ALLOCATION OF TIME. (Hansard, 25 October 1911)

HC Deb 25 October 1911 vol 30 cc111-268 111

§ The PRIME MINISTER rose to move that the House agree to the following Order in relation to the further consideration of the National Insurance Bill.

§ "That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill and the necessary stages of any further financial Resolution relating thereto shall be proceeded with as follows:—

§ (1) Committee Stage.

§ Part II. of the Bill (including the Schedules therein referred to, namely, Schedules 6 to 9, and any new Clauses dealing with the subject-matter of Part II.) shall stand committed to a Standing Committee as if the Bill on being read a second time had as respects those provisions been so committed.

§ The remaining provisions of the Bill shall continue committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and fifteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of those provisions, including any stages of any further Financial Resolution relating thereto, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be those shown, in the second column of the Table A annexed to this Order; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table; and, on the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Chairman shall report those provisions of the Bill to the House without Question put.

§ (2) Report Stage.

§ When the provisions committed to the Committee of the Whole House and the provisions committed to a Standing Committee have been reported to the House, 112 the Report stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported to the House as a whole.

§ Four allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of Table B annexed to this Order, and these proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

§ (3) Third Reading.

§ One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

§ (4) Provisions applicable to Proceedings in Committee of the Whole House and in the House.

§ After this Order comes into operation any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any further Financial Resolution relating therto is put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill: Provided that 4.30 p.m. shall be substituted for 10.30 p.m. as respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions.

§ For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be, and on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of Clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those 113 Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause.

§ A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee.

§ The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses to the Bill shall be forthwith put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker without Debate.

§ Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on an allotted day shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order 'Time for taking Private Business,' be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

§ On any day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

§ On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

§ The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed with respect to any Motion, Clause, or Schedule under debate, and Sub-section (3) of Standing Order No. 26 shall apply accordingly as if with respect to that Motion, Clause, or Schedule a Motion to that effect had been proposed, with the assent of the Chair, and had been carried.

§ Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in 114 accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

§ (5) Provisions applicable to Proceedings in Standing Committee.

§ Notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of the House—

(a) The foregoing provisions of this Order relating to Motions to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall apply with respect to the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Part of the Bill committed to a Standing Committee under this Order;
(b) While the Part of the Bill committed to a Standing Committee under this Order is under discussion the Standing Committee to which it is committed may, without any Resolution of the Committee, sit whilst the House is sitting and, if the Committee so determine, sit on any day after 4 p.m. without an Order of the House.

TABLE A.
Committee Stage.
Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.
First	Remainder of Clause 18	10.30
Second	Clauses 19 to 23	10.30
Third	Clauses 24 to 29	7.30
Clauses 30 and 31	—
Fourth	Clauses 30 and 31	7.30
Clauses 32 and 33	—
Fifth	Clauses 32 and 33	10.30
Sixth	Clauses 34 and 35	10.30
Seventh	Clauses 36 to 42	10.30
Eighth	Clauses 43 to 45	10.30
Ninth	Clauses 46 to 54	7.30
Clauses 55 to 57	10.30
Tenth	Clause 58 and Committee stage of any further Financial Resolution	10.30
Eleventh	Clause 59	—
Twelfth	Clause 59, Part III., and Report stage of any further Financial Resolution	10.30
Thirteenth	New Clauses	10.30
Fourteenth	Schedules 1 to 5	—
Fifteenth	Schedules 1 to 5 and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion	10.30

115

TABLE B.
Report Stage.
Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.
First, second, and third	New Clauses and Part I.	7.30 on the third allotted day
Remainder of third and fourth	Remainder of the Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion	10.30 on the fourth allotted day

§ The PRIME MINISTER
In moving the Motion, I may remind the House that our assembling here for the Autumn Sitting, to the manifest and manifold inconvenience, both public and private, as so forcibly dwelt on in our Debate yesterday, has been largely and, indeed, mainly due to the conviction on the part of the Government, and I believe of the majority of the House, of the necessity, and indeed the urgency, if not a matter of actual necessity, of the passing into law of the Insurance Bill before the close of the present Session of Parliament. That consideration, assuming—and I will consider whether those assumptions are well founded in a moment, the Bill to be sound in principle, and assuming that it either is or can be made by the operation of reasonable Parliamentary discussion in details or machinery what I may call watertight and workable—that consideration I think to be one which will carry with it great weight in every quarter of the House, because unless the Royal Assent is given to this Bill in the course of what remains of the present year, the machinery to bring into operation—necessarily complex, necessarily taking time to put into order—would be delayed for practically another twelve months. The benefits which we all hope and believe will flow from this measure, when it has been so put into operation, to the vast masses of the working population of the country would be correspondingly intercepted and postponed.
To go back to the assumptions to which I alluded: with regard to the first, everybody, I think—certainly the responsible leaders of the Opposition and those who are responsible for the conduct and policy of the Labour party—agree that the Bill in principle is sound, that the object is a desirable one, and that the lines laid down 116 —contributory so far as the workmen and the employers are concerned, and those contributions supplemented by a subvention from the State—are the only lines on which this great national problem can be ultimately settled. That, I think, is the preponderating, if not the unanimous, opinion of the parties in this House.

§ Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN
You must not include Ireland.

The PRIME MINISTERS
I said the preponderating opinion. Further, that for the purpose of carrying out that principle effectively and successfully the detailed provisions and the new machinery should receive the amplest measure of Parliamentary consideration and discussion has been, I will not say admitted, but contended for by no one more strenuously than by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How, then, does the measure stand at this moment in view of these considerations? First of all, to go back on its Parliamentary history, we have expended upon it already seventeen days of Parliamentary time: one day was given to the First Reading, three to the Second Reading, one to the Money Resolution, and twelve to Committee. That is seventeen days not including yesterday. But that does not in any way represent the amount of discussion, consideration, and consultation which has been given to this measure since its introduction. I cannot recall in my Parliamentary experience any Bill the details of which have been so exhaustively canvassed in the Press, on the platform, and by all the other extra-Parliamentary forms of discussion, as has been the case with this Bill. My right hon. Friend has received something like 100 deputations. Even in this deputation-loving age, that, I believe, is a record for any Minister of the Crown. He has addressed, I am told, no less than 2,500 communications, mostly in writing, to various persons, organisations and interests affected by the Bill. [An HON. MEMEER: How many platform speeches?] I am not bringing those into the account. So far, I accept a self-denying ordinance on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I do not suppose any Minister has ever given so much pains, trouble, and time to ascertain, to understand, and, as far as possible, to meet the criticisms and objections from all persons and interests concerned with any projected legislation. I am not suggesting for a moment that all that outside work ought to or can supersede the responsibility of the House of 117 Commons. My right hon. Friend would be the last person to countenance any such notion. We do not sit here to register conclusions or bargains arrived at outside. On the contrary, all such arrangements ought to be the subject of full Parliamentary revision and review. But at the same time, I do not think I am going beyond what is reasonable when I say that the ground has been cleared and the materials for arriving at a correct, wise, and prudent decision have been enormously improved by this large and strenuous task of negotiation and consultation in which my right hon. Friend has engaged. There is another consideration which we ought not to and cannot leave on one side—namely, that if the Bill is to pass into law in the course of the present year, and if the benefits which we all anticipate are like to flow from it are not to be almost indefinitely postponed, the Bill must be sent to another place in time to give the House of Lords an opportunity for considering it both in principle and in detail.
These are the circumstances—and I think I have stated them without exaggeration and without colour—in which the present proposal is made. In substance—I will speak about the form in a moment—that proposal comprises two distinct propositions. The first and the less important is that dealing with the second part of the Bill—the part which relates, not to invalidity and sickness, but to insurance against unemployment. We propose that that part—consisting of some twenty clauses—should now be sent to a Standing Committee. This is not the first time that that suggestion has been made. It was made at a very early stage in the progress of the Bill—on 5th July—and it was then not accepted by the Government, on the ground that it was not possible to deal satisfactorily with Part II. until the House was in a position to know what were the probable financial commitments in regard to Part I. Those commitments have now been practically decided. I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion used these words:— I submit that for the time being we should proceed in the way proposed. But he did not in the least preclude the possibility at a later stage of sending Part II. upstairs; and the Leader of the Opposition said:— The right hon Gentleman is rather going on the presumption that I wanted one part of the Bill sent to a Grand Committee. I do not think that would be practicable now. It might be practicable afterwards."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1911, col. 1167.] 118 We have come to the conclusion that we have now reached a stage at which it would be not only practicable but expedient to adopt that course. I observe that not only was the principle of Part II. accepted in all quarters on Second Reading, but that as regards the twenty clauses of Part II. there are at this moment not more than five and a half pages of Amendments on the Paper. We believe it will be quite possible and quite within the limits of the ordinary functions of the Standing Committee to deal with the Amendments which, after all, affect mainly questions of detail, and in regard to which there is no controversy in point of principle. I come to the first part, of my Motion—Part II. of the Bill (including the Schedules therein referred to, namely, Schedules 6 to 9, and any new Clauses dealing with the subject-matter of Part II.) shall stand committed to a Standing Committee as if the Bill on being read a second time had as respects those provisions been so committed. I now come back to what is no doubt more important—namely, our proposals for dealing with the outstanding clauses of Part I. We have, as I have said, occupied twelve days in Committee on the first eighteen Clauses of this part, and we propose that fifteen more days in Committee shall be given to the remaining Clauses. A most careful analysis has been made of the provisions of those Clauses, and the result is to show, so far as we can ascertain, that there are not more than sixteen of them which involve really serious questions either of principle or of machinery. We propose to give fifteen days in Committee to the discussion of these sixteen Clauses and of the subsidiary and the ancillary Clauses with which they are in context or in subject connected.
