpeople who are dealt with by the disqualifying Sub-section here could possibly qualify themselves by becoming British subjects. If you take the working classes generally, I think you will find that probably ninety-nine out of a hundred of the working-classes who are born abroad, or are not British subjects by inheritance, would not be in a position to get themselves naturalised. That will not do. I could not vote for the Amendment, but I have great difficulty about these words in the Section.
    I want to mention to the right hon. Gentleman another question which arises with regard to the matter of aliens, and which I do not find dealt with elsewhere in the Act, and in regard to which there will be very great practical difficulty. It really is a matter apart from the Amendment which I desire to present to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. There is a very large class of persons who will come within the definition of persons employed under paragraph (a) of Part I. of the First Schedule whom I cannot conceive it is intended to make subject to the operation of this Act. I refer to the large number of seamen, some of them British subjects, a considerable proportion British subjects, but also a considerable proportion who are not British subjects, who serve upon ships registered under the British flag, who are from time to time in the Port of London, who from the circumstances
    1100
    of their calling and the conditions of their employment could never receive any benefit under this Act, yet who are included within the operation of the Act as matters stand at the present time. I think that technically I am in order in mentioning this subject of the retention of the words limiting the operation of the Bill with respect to nationality or otherwise, and I should really like to know for the information of persons who have a large concern in this matter what the Government propose to do in regard to Lascar seamen and other seamen of that class who are employed on ships sailing under the British flag, ships registered in Great Britain.
    Some of them come from British Possessions in India, some from Natal, some from the West Coast of Africa. They are a very mixed body of men, and practically the whole of them are comprised within the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which makes these provisions quite inapplicable. There are regulations which are administered by the Board of Trade, which make it quite unnecessary to include this Clause for British subjects or foreigners who are within the protection of that Act. The effect of the Bill—I cannot doubt it has been brought to the notice of the Department by those who employ very great numbers of these men—will be to require a contribution in respect of each of these men—a contribution from the man himself and a contribution from the employer. The sailor will be deprived, from the circumstances of his employment, from getting the benefit. It is quite evident that a very large class of people is included in the Bill very much to the confusion of those who employ them, and who are perplexed to know what is going to happen in their case; first of all, whether they are to pay, and, secondly, how they are going to secure benefits for these men when they arrive in England. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: The point put by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) is one which, of course, will have the sympathy of the Committee. Let me assure him at once that an Amendment has been promised, and will be placed in due time on the Paper, dealing with the special case of the seamen. It is quite obvious that the provisions of the Bill as it stands now would not be altogether appropriate to that class. As to this particular Amendment, I hope it will not be pressed. I

    1101
    think it ought to be, without going into the general question, sufficient to point out that the difficulties would be in the way of interpreting the word "domicile." I have here the best legal definition I could find, and in it the domicile of a person is described as being:—
    "That place or country in which his habitation is fixed without any present intention of removing there-from."
    You have to be satisfied not of what is in a man's mind, but of what is not in his mind. The Commissioners would have to make sure that the alien had no present intention of removing from the country. I think the Committee would agree that it could not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment upon that basis. I really think that the Committee are not doing justice to the Bill as it will be if the Committee accept the Amendments which are on the Paper in the name of the Government. With those Amendments accepted, the position will be this: The alien under the age of sixteen will be treated as a British subject. The alien over the age of sixteen will be able to become a member of an approved society, and to receive as a member of the approved society seven-ninths of the benefits which a British subject would obtain. But the Amendments of the Government propose to go even further than that. If at any time such an alien hereafter becomes naturalised he will be credited with the full reserve due to him, and come into insurance on the full basis of a British subject. We are offering an inducement to the alien to become naturalised. We tell him, "not only will you receive in future the full benefit, but you will get the full benefit of the reserve which will be credited to you."
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is his object in getting aliens to get themselves naturalised?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman had been here and heard the very able speeches delivered in the course of the last three-quarters of an hour he would have found ample reasons. I see the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) looking, I expect, to see whether my words are justified. Let me tell him that this long Amendment in the name of the Government will be moved in a slightly altered form, which will justify to the full the statement I have made. It escaped my memory for the moment.
    Mr. HUNT: When was the alteration made?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not an alteration in intention, it is more in the nature of an alteration in drafting.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it an alteration?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is an alteration.
    Mr. HUNTrose.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to a speech which he may make later on.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is the provision as to the alien. I do not think my hon. Friend, who is a great authority on this subject, quite did justice to the naturalisation law. I have only had the honour of holding my present office for a very few days, but much of the time that I have held that office has been devoted to signing certificates of naturalisation.
    An HON. MEMBER: Not of workpeople.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I am told that the large increase in the number of applicants for naturalisation—I cannot speak for it—but I am told it is due to the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act. If that be the case, and persons who have not hitherto been naturalised become so owing to the passing of that Act, I think the difficulties to which my hon. Friend alluded will not be quite so great as he thinks. There may be other reasons why they have not naturalised besides want of money and want of sufficient education. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, and on the general subject that the Committee will take into consideration the whole of the advantages which are offered, and will not run away with the notion that the proposal as it stands is ungenerous.
    Mr. HOLT: I think what has been said about the word domicile is rather more theoretical than practical, and in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment I hope the hon. Member for Salisbury will persist in his. I do not in the least understand this extraordinary desire to induce the alien to become naturalised, as the only effect of it is to have a vote and enable them to become jurors.
    Mr. AMERY: I should like to refer to the point raised in the Amendment, but before doing so may I give expression to the interest and astonishment with which I have listened to speech after speech on this subject, while not a single Member referred to the fact

    1103
    that in Part II. of the Bill there is no restriction or distinction between the British subject and the alien whatever. Part II. begins by saying every workman, in every part, of the world, I suppose, is to receive certain benefits. It is worded too widely, and would I think, in its present form, extend to the Colonies. Thus there is no distinction whatever there in a case where the State contribution of 2½d. is very much larger than the two-ninths. I agree entirely with the hon. Member as to when we admit an alien. I do think we ought to be as strict as possible in the test of admission, but it is common fairness and common justice that if he pays the same contribution and the same share of State taxation, that out of the two-ninths he ought to get the same benefit. On the question of domicile, it is true that it is a very difficult matter to establish in law. But supposing a man does not intend to remain domiciled. He goes abroad and leaves the balance of his contribution in the funds of the approved society. He is not doing an injustice to the scheme or to the country. In that case the difficulty solves itself. With regard to the question of naturalisation, I have in the last few years in two cases come across curious instances of the difficulties attending the problem. Three years ago I was defeated by a narrow margin of votes by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. I ascertained that there was a very considerable number of aliens who had never become naturalised, who had, as a matter of fact, been on the register, never realising that they were not British subjects, and had voted at election after election. A large number of aliens have a sort of idea that if they remain here long enough they naturalise automatically. It is true that the standards of restriction on naturalisation have been enormously stiffened of recent years. Recently I was called upon by a detective, or an official, who told me that my name had been given as a reference by an undergraduate at Oxford, who, having reached his majority, wished to become naturalised. He made certain inquiries about this young man, whom I had known since he was a small boy. I asked why the inquiries were so strict, and he referred to certain outrages in the East End, and other matters. Some weeks afterwards the young man called upon me, and I had to sign a number of complicated documents before a commissioner of oaths. The young man told me that, in addition, he had had to get a number of inquiries
    1104
    answered by the headmaster of Charterhouse where he attended as a boy. The headmaster did not understand many of the searching inquiries put to him and answered them entirely wrongly, and the young man had to go down with a lawyer to explain how the matter stood. If the matter is so complicated in the case of a young man who has attended an English public school and a university, it must be much more complicated and difficult for a working man earning 18s. or 20s. a week, who perhaps does not understand the English language very well. It would be much simpler to follow the precedent of the second part of the Bill and draw no distinction whatever. In practice I do not think the question of domicile would raise any difficulty, but I should much prefer the Amendment standing in my own name suggesting the omission of the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "modifications" ["subject to the following modifications"], to insert the words—
    "If he has resided in the United Kingdom for less than five years he shall be entitled to become a member of an approved society, but the benefits payable to him shall be adjusted so that he will not receive any part of the moneys voted by Parliament.
    "If he has resided in the United Kingdom for five years or more he shall be entitled to become a member of an approved society receiving the full benefits of this part of this Act, allowance being made either by temporary increase of subscription or reduction of benefits for the sickness risks appropriate to his age of entry into insurance.
    "Provided that in computing such increased subscriptions or reduced benefits full allowance shall be made for any transfer value arising from his transference from partial to full membership in accordance with this section."
    One of the strongest arguments in favour of this Amendment is the statement that aliens are included in Part II. of the Bill. I hope the Government will consider the Amendment favourably. It seems to me extraordinarily hard that no matter how long they are resident, no matter how high their character, no matter how good their health, persons who are not naturalised are excluded from the chief privileges of the Bill. Some