The result will be that if that proposal is adopted, quite apart from the time occupied upstairs in the Standing Committee, in the discussion of Part II., thirty-six or possibly thirty-seven Parliamentary days will have been given to the discussion of this Bill. Remember, those are not continuous or consecutive; they are separated by long intervals of time which have been occupied, and I think fruitfully and profitably occupied in the discussion and settlement—to some extent at any rate—of outstanding questions. I do not think, except by a gross abuse of our Parliamentary vocabulary, it can be said that this is what is called a drastic form of closure, or an extravagant use of the powers of the 119 gag. I do not feel that anybody outside the walls of the House of Commons will consider that this is not an efficient use of the Parliamentary machine for debate, consultation, and for the framing of projects of law. Thirty-seven days, scattered over months, will scarcely be said to be an inadequate time even for the discussion of a measure so novel, so complex, or so far reaching as the Insurance Bill. At any rate, unless we are prepared to accept some limitation of that kind, it is impossible that the Bill should go to the House of Lords in the present Session and give anything like an adequate opportunity for that Assembly to deal with the various points in detail.
The actual form of the Motion follows, with one exception, what has now become the regular, and I might almost say, the conventional part of our machinery. The only point in which it differs from previous Motions of the same kind is in regard to the powers which we propose to give to the Chairman of Standing Committee upstairs in respect of Part II. I may say, at once, that I do not propose to move, or include as part of the Motion, the last paragraph but one on the second page of the Order Paper which reads:— The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed with respect to any Motion, Clause, or Schedule under debate, and Sub-section (3) of Standing Order No. 26 shall apply accordingly as if with respect to that Motion, Clause, or Schedule a Motion to that effect had been proposed, with the assent of the Chair, and had been carried. That power gives the Chair, without a Motion on the part of the person in charge of the Bill—therefore without a vote of the Committee—the right to exercise and the right to select Amendments. On the other hand I shall propose to add at the very end of the Motion a paragraph to this effect:— (c) Paragraph (3) of Standing Order 26, relating to the power of the Chair to select Amendments, shall apply with respect to proceedings in Standing Committee on the part of the Bill committed to a Standing Committee under this Order. One other change has been pointed out, which ought to be moved in a formal Motion—a very small point. Where the Resolution says "After this Order comes 120 into operation any day"—I propose by the addition of the words "except to-day"—to exclude to-day. These are the only changes in the form of the Motion.
I hope I have made out a case for the application of this procedure for the first time in regard to a measure non-controversial and of this character, with the exception of the Old Age Pensions Act. I think that is the only other precedent. I think it a very good and a very desirable thing that if this machinery of closure by' guillotine, as it is commonly called, is to be resorted to, it should be resorted to, not merely in regard to matters of a controversial and party character, but in regard to measures, as to the general object and purpose of which the whole House is agreed. I confess—and I say it with regret—after a very long experience of business in this House, I have slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that you cannot carry on legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating a time-table as part, of our established procedure. This does not apply to one party more than another. I assume, for the purposes of argument, that any Government of any complexion, in relation to a measure in regard to which there is general agreement as to its desirability, expediency, and soundness; I assume the absence—I have not said one word to the contrary in the whole of my remarks to-day—I assume the absence of anything in the nature of organised, intentional, or even casual Parliamentary obstruction. I assume all these things, and I venture to say that having regard to the commitments of this Parliament, the multitudinous nature of its duties, the diversity of interests with which it has to deal, the enormous and ever-increasing burden of the labours it has to perform, legislation on a large scale in regard to grave and complicated questions is impossible unless you resort to some form of time-table and some allocation of time. I do not believe if that comes to be recognised as a normal part of our Parliamentary procedure it would fetter or manacle free and adequate discussion. We have been most careful, as will be seen when the time comes in the course of this Debate, as no doubt it will, for the examination of the detailed provisions of this Motion and of the schedules which allocate particular times to particular parts of the Bill, not to burke or put into the background questions of principles or even large questions of detail. On the contrary, we have, so far as 121 we could conscientiously and honestly, attempted to give a prominent place and a first place and the fullest possible opportunity for discussion to those parts of the Bill which can fairly be regarded as controversial or debatable in their character, and I am satisfied that if the procedure is carried out in that spirit and on those lines the House of Commons will more and more come to regard as a necessity—it may be a regrettable necessity in the great legislative machinery of this Empire—the allocation in regard to all important measures, of a definite amount of Parliamentary time for the consideration of these matters of detail. I, therefore, do not in the least shrink from any taunt or retort that will be made that we are here creating a precedent for the future. I believe it is a precedent that is necessary and that its operation will prove to be beneficent, and that without it you cannot carry out the duties which this House is required by the country and the interests of the Empire to discharge. At any rate, I repudiate in the strongest possible terms and with the utmost depths of conviction that in the proposition that I now lay before the House we are endeavouring in any way to curtail the fullest and freest liberty of discussion and of criticism of this measure. If the Bill is to be passed into law and if the other House is to have a fair opportunity of considering it, if the machinery is to be set in operation so that the great mass of the people of the country will derive all the benefits that we anticipate is to flow from it, it is absolutely essential we should, in a reasonable manner and within reasonable limits, and we ask for nothing more, curtail further discussion. On these grounds I venture to ask the House to give a fair and reasonable consideration to the Motion, and we shall, of course, listen with interest and respect, and as far as possible we shall give consideration to any specific suggestion that may be made for the improvement of the allocation of time. I beg to Move.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the Motion should be put from the Chair in separate stages.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Prime Minister has moved his Motion as a whole, and I think I must put the Motion as a whole. The right to move Amendments will be preserved.