    1105
    hon. Members may think that if the Amendment were accepted it would go a certain way towards encouraging immigration. They may also think that public funds ought not to be given to persons who are not naturalised British subjects. After all, if the Amendment is accepted the State contribution will be only 8s. per head per annum, and that 8s. will be raised from taxation to which these non-Britishers will have contributed. I do not think that 8s. per head would be at all likely to lure immigrants to this country. A very large number of people will be adversely affected if the Clause passes as it stands. In London alone there are over 300 small friendly societies amongst the Jews, with an aggregate membership of over 40,000, of whom from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent., or more than 30,000 are non-British subjects who would be excluded from the scope of the Bill. Outside London you have many Jewish courts among the Foresters, and Jewish branches in the Manchester Unity and other orders, a very large proportion of the members of which are undoubtedly of foreign origin and not naturalised British subjects. There are also a great many non-Jewish aliens who are making provision at present for sickness insurance under the authority of the Friendly Societies Act. I agree with the hon. Member opposite in thinking that there ought not to be any differentiation of persons according to nationality, and that we ought to do our utmost to remove that sort of differentiation. An hon. Member has already referred to the anomaly that would be created by having two men working side by side, one of whom would be regarded as fit and the other as unfit for insurance. There would naturally be a considerable stigma upon the latter.
    My Amendment proposes to limit the application of the restrictions in this Clause to aliens who have resided here for less than five years, that is to say the minimum period of residence which qualifies a person to become a British subject will be the minimum period to qualify a person for the chief privileges of the Bill. I think that period might be accepted as the period rendering an alien eligible for insurance. The cost would not really be at all great. There are about 300,000 aliens in this country at present. The Government actuaries estimate that rather less than one-third of the population will be eligible to become employed contributors under the national scheme. Having regard to the fact that
    1106
    among aliens, as compared with the general population, there is a larger proportion of males, that the proportion of adults is much larger, and that the proportion following the casual occupations exempted from the Bill is much smaller, it is fair to assume that about one-half of the alien population will become eligible. That would give 150,000 aliens eligible for insurance. Consequently the cost to the State would be about £50,000 a year. It is highly probable that the cost would be a good deal less than that, because the sickness experience of aliens is certainly superior to that of other classes of the community, for two reasons. It is not due to superior stamina, but really to the fact that on the whole aliens follow less hazardous trades and are more sober in their habits. The experience of certain large Jewish societies in this country amply prove that statement.
    I do not think I would be in order in discussing the Government Amendment, but I feel that there are a great many things to be said against that Amendment. I would like to adduce one more argument in favour of my Amendment. The great friendly orders at present existing, I think, would benefit enormously by the preservation of their alien members as insured employed contributors under the scheme, because it would mean that there would be an infusion of a very large element whose sickness rate is below the average. In fact these foreign members would be really returning to their non-Jewish members increased rates considerably more than the State contribution. I hope that hon. Members will really consider this favourably. I believe there are several Members on the opposite side of the House who wish to see the Amendment carried, and I certainly think it ought to be pressed to a Division.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member's Amendment is in a very great measure met by the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member divides the aliens into two classes, those who have been resident in the country less than five years and those who have been resident for more than five years. With regard to the first class he proposes to deal with them not as generously as they will be dealt with by the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    Mr. HOHLER: To what Amendment does the right hon. Gentleman refer?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Amendment providing "that any such person may become a member of an approved society." With regard to the second class, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury proposes to deal more generously than my right hon. Friend. The difference between the two Amendments is this: the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury proposes that after five years residence the alien shall be treated as a British subject, and in treating him as a British subject he proposes to give him the full benefit of the reserve. My right hon. Friend, on the contrary, proposes that if, after any period of residence less than five or more than five years, an alien becomes a British subject, and, of course, takes the Oath of Allegiance—a factor which has been entirely overlooked in the discussion so far—he will get all the benefits which the hon. Gentleman proposes, and, in addition would be credited with reserve value. Is it too much to ask that the alien who enjoys the hospitality of this country for five years, under the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite, should be invited to take the Oath of Allegiance before he gets the additional benefit? If the alien is young, and comes in under the age of sixteen we treat him as a British subject. We give him all the benefits of the Bill throughout life because we assume he has come in under the age of sixteen with the intention of settling. With the alien that comes into this country later in life it is not unreasonable that he should be limited to the seven-ninths' benefit until he has made up his mind to take the Oath of Allegiance. That is the difference between the two Amendments, except that the hon. Member opposite agrees with the Government for the first five years, and disagrees for the second five years. Under the circumstances I hope the Committee will be favourable to the Amendment of the Government rather than that of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. FORSTER: I should very much like to know what the Amendment is that the right hon. Gentleman refers to?
    Mr. McKENNA: A correction will be made in Sub-section (4) when the time comes. The Chancellor will propose it in this form:—
    "Such persons shall not be deemed to have joined an approved society for the purpose of the provision of this part of the Bill relating to reserve values.…"
    1108
    I am informed that the effect of these words is to give to the alien who becomes naturalised the benefit of the reserve.
    Mr. FORSTER: We have to take it from the Home Secretary that the effect which he has named will be the effect of the form of words proposed. I wonder why we could not have had those words on the Paper. The question of the alien is the same at the end of October as it was at the end of June. Why do not the Government put their Amendments on the Paper in time for Members of the House to acquaint themselves with them? It is not dealing fairly with Members. There is a very large number of aliens who have been living in this country for a great many years. Their case is not touched. I had the advantage of receiving a deputation from some of the Jewish approved societies, and they gave me figures showing that a large proportion of their membership are men who have been living in this country for a long time. Their average age of membership is very considerably higher than the average of the membership of a British friendly society. Are you going to insist on men who have lived in this country twenty, thirty, and forty years, taking out naturalisation papers in order to get the benefits of this Act? I cannot see the justice of such a proposal. It is only fair that you should admit men who have been members of friendly societies for twenty or thirty years paying exactly the same taxes that members of our own community have to pay to the full privileges of this scheme. I think we ought to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If the Committee refuse to accept that Amendment, and if the Government are strong enough to impose upon the Committee the Amendment of which they have given notice, then I think they ought to add to it a proviso that aliens who were members of friendly societies on 4th May, when this Bill was introduced, ought to be admitted to the full privileges of the Bill. Personally I prefer the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, and I hope the Government will accept it.
    Mr. AMERY: The Home Secretary says the scheme of the Government gives more to the aliens than the Amendment of my hon. Friend. As a matter of fact it leaves out of consideration a very large class who would be benefited by the Amendment of my hon. Friend and would not come into the scheme of the Government. Take the case of the alien child brought into this

    1109
    country when two or three years of age, many years ago. When this Act comes into force, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted such person would be entitled to the full benefits of the scheme, having been more than five years in the country. Under the proposal of the Government he must wait until he becomes of age. Therefore, I submit that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is very much better than that suggested by the Government. There is another class of aliens also, not taken into account at all. They are not very numerous but they are an important class, namely, those people who have been naturalised in other parts of the British Dominions, but who, as the law stands at present, are aliens when they come into this country. Are we to prevent a Canadian or a South African who comes to this country, after he has become naturalised as a child in Canada or South Africa getting the benefit of the scheme? Are we to compel him to wait for the scheme of the Government, or even for the scheme of my hon. Friend? I think that is a great anomaly. Personally, I think the only satisfactory solution would be to delete the whole Clause, but as that is not likely to be done, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HOHLER: I find some difficulty in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend because I am wholly opposed to this Clause. As I understand the Bill, the position of these aliens at the present moment is this. If they happen to be members of approved societies they will suffer great injustice, because they will lose the advantages given by approved societies with reserved balances to their members. If an approved society has admitted an alien to its ranks, why should he not receive the same benefits as any other members of that approved society? The difficulties in regard to approved societies will be exceedingly great. Approved societies may have among their members persons who are aliens, and the approved society may be entirely ignorant of that fact. The result would be that an approved society would receive no reserve value in regard to these particular members. It seems to me that is an injustice. If any approved society took upon itself to admit aliens to its ranks, and make them members of their society, why should not the State accept the same obligation and burden with regard to them as to other members? This question of reserve
    1110
    balances only arises in regard to members of approved societies, and it can only arise if they enter into insurance within six months. The result, therefore, is that this distinction drawn between British subjects and aliens is a wrong one, and I think it would be far simpler to treat everyone, whether British subject or alien, on the same footing. It is to be borne in mind that it is for the approved society to determine whether a man becomes a Member. It is exceedingly important for trade unions in regard to skilled artisans and so on, and it is equally important for friendly societies. If a man does not become a member of a friendly society he becomes a deposit contributor and the Government are not called upon to pay anything except this two-ninths of hypothetical benefit. I therefore fail to see the justice of this Clause, and for that reason I am unable to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because I disapprove of the Clause root and branch.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to point out a reason, which has not been referred to either in the discussion of this or the last Amendment, why my hon. Friend's Amendment should be accepted. The whole scheme of this Bill is to try and improve people's health as far as possible in order that we may remove conditions of misfortune and dangers of sickness existing in our midst. The cleavage is not, therefore, between aliens and those who are British subjects and domiciled over here, but the cleavage ought to be between persons who can, under the provisions of this Bill, make themselves better and more useful citizens, and less a danger to the State, and those who are, unfortunately, unable to do so. I do not think, when discussing this Bill, therefore, that the same line of argument applies as was suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke, who said the question was exactly the same as in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The question here is different. All persons resident here, British subjects or aliens, whose domicile is here, are persons who ought to come within the purview of this Bill, and if we are to limit pestilence and sickness, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speeches in this House referred, we ought to try and make the conditions of those persons resident here as good as possible, and give the benefit of this scheme to as many as the money under the Bill will enable us to do. On that ground it seems to me we

    1111
    ought to try and make the provisions such as will enable persons resident here to have the opportunity of becoming free from sickness and to enable them to take advantage of this Bill. On these grounds, on any question of division between aliens and British subjects, I desire to support the Bill.
    Sir C. HENRY(who was indistinctly heard, was understood to ask): How is it that no distinction was made in Part II. of the Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: Would not discussion of that come on more properly in connection with Part II.?
    Sir C. HENRY: I doubt very much whether there will be an opportunity, as it does not arise on Part II.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is mistaken. It would be open to any Member to move a Clause in Part II. dealing with aliens. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability on three separate occasions to explain the reason why we are dealing with aliens in this part of the Bill. I do not think I shall be called upon to explain why we do not make a distinction in Part II. of the Bill.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that he is dealing with two Bills, or rather two parts of a Bill which are "interdependent and inseparable." That is the description of the measure given by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Cabinet. One part of this Bill has been sent upstairs where the majority of us have no opportunity of hearing what is said or of taking part in the Debate. I think the Committee here is entitled to ask that there should be a statement by the Government of the reasons which caused them to introduce this marked distinction between insurance against unemployment and insurance against invalidity and sickness. This is not a demand which any Government would pretend to resist if they did not know that whether they remain silent or not the guillotine would fall and they will get their Clauses at 10.30. It is one of the misfortunes of the guillotine that a Minister can afford to treat the House with undisguised contempt and refuse information that he would not dare to refuse if the House had its ordinary liberty. I think this Clause, as drawn by the Government, leaves a
    1112
    great blot on the Bill, and it is a gross injustice to the men who are concerned. I also think it will do a great injury not only to those individuals, but to the community at large. There are great Jewish societies where a majority of the members are aliens, but those societies have exercised a great educational influence on the men belonging to the Jewish religion who have taken refuge here from other countries where they were not so happily situated.
    They have done much to encourage habits of thrift and self-sacrifice, and they have helped to keep their own people from becoming a charge on our local rates, as everybody who knows anything of their conduct is fully aware. But they have done more, for they have shown a great appreciation of what they owe to this country, and what their duty is towards the country which has given them a refuge. This Clause will strike a serious blow at those people. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment, and at any rate take the decision of the Committee as to whether these men are to be left to the tender mercies of a Government which issues its decrees, passes them into law with little discussion and less consideration, or whether they are to have the fair treatment which they have a right to expect.
    Mr. BRYCE: It is very satisfactory to those on this side of the Committee to find this newly-found sympathy and enthusiasm for the equality of aliens, but I must say that I sympathise with their arguments, and I think the Government would be very well advised if they would consider the doing away altogether with this distinction between aliens. I am perfectly certain that this provision will produce a great many complications in a very complicated Bill. There are a number of provisions to follow, and there are some very important Amendments, which I am sure will be very difficult to work. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that the distinctions drawn in this particular Clause are one of the greatest blots on the Bill.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. PETO: The hon. Member for Aberdeen seems to think there is something in this Amendment that has caused us suddenly to show sympathy with aliens. There is nothing sudden in that sympathy, and I am sure there is nothing in this Amendment which calls for any such remark. It certainly draws a marked distinction between those resident here for five years