Mr. BALFOUR
I think everybody who heard the termination of the Prime Minister's speech must have listened to it with 122 feelings of deep dismay, I do not care on what side of the House he sits, what his traditions are, or what view he takes of the conduct of public business. Hitherto—I will not say Motions of this sort because no Motion of this sort has ever been made—but Motions bearing some faint and distant analogy to the Motion now before the House have been moved with an expression of regret on the part of the Minister. They were not often moved at the time when those who sit on these benches were responsible for public business, but they were sometimes moved, but they have been moved with ever increasing frequency since the hereditary guardians of Parliamentary liberty have had control over our business. At first they were moved with some appearance of shy modesty and reluctance which I do not believe was feigned, but now we have got to a stage in which a measure which has no parallel in our Parliamentary history is moved without apology and without reluctance by the Minister in charge, who quietly tells an astonished House that he thinks this kind of procedure is henceforth to be normal, is henceforth to govern all our proceedings, and henceforth to be the established practice of this home of free debate, whether the Bill under discussion he a controversial one or not. The right hon. Gentleman used to throw out hints in previous Sessions that he was devising some scheme by which the growing pressure of Parliamentary work might be dealt with in some less coarse and drastic fashion than that which is involved in closure by compartments. Apparently he has abandoned all hope of doing this. He now tells us we are to submit—all parties in the House are to submit—and all future Governments are to follow the example he is now setting, namely, that before a Bill is even started in the House, before the House is aware of the magnitude of the questions that Bill may involve, the Government is to lay down a time-table by which the whole liberties of debate are to be curbed, checked, and controlled within immovable barriers, so that elasticity of discussion will be as foreign to our proceedings as if there were a troop of soldiers waiting at the door to turn us out of the building if we exceeded the limits which the Executive of the day might desire.
What are the excuses which the Prime Minister has brought forward for the particular proposal which he is now making for the general scheme which he is now suggesting? He told us at the beginning 123 of his speech that everybody was agreed on the principle of the Bill, and he defined the principle of the Bill as meaning that it was desirable there should be invalidity insurance and unemployment insurance, and that the funds for dealing with invalidity and unemployment should be provided partly by the State, partly by the employer, and partly by the employed. Let us grant—and I certainly do not feel disposed to dispute it—that the vast majority of the House are prepared to accept these three bare propositions, how far do they carry us towards dealing with the enormous and complex details contained in this Bill? What excuse do they give for the curtailment of debate, which the Government are now attempting? The right hon. Gentleman said if the Bill did not pass in the course of the present year the whole year would be lost before the machinery could be contrived by which the Bill was to be carried through. For my own part I am perfectly unable to understand that argument. The suggestion made by those who desire to see full discussion is that the Autumn Session should be devoted to this Bill, that it should be carried over, or that at all events it should not end necessarily with the advent of the Christmas holidays, and that it should be dealt with as soon as possible in the next Session. How would that defer for a year the setting up of the machinery? What meaning has this prophesy of the right hon. Gentleman? What relation has it to the facts of the case? It has no relation at all. And supposing it had any relation, supposing that in some mysterious fashion to defer the conclusion of this Bill until after Christmas meant the waste of a whole year, does that justify cutting us down to this limited number of days and taking every sort of controversial measure besides? Observe the advantage the right hon. Gentleman tries to take through having the Debate of yesterday separated from the Debate of to-day.
The Debate of yesterday went on the supposition that this Motion was to be carried, and then the only question was how we were going to allocate the remaining twenty days left to us. Why should those twenty days be devoted to anything but absolutely the necessary business of finance. Indeed, why should they be devoted to the necessary business of finance? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has taught us by example that it really does not matter when you bring on the Budget. You can bring it on at the time 124 when his predecessors were accustomed to bring it on in April or May; you may defer it till July, or till December, or to the year following. Very well, that being so, why can we not have a free run during this Autumn Session to deal with this tremendous problem? The right hon. Gentleman has entirely ignored, in my opinion, the magnitude and the multiplicity of the question with which the House has to deal, and yet he himself gave a plain statement in the course of his speech which must have brought home to every man who listened to him, how absolutely unique in its complexity is the measure we are asked to discuss. He said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received more than 100 deputations. What were those deputations? They were deputations, of course, from the hundred interests—quite separate and distinct interests—which he has touched, from the hundred separate and distinct classes whom this Bill specifically affects and who are sufficiently well organised to send up deputations to deal with the special grievances of which they complained. Was ever a Bill brought into this House of which you could say that there were 100 separate organised interests prepared to come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put their own separate and distinct grievances before him? Never before.