    1113
    and those who have not been resident here for that period. I think that is the best possible line we can go on. What is the one and the main purpose of the whole of this Bill? We are told that it is to make provision for people in time of sickness, prevent them going down, and prevent them being absorbed in the Poor Law administration of this country. If an alien has been a resident for over a period of five years, are we going to pay any less or more if he has to go into the workhouse? I think this Amendment is drawn exactly on the right lines. It avoids the great difficulty of minute investigations in each individual case, and a kind of investigation that would not be undertaken in the case of an applicant for admission to the workhouse. Therefore, far from it being, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen put it, a case of newly-found sympathy for aliens, it is a matter of plain, practical common-sense, and whatever our views may be as to the ability of these aliens to earn their living at reasonable wages in this country, if they have been here five years it is not reasonable after that period to go into these minute investigations, and it is infinitely better to say, as this Amendment says, that five years' residence in this country qualifies them, at any rate as far as the provisions of this Bill go. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not wish to appear as having attached too much importance to anything that fell from my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman made a charge which was wholly unfounded, and had he been in the House during the course of the Debate I think he would have been the first to recognise that his charge was not warranted. This question has been discussed fairly on both sides, and it has not been suggested that the Government have been anxious to avoid any question, or that they have not been willing to meet the views of their critics. I have sat here and listened to the Debate, and I have been greatly impressed by the opinions expressed on both sides that more generous treatment should be accorded to aliens. It is not easy, as the hon. Member who moved this Amendment recognised, to treat every alien who comes here the first moment as a British subject. The hon. Member himself proposes a waiting period of five years. I may say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing, if the Committee will accept it as a reasonable
    1114
    settlement, to deal specially with those who at the passing of the Bill have been five years in this country. I think that meets the point of the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery). I would suggest the Committee should take the Government's Amendment on the Paper with the assurance that on Report an additional provision will be introduced recognising the special case of aliens who have been settled in the country for five years at the time of the passing of the Bill and who are already members of an approved society.
    An HON. MEMBER: They need not have been members of an approved society for five years?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no. They need not have been for all that period, but they must at the time of the passing of the Act be members of a society which becomes an approved society, and they must have been five years resident in this country.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I find myself in rather a difficult position. I do not know whether to vote for or against the Amendment. The difficulty in which I am placed is this: I will not give any advantage to any alien at all, but, if I am going to compel an alien to subscribe, then I do not see why he should be treated differently from anybody else. The right hon. gentleman is prepared to take the money of the alien, but he is not going to give him the benefits he gives to other people. Why introduce the alien at all? Why not leave him alone? If he likes to subscribe and make any provision for himself, he should be at liberty to do so, but why bring him under the Bill? If you do bring him under the Bill, why not treat him the same as anybody else? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to kindly relieve me of my embarrassment and endeavour to show me how I can vote so as to safeguard my opinions.
    Mr. CROOKS: I should not have intervened in this Debate at all except for a confession that has been made. I thought the game on that side of the House was always to make the foreigner pay. I do not quite understand what they are going to do with all that wonderful literature they have got about the foreigner and the alien taking the bread out of our people's mouths. I do not know, if the shades of Sir Evans Gordon was to come into the House, what he would say of hon. Gentlemen opposite now. "Give the alien

    1115
    the same chance as the Englishman!" Why, they have talked with tears in their voices of these people coming and taking the bread out of our mouths. I do not like it' a bit, and I am wondering what they are going to do when they face the people outside. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was certainly consistent, but it does not matter much what you do in the City—they all go one way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) waxed very eloquent about fair play for the foreigner. "Fair play for the foreigner!" What is to become of our own people? A fair and honest offer is made, and I agree with their arguments to-day. I have not altered my mind, but they have. Repentance is never too late.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not been able to listen to the hon. Member, having been otherwise engaged, and I am not in a position to reply to any observations he made. I should like, however, to make a reply to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Annan Bryce). I do not know what warrant he has for thinking anybody on this side of the House does not desire fair and just treatment for aliens. There have been great differences in this House as to the conditions which should govern the entrance of aliens, but I should have thought there would be no difference of opinion that, if you admit them you must treat them fairly when you have admitted them. The difference between us and the Government is that we did not think this was a fair way of treating them. If the alien laws are to be altered they should be altered in an Act purporting to deal with that matter. We ought not to alter the alien laws under the cover of an Insurance Bill, any more than we ought to alter the qualification of doctors or chemists, or any of the various people mentioned here. It is extremely difficult to realise what is meant by the proposal of the Home Secretary made across the floor of the House. Am I right that the Home Secretary proposes, on behalf of the Government, as a compromise for this stage of the Bill, at any rate that aliens who at the passing of the Act had been in the country for five years and were members of a society which becomes an approved society should stand in exactly the same position as if they were British subjects?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a very considerable advance beyond anything the Government has proposed before. I understand they put it forward as something they are willing to give if it is accepted as a compromise, but they are not going to propose it if my hon. Friend presses his more advanced proposal to a Division. I do not know exactly what my hon. Friend will feel upon the matter, but I confess I should be sorry in the circumstances in which we stand to take the responsibility of refusing so great a concession as that when the most I could hope to do would be to register my opinion that something ought to be done without the slightest prospect of getting it done. It is a great concession, and for my part I would take it as such, because it represents the best terms I can get. I should be sorry to jeopardise that advantage for these people by taking a Division which would be an expression of opinion that could not gain for them very much benefit. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will take the same view. It is a serious responsibility for anyone to refuse on behalf of these people a concession of that kind as insufficient when the only alternative probably is having regard to the attitude of the Government that they will get nothing at all.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In view of the very considerable concession made by the Government I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "modifications" to insert the words,
    "Any such person may require the Insurance Commissioners to pay from time to time to any provident society or fund of which he is a member, to be named by him and approved for this purpose by the Insurance Commissioners all sums received by them in contributions from such persons or from any employer in respect of such person."
    There are a number of aliens who, even with the arrangement which has been indicated, will be unfairly treated. There will be, first, the aliens who have not been here for five years, and there will also be those who, although they have been here for five years, are not members of a friendly society which is an approved society, and for whom the only alternative is to become