Do those hundred interests exhaust the classes touched by this Bill? How about the unorganised interests, how about those who have not the means and are not accustomed to deal by deputation with the Minister in charge of a Bill? The measure is intended—and honestly intended, I believe—to relieve the uncertainties in the lives of the poorer parts of the community. We all know it is a matter of common knowledge that it is the poorest part of the community that comes least well out of this business. I do not say they get nothing. I am far from saying they get nothing. Many crumbs fall from the rich table of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which come their way, but it is the poorest part of the population which gets least out of the £17,000,000 which are to be paid by the classes other than those which are immediately benefited by the Bill. How can the Post Office contributors, and how can the great body of people who are uninsurable in the strong friendly societies, come before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their corporate capacity and lay their grievances before him? All these are outside the hundred deputations 125 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received, or, at all events, mainly outside, and you have only got to state the question as I have stated it to see that this Bill, which I think an Under-Secretary—I am not sure whether it was not the author of the Bill himself, but I think it was one of his assistants on the Treasury Bench — said was the greatest measure of the century or of the last hundred years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Since the Reform Bill."] Whether the statement be true or not in a laudatory sense, with which I am not for the moment concerned, no human being can doubt that it is the most complicated Bill of the last hundred years, and that it touches more sets of people in more obscure and unanalysable ways than any other measure that has ever yet been tried, and that measure of all measures is the one on which you should give free powers of debate to this Assembly.
The Prime Minister, I think very wisely, guarded himself against the supposition that any number of deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer absolved the House from the necessity of considering the modifications which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of those deputations, embodied in the Bill. He equally guarded himself against the supposition that any number of speeches made in tabernacles and town halls would really make this House, as a business assembly, acquainted with the full scope and complexity of the measure they were asked to consider. I cannot believe anybody in this House knows what the Bill is now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh."] I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman who said "Oh, oh," does not. I have some doubts whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer really does, and I should hardly blame him if, having walked in this maze for all these months, he occasionally lost his way in the thickets of his own creation. The very skill and ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman, to which I wish to pay full tribute, his happy knack of dealing with outraged deputations, the easy grace with which he persuades them all in turn that their demands will be satisfied—even that induces him to put down Amendments, on to adumbrate Amendments, many of which we have not got, none of which we have been able to consider, and which it is impossible to see in their true perspective in the Bill until they are printed on the Paper, until they are explained, and until we can see the 126 whole measure as a whole measure, and that not one single person in the country has yet been able to do. Whether the right hon. Gentleman and his draftsmen really have this view of the measure I cannot say, but I am certain nobody else has. I am certain nobody else can have. I am certain nobody else has the material.
I am informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given sixty-five undertakings in the course of the seventeen Clauses. These are altogether outside the undertakings for which we have no statistics, which he has made to the hundred deputations which, according to the Prime Minister, waited upon him. May I just mention to him and the House some of the questions which are not settled yet at all, and which, so far as we know, are not even yet settled in the mind of the Government? Certainly, they have not told us what their solution is. There is the question of the soldiers and sailors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us—I think it was in his opening speech, certainly in the very early stages of Debate—that the soldiers and sailors were to receive the full actuarial benefit of all the subscriptions they give. Well, it turns out that he was under a complete misapprehension in the matter. I will not say he has had to acknowledge, but he has acknowledged frankly, though rather late in the day, that he was mistaken in that original statement. How he means to remedy the obvious injustice thereby created—of that we know nothing. There is the difficulty connected with emigrants, a difficulty which is a real difficulty and which attaches to a not negligible fraction. About that, so far as I know, we know nothing at all. I have already referred to the deposit contributors. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, admitted their case is in many respects an extremely hard case. We have not the slightest idea whether he has any remedy or any palliation to offer to the admitted hardships which attach to the case of the Post Office contributors. The question of aliens raises very complicated problems. He has indicated he means to do something with regard to married women. We certainly have not discussed his proposals. I am sure we have not got them on the Paper. I am not sure we even clearly understand what they are to be. Domestic servants, the staffs of reformatories and hospitals, together form an enormous class of the community, and, as I understand the Bill, you are going to require them to 127 contribute in order to obtain benefits which they would obtain without contributions. We have had no solution of that difficulty. Does that seem so simple and easy a problem to the Prime Minister that it can be disposed of in half an hour on a Friday afternoon in December? I think it is one of great complexity. At all events, until we know what the solution of the Government is, how can we tell? The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have some magic formula by which the plain and obvious hardships inflicted by the Bill on this great class are going to be obviated, but we have not the smallest inkling of what that solution is, and the time is allocated before the solution is put before us. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech just now, told us that it was going to be the usual practice of the future to allocate time after the Second Reading of the Bill, and before the discussion in Committee.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
No, I did not say that. I said nothing as to the time when it would be done.