    1117
    a Post Office contributor or to join an approved society. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the advisability of permitting the alien workers' quota of the State Grant to be allocated to the funds of any society which for that purpose is approved by the Insurance Commissioners—not necessarily approved within the technical meaning of the Act, but approved for the purpose of receiving this grant.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Member will be prevailed on to withdraw this Amendment. It is really going over the same subject again. It is also urgent and necessary that I should be in a position to move the Amendment I have promised before Half-past Ten. What I propose, is to move to insert after Sub-section (3) these words—
    "This Section shall not apply to any person who, on the 4th day of May, 1911, was a member of a society which shall become an approved society and has been resident for five years in the United Kingdom."
    I understand that by the general agreement of the House this is a very wide concession to be made. It must be moved on the Committee stage; it cannot be brought in on the Report stage.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Can we have two Amendments before the Committee at once?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government between now and the Report stage will consider whether it is really necessary to compel the alien who is left out of the scheme to join an approved society within the meaning of this Act, and whether it will not be enough to say that he may have these contributions given to a society which is not necessarily an approved society, but which may be approved for this purpose? I withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. POLLOCKrose to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to add the words "but persons who are not British subjects, and who are members of approved societies at the time of the passing of this Act, may retain their membership and shall be entitled to seven-ninths of the benefits in the case of men and three-fourths of the benefits in the case of women."
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Member allow me to move the Amendment which the Government are proposing? It will give to the aliens more than the hon. Member proposes to give. If they are members of approved societies and have been resident in the United Kingdom for five years they will get all the benefits of the Bill and not merely seven-ninths as he proposes.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The right Gentleman is very courteous, but I do not understand Amendments which are verbally called out to me across the Table, and I do not appreciate them. I do enter a protest against this sort of Amendment and being asked to withdraw my Amendment without having had an opportunity, even during the last half-hour, of being able to consider the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary. If he had passed it across the floor one would have been able to see what it was. I do not want in the least to be difficult. If I understand him to say his Amendment will give more than my proposal gives, then, subject to entering my protest as a private Member, I give way.
    The CHAIRMAN: As the Amendment has not been moved, there is no need to put it.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (d), to add the words,
    "Provided that any such person may become a member of an approved society on the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned, and in such a case the following provisions shall have effect—

    (i) the contributions payable by or in respect of such person shall be credited to the society;

    (ii) the society shall in each year pay to the local health committee the sums payable in respect of such person for medical benefit and sanatorium benefit;

    (iii) the rate and conditions of sickness benefit, and disablement benefit, and maternity benefit shall be such as may be determined by the benefit society;

    (iv) such person shall not be deemed to have joined an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act relating to reserve values, and no part of the contributions of such person shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards the discharge of their liabilities in respect of reserve values."

    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite obvious we cannot discuss the Clause much further, and that we are at the mercy of the Government. I want them to consider the point raised by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) in respect to the children of aliens already in the country. I think my hon. Friend went a little farther and talked of people who are coming to the country. Alien children may be going to be naturalised, but they cannot be until they are twenty-one. The concession of the Home Secretary leaves a gap in their case which he ought to consider between this and the next stage of the Bill and see whether, following out the logical consequence of the concession he has already made, he ought not to introduce some provision to deal with those children who are already here.
    Mr. AMERY: These children are not members of approved societies, so the concession which is offered is not really valuable. I appeal to the Government to drop the whole of the Clause. These Amendments are going to introduce an enormous amount of financial complication. Why should the British people be taxed to provide all the extra money to make these elaborate separate accounts? The whole thing is unnecessary, and it is only the personal pride of the Government that compels them to retain the whole Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "This Section shall not apply to any person who on the fourth day of May, 1911, was a member of a society which shall become an approved society, and has been resident for five years in the United Kingdom."
    Mr. HOHLER: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he cannot carry this concession a little further. Could not you exclude the five years so as to make your Amendment run, "any person who on the 4th day of May, 1911, was a member of a society which shall become an approved society." The advantage of it is this. It will avoid all inquiry by a society as to how long a man has been a member. The mere fact that he was a member will obviate all inquiry of any sort or kind.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The real difficulty is that every alien who comes in will
    1120
    have his reserve value. The hon. member talks about taxing merely to keep accounts, but as a matter of fact every alien will have a reserve value. That will fall on British subjects. It might be right or wrong, but the Committee ought to realise it. Every alien would have between £5 and £8 paid into his account out of funds which are provided in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "widow," and insert instead thereof the word "woman."
    Leave out the words "to be a British subject," and insert instead thereof "not a subject under the provisions of this Section if her husband is dead or if the marriage has been dissolved or annulled or if she has for a period of not less than two years been actually separated from or deserted by her husband."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, 7th November.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

HOME RULE BILL.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I should like in the few minutes at my disposal to endeavour to get a more satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister than I received yesterday with reference to the curious entanglement that has arisen as to what the Home Rule Bill is to be. The Chief Secretary (Mr. Birrell), in my humble judgment very wisely, stated that this is a Bill that could not be smuggled through the House of Commons. I respectfully suggest, and I daresay the right hon. Gentlemen will agree with me, that neither is it a Bill that can be smuggled through Ireland. A good Home Rule Bill has nothing to fear from any part of this House—a good one. But the first condition of a good Bill is that is should satisfy Ireland, and I should have supposed that the experience of the Government as to the fate of the Irish Councils Bill