Mr. BALFOUR
At all events, it will be the normal complement of a Bill the provisions of which are known. The right hon. Gentleman is bringing it on in regard to a Bill the provisions of which are not known. In the ordinary course the Government lay before the House proposals. No doubt the proposals can be modified, but they are the proposals of the Government. We do not know what the proposals of the Government are with regard to great tracts of this measure. It is absurd to allocate time for the discussion of proposals of the very nature of which the House is ignorant. I will go on with my enumeration of what I believe to be the unsettled questions in this Bill. Please compare the list I have given with what the Prime Minister said about there being sixteen controversial Clauses. The last item I mentioned was that of "domestic servants and officials in hospitals and reformatories." Then comes the case of employed persons under sixteen. We do not know how they are to be dealt with. At present, as I understand, they are to subscribe the full amount, and so, too, are their employers; but they will get nothing. I may be wrong, but I rather think that is the case; at any rate, they will get very little. Then there are two points closely connected with local health committees, and the provisions with regard 128 to excessive sickness. To these I shall refer later on. Now I will merely say that they cut at the very root of popular self-government. They may be good or bad, but if these provisions had been put into a separate Bill with all its different stages, how long would such proposals have been discussed? It would have required, at any rate, more than the very small fraction of time which is to be granted under the Government proposal. In my opinion a great deal more time would have been taken up by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House in dealing with a subject which cuts to the quick the rights of great local authorities.
Again, we do not know what is going to be done about Ireland. I suppose among the deputations the right hon. Gentleman has received have been some composed of Irish Members, or of some section of them. I do not know if that be so, but I do know there is a great division of opinion in Ireland itself—a division not coinciding with the divisions of political parties, but a great division of opinion as to how Ireland should be treated, or whether it should be treated at all under this Bill. I do say that that is a matter as to which we should know the Government proposals before we allocate the time for dealing with them. I want to make clear my point, that you are not merely giving too little time for the things we know about, but you are also giving too little time for matters as to which we know nothing.
Then there is the question of the doctors. Is the doctors' question settled? I have heard rumours that it is, and I have also heard statements that it is not. But among the many deputations the right hon. Gentleman has received, some of them have been from members of that learned profession. I do not believe the question is settled, and if it is not settled, or if the House is not prepared to accept the settlement, ought we to allocate our time until we know what the Government's proposals are? The question of sanitoria is an enormous one. Then there is the case of those employed as jobbers, who constitute an important and most deserving class. Is their case settled? If it is, is the House content with the settlement? Ought we not to have a full opportunity of discussing it? [An HON. MEMBER: "What are jobbers?"] I do not know, but "jobbers" is a good phrase. I believe it applies to people such as charwomen and many other classes who give their services on 129 jobs. Then there is the machinery allocating Parliamentary funds which I am sure requires discussion. There is also the date of payment for sickness. Has that been finally settled? Please mark that the date on which payment for sickness begins has already been embodied in a Clause which has passed through Committee, and it therefore can only be discussed again on Report. But the whole time for dealing with the Report Stage of these twin Bills is two and a-half sittings, and if the Government are going to revise their decision on this point, and we are to re-discuss the matter on the Report Stage, is there adequate opportunity afforded for it?
4.0. P.M.
I am sorry to weary the House. I do not believe the list is complete. I do not speak as an expert on this subject, but the list, imperfect as it is, must, I think, give pause to those who, however reluctantly, are going to support the amazing measure of Closure which the Government are now proposing. If I wanted to bring home to hon. Gentlemen who are really interested, firstly in the Bill and secondly in our Parliamentary procedure, I should like to ask them to cast their minds for one minute to one day's work as it is allocated in the time-table which has just been read from the Chair. I think it is the ninth day. A day, roughly speaking, will consist of six and a-half hours, and I will tell the House what we are expected to do in that particular six and a-half hours. We have to discuss, in the first place, twelve Clauses, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to what is contained in some of those clauses. The first clause deals with that tremendous proposal of the Government which hands over to a health committee, not an elected body, the power to call in question the action of every sanitary authority from one end of the Kingdom to the other. I think I am right in saying—and the House will bear with me if I am wrong—that any one of these recognised friendly societies or trade unions or political societies that we heard of last night, however small they may be, may call in question the whole policy of great corporations like those of Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast, or Manchester—or any great corporation, in fact, throughout the Kingdom. That is the first of the points we are to be called upon to discuss in the six and a-half hours allocated for that day. The second thing we are going to discuss in the same period is the erection of sanatoria. Is that a trifle? Is that a thing to be dis- 130 missed by this House as an uncontroversial Clause on which nothing need be said? I say nothing about Clause 48; it may be important, but I am not able to judge. At any rate, Clause 49 gives powers to the Insurance Commissioners which, so far as I can make out, make the Insurance Commissioners masters of the fate of every man who insures, and gives the Insurance Commissioners the extraordinary power of settling the rate of contribution which he is to pay. I should have thought that the rate of contribution which the insured person is to pay should be settled more or less by this Bill, and not at all by the Insurance Commissioners.
I do not believe that when this House examines the powers which the separate societies will have over their members—and with no appeal except to the Insurance Commissioners — it will pass that Clause without very careful scrutiny. That is the fourth of the Clauses to be dealt with in the six hours and a-half. The fifth of the clauses deals again with the question of enormous importance with regard to disputes. The sixth of the clauses is the one on which there was a great clamour in the early stages of the Bill, and on which, I believe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he has made concessions which will get rid of the opposition, but I know that in the early stages it was one of the most controversial clauses in the whole measure, and is still. I say nothing about the seventh, eighth, or ninth Clauses, all of them important, but I agree not of the first importance. The tenth of the twelve clauses which are to be dealt with in the six and a-half hours is Clause 55—the Clause which requires every friendly society to make a scheme and to deal with the millions which this Bill says must be dealt with under a separate scheme for each society to be approved by the Insurance Commissioners That surely is a tremendous question. It may be worth saying here that of the other clauses the first nine have to be settled by dinner time. We come back refreshed to discuss the tenth of these twelve clauses, Clause 55. Nobody will say Clause 56 is unimportant.
As for Clause 57, I am inclined to think that it is the one most required in the whole Bill, but it is not the one that ought to pass with the least discussion. Clause 57 is called "Powers to remove difficulties," and the framers of the Bill, with a true foresight as to the amount of useful discussion which could be given to the measure in the course of the Debates in 131 this House, foreseeing the inextricable confusion in which the measure will probably issue from our deliberations under this proposal of the Government, have very wisely, but without any strong precedent to guide them, put a Clause in the measure which says that the Insurance Commissioners and the Treasury acting together may do what they like to remove any difficulties incident to this Bill, and that what they like shall have the force of an Act of Parliament.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that this Clause has been taken bodily, word for word, from one of his own Acts of Parliament.

Mr. BALFOUR
I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of a fact which I had forgotten.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
It was only as to dates.

Mr. BALFOUR
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether the discussion on that Clause was taken under the closure as the twelfth Clause in an important series which began at 4.30. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I was objecting to the Clause. He forgets that it was the only clause on which I lavished a too eulogistic compliment. I said that so far as I could judge it was by far the most important clause in the Bill. It surely ought to come on for discussion at a rather earlier hour than it possibly can under these circumstances. It is not very important, but I may parenthetically remark—I do not know whether the information just given to me is correct, because I have not verified it at all—I am told that the clause on which the right hon. Gentleman has modelled himself as a legislator dealt with dates. It is not very important nor does it in the least affect the force of my argument or impair the value of the picture I intended to draw of the way in which six and a-half hours of Parliamentary time are to be allocated under this Motion by the Prime Minister, who tells us that this is not an exceptional method of dealing with legislation, but is henceforth to be the model on which the House is to be allowed to carry on its discussion in the future. Before I say a few words about the second Bill which appears under the same cover as the Insurance Bill, may I say something about the state- 132 ment made by the Prime Minister to the effect that there is nothing new in his proposals except the special powers of closure given to the Chairman of Committees. I have not all the precedents in my mind, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is a precedent for preventing anybody dividing on a clause unless there is a Government Amendment down to it provided that Clause comes on after 10.0 p.m., and provided that it is a clause included in each night's gag. Is there a precedent?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Yes.