1121
would have warned them that the first condition of acceptance by Ireland is that the main proposals of the Government should be fully understood and discussed beforehand, if you want to avoid another humiliating fiasco like that of 1907. The situation is this: The Chief Secretary, at, I think it was Ilfracombe, gave us several very interesting details of the Bill, but there he stopped short. I presume that his declarations are not included in the phrase "guesswork," with which the Prime Minister dismissed my reference to statements that had been made. But the Member for Waterford, at Baltinglass, very wisely in my humble judgment, avowed himself in possession of the remainder of the details to such a degree that he felt justified in guaranteeing that the details would be satisfactory to the Nationalists of Ireland. His words are taken from the "Freeman's Journal."
"Now I cannot speak to-day with freedom about the terms of the Government Home Rule Bill. That Bill is not only in course of preparation, but it is to-day almost completed (Cheers). I cannot to-day, and you will easily understand the reasons, tell you its details. But I can say this to you, and I do say on my responsibility, that both in its principles and in its details it will be a Bill satisfactory to the Nationalists of Ireland."
The Prime Minister was asked to-day the question, Was any communication made as to this Bill to the Nationalist party? and his reply was, "No." Now, I hope the Prime Minister will be able to tell us whether the declaration which I have just read is included in the term "guesswork." At all events, we are left in this rather tantalising position, tantalising possibly for you and for us, that to a certain extent a corner of the curtain has been raised by a Member of the Cabinet, but we are kept in ignorance, and we are to be kept in ignorance until next March, of the point as to which we are desirous to have information. The situation is aggravated by the fact that a forecast of the Bill has been published in the "Daily News," which had the authority of an ex-Member of this House and a Member of the Liberal party, giving pretty full details as to the forthcoming Bill. And, again, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford took it upon himself, from his superior knowledge, in a Press interview, to state that he could say positively that those details did not deserve serious attention. That statement might mean a great deal or very little. At all events, the point is that the "Daily News" has stuck to its guns, and has denied that its forecast is guesswork. To complicate matters still further, the hon. Member for Waterford's own organ—
1122
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am not speaking personally of his relations with Mr. Sexton, but the paper is undoubtedly the organ of his party in the Irish Press—was not content with the hon. and learned Member's statement that he knew all about it, and was quite satisfied. But the "Freeman's Journal" wants to know what the Bill really is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] You may, if you like, add contempt for the "Freeman's Journal" to all the rest of your contempt for Ireland, but the "Freeman's Journal" insists with all its authority that the main lines of this Bill ought to be communicated to the Irish people, so that they may have an opportunity of judging and discussing them, and have them discussed by men who understand Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, and probably better than either the Chief Secretary or the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. My friends and myself are perfectly determined not to judge this Bill in any hostile sense whatever. [Interruption.] I treat those offensive noises with contempt. I am fighting the battle of my own country, to which I have given some hostages. But the "Daily News" mentions three details, three vital points which have caused the deepest dissatisfaction in Ireland, and at least I should like to hear from the Prime Minister as to them. The first of them is the statement that the enormous charge for old age pensions, some £2,400,000, is to be repudiated as an Imperial charge and thrown on the unfortunate Parliament of Ireland—a monstrous and almost incredible statement if it did not rest with the authority it has, seeing that everybody in this House knows that the Old Age Pensions Act would never have been accepted by the representatives of Ireland and never passed into law except as an Imperial charge. The next point is one that may have a very decisive effect indeed upon the opinion of the vast mass of the Nationalists of Ireland, unless we are to have some general scheme of Federal Home Rule. I refer to the statement that not only the Customs but the Excise are to be withheld from the Irish Parliament—that is to say, that the old vicious principle of taxation without representation is to be substituted by some new extraordinary principle of representation without any power of taxation. It is stated that there is to be certain power of taxation on other matters, but what other matter is there to be taxed unless you

1123
put on land taxes that will strip the farmers of Ireland of the benefits of the last twenty or thirty years. The third point is the vital question of completion of land purchase, and as to that there is a halfhearted hint that the Imperial Treasury still will continue to finance land purchase. But there again, that is in direct conflict with the statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at Trim the other day, when he said:—
"I tell these men (meaning the landlords) that the sands in the hour glass are running out because Home Rule is coming, and we will get it whether they like it or not, and when Home Rule has come, and when the Irish Parliament is sitting in Dublin, I do not think they will get English Ministers to trouble about their votes."
As to all these matters, I would ask the Prime Minister to say whether or not it is all guesswork, or whether they have hit the mark. The situation is an exceedingly complicated one. I venture to say the only solution is the one the "Freeman's Journal" has suggested, and it is that the Prime Minister should make a disclosure of their principal proposals in time to have them considered before the Bill assumes its final cast-iron shape. The Prime Minister stated that the suggestion that I made that a preparatory memorandum should be issued was entirely unprecedented. I do not think it differs very much from the practice of Ministers of the Army and Navy, who issue a memorandum before the Votes are discussed. At all events, even if it was necessary to create a precedent, really this House has been creating revolutionary precedents, and I do not think they need stop to create a new one in the case of a tremendous Bill of this kind. So far as the Unionist party is concerned—well, if they know the facts their discussions now might very well enable them to blow off a great deal of steam before the Debates of next year take place, and might also quite possibly lead to some possibility of settlement upon some general broad principle of Federal Home Rule hereafter. I cannot believe that even the folly on our own side, which has driven them, and is driving them, to fight for their lives against any great national settlement in Ireland, has altogether succeeded as yet at all events. Be that as it may, the all-important point is that unless the Irish people are satisfied with this Bill you might as well light your pipes with it. Except by a full disclosure of the present arrangements of the Bill in time to have
1124
the Government warned of any weaknesses in their measure and in time to have them remedied, I know of no way of avoiding a long winter between now and March of angry and uninformed newspaper discussion in Ireland, with the possibility of some explosion of disappointment and indignation when the Bill is actually introduced.
The PRIME MINISTER: I have listened with interest and respect to the observations of the hon. Member, but I confess myself at the end of them somewhat at a loss to appreciate the character of his grievance or the tendency and effect of his actual suggestion. I think we may dismiss all newspaper forecasts on this subject as exercises of a more or less ingenious and inventive character. As to what was said about the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), I only know what I have seen in the newspapers. I gather that the sum and substance of it was that, so far as he could forecast the probable proposals of the Government, he thought they would be likely to be satisfactory to the great mass of the Irish nation. Let us come to the hon. Member's own position. We are now in the first week in November and no Bill, as he has pointed out, dealing with the problem of Irish Government can be introduced into Parliament at the earliest before a more or less advanced date in next February or possibly in March. The governing principles to which such a measure must and will conform have been clearly and repeatedly stated by myself and others both inside and outside the walls of this House. I cannot for a moment countenance the suggestion, if it is seriously made, that the actual framework, and still more its detailed provisions, should be doled out piecemeal in advance for public criticism and debate before the time when they are collectively expounded in the only appropriate place, namely, the House of Commons. I must, therefore, with all respect to the hon. Member, state quite categorically that between now and then I feel under no obligation to say who has or who has not been, who may or who may not be, communicated with or consulted in regard to the framing of this Bill; or what are, or what are not, or what may be, or what may not be, its provisions and proposals with regard to this or that part of the subject-matter to be dealt with. Let me add this. I speak with all respect and