Mr. BALFOUR
What is it? I do not remember the circumstance.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I will give it to you.

Mr. BALFOUR
There may be a precedent for it, but observe the obvious dangers which it carries with it. The Government do not happen to see any difficulty in their own work, therefore they do not put down an Amendment to their own Clause. Closure falls at 10.30, and let us say that three or four clauses are put from the Chair. They are put under this guillotine Motion as one Motion, and while the House may approve of three out of four of these clauses it may object to the fourth, but it will not be able to express its objection without expressing an objection to the three other clauses of which it approves. Whether there is a precedent for that or not the Government ought to carefully consider whether they will carry out a proposal which is surely a great violation of the powers of this House. Our powers of debate are destroyed by the Closure falling at 10.30, and now they are taking away our powers of voting. It is not enough to prevent us discussing; we may not even express our opinion in the Lobby. I cannot believe that on consideration the Government will find it possible to adhere to a proposal of this kind. The only analogy I can think of is quite different. There may be some others, but I do not know them.
I turn, if the House will allow me, to the proposals of the Government with regard to the second of the two Bills which are dealt with in what is called a single measure. I think the Government's procedure on the Unemployment Bill is really more outrageous—if that is possible—than the way it deals with the Insurance Bill. It is quite true that the Government modify the so-called Kangaroo Closure, and instead of making it normal there must be 133 a separate Division taken by the Committee each time it is carried out. I think that is a distinct improvement. Whether it will make very much difference I do not know, but do please notice what powers you are now giving to your Chairmen of Committees upstairs. The Chairman of Committees downstairs is always a Member of great position and experience, and upon him you have thrown, and he has been able to bear, the burden and the responsibility of dealing with this Kangaroo Closure. Can you do it with all your Chairmen? Do see what the difference is between Closure when a Debate is exhausted and forbidding of debate. There is all the difference. Under ordinary Closure Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committee says the subject has been exhausted, and enough has been said upon it for or against, and I will bring the Debate to a conclusion, but when the Chairman of Committees is asked to employ the Kangaroo Closure he has to exercise his powers of ingenuity and foresight to see what the course of Debate would have been on the Amendments he excludes. That is a tremendous task. It is a task which is almost impossible, I believe, for any man to carry out with perfect confidence in his own judgment. We have often seen in this House the Government of the day and the Opposition of the day equally ignorant when an Amendment was moved as to what that Amendment was going to bring forth in the way of important debate and important modification of the Bill. These things cannot be foreseen with any completeness, and that is the real danger of the Kangaroo Closure. To give that power not merely to the Chairman of Committees in this House but to every Chairman of Committees upstairs is an enormous extension of the instrument now gradually being forged for the curtailment of legitimate discussion. I would ask how the work of this Committee upstairs has been carried on. We come here, and we cram into these few hours between half-past four and half-past ten the discussion of Clause after Clause in the manner which I have attempted to bring before the House, and the men who have got to do that may have been carrying on their work upstairs on another and a separate Bill, equally difficult and equally complicated, from half-past eleven. Human nature is not equal to that task. It is bad enough that in Grand Committees very difficult and interesting Bills should be carried on at the same time 134 with Debates in this House upon other Bills. But according to the Government these Bills are so closely connected that they are indivisible and interdependent—that was their own phrase—and the very men who took most interest in the discussion on insurance are the very men who take most interest in the discussion of unemployment. How can you throw on that body of men the double task of working all day upstairs in the Committee Room from half-past eleven to an undefined hour and ask them to come down and give the residue of their strength and intellect to the discussion of complicated details which you are hurrying through the Committee of the Whole House? I do not believe it can be done.
Then I would ask the House just to consider the way in which this Unemployment Bill has been treated. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill had been passed with consent. This Bill never can be separated, for the purpose of voting, from the other Bill. I do not say if it had been there would have been a hostile Division—very probably not on the Second Beading—but I say that Ibis Bill never was discussed on Second Reading at all. It really is no exaggeration to say that public interest has been concentrated and focussed on the first Bill, that