1125
courtesy to the hon. Member—I assume it would be most unfair, and unjust not to — that the hon. Member is sincerely desirous for the promotion of a satisfactory settlement of the problem of Irish self-government. Upon that assumption I offer him this invitation. Let him state his own plan. Let him bring forward any suggestions, not merely of a negative, but of a constructive character, and I can assure him, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty's Government, they will be most welcomely received, and be treated not only with respectful, but with sympathetic consideration.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: This is a very in forming Debate. The Prime Minister's last observation was to invite the hon. Member who introduced this discussion to state his own plan. Whether the plan stated be that of the hon. Member or that of the Government, or that of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has stated, he knows the details—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Whether it is one or the other, apparently the Government are prepared to consider them all. And side by side with that proposition they inform us and the country that at the last General Election the constituencies irrevocably pronounced upon the details of the measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not details."] I am repeating what the Prime Minister has himself said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not details."] The Prime Minister has himself said that of this Bill all the governing principles were laid before the country. Is it or is it not a governing principle whether Home Rule is to be part of a general federal system, as hon. Gentlemen from Scotland have been insisting during the last few days it should be? Is that a principle or is it a detail? Is it a principle or is it a detail whether Irish Members are to continue to sit in this House or not? Is it a principle or is it a detail whether the police and the judiciary are to be committed to the Irish Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "A detail!"] A detail upon which the constituencies have already pronounced! Is it a principle or is it a detail whether or not tariffs and customs are to be left to the Irish Parliament? These are all details! They may be details, but there is one principle, and the Prime Minister was the authoritative mouthpiece of that principle in the old days in this House, and in the country. It was this: That no Liberal Government, without
1126
dishonour, could undertake to introduce Home Rule while they were dependent upon the Irish vote.
Mr. PIRIE: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. Of course I quite understand the attitude that the Prime Minister has taken up. I venture to draw the attention of the House to the changed attitude of the Prime Minister in the last twenty-four hours. I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister yesterday, in which I asked him if he could not see his way to invite the Irish party to frame a measure in regard to Home Rule in the same way that the Scottish Members framed theirs. The Prime Minister gave me no answer. When I asked what suggestions we were to consider, he gave this interesting answer: "I never held out any encouragement to the hon. Member." Now he comes to the House of Commons and invites the Irish party to put forward their views. I certainly welcome that change of attitude to-night. It very conclusively strengthens my point of view as regards what I very strongly feel in regard to Scotland. We have put in our claim persistently and constantly, and we have framed a Bill. I am speaking for many of my colleagues, and I hope my colleagues of the Scottish National Committee will allow me to speak for them. It is no pleasure to me to put myself forward, but as no one else rose I felt constrained to do so. I venture to say, therefore, that we have, put forward our claims constantly, and that they deserve every consideration, and I hope they will get it, from the Government. There is another reason why our claim should get their sympathetic consideration. The reputed framer of the Irish Home Rule Bill is the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I remember when I was a very young Member of this House the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a Scottish Member and many Members on the Government Bench owe their beginnings to Scotland, and Scotland has a very considerable claim to their gratitude and to their recollection, and should not be slighted. Coming back to these days, I remember the time when the present Chief Secretary took a hand in framing a Scotch Home Rule Bill. I only venture to hope, even now, although that day may be somewhat long past, that he has not forgotten his former adherence to Scottish Home Rule. I venture to tell the Government, with all respect, that unless they take this question up on the

1127
principle of the delegation of powers to provincial or national assemblies — a scheme which I venture to remind Gentlemen opposite there were many of them heartily in favour of about a year ago—I am as certain as anything that a Home Rule Bill upon any other principle than that is bound to fail. I for one, and my Scottish colleagues, will do our best to kill any other measure.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to say this in regard to what the Prime Minister has said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cork City, that it was the Prime Minister who set the example and the precedent that my hon. Friend has followed to-night, because when the right hon. Gentleman was a young Member of this House, and hardly more than a year in it, and when Mr. Gladstone was in his greatest difficulty after the Bill of 1886, it was the Prime Minister who went down to the country—I think to Yorkshire—and made a public demand upon Mr. Gladstone, years before Mr. Gladstone was in office, not on the eve of Home Rule, and years before he had any chance of being returned to office, and asked for details of the Home Rule Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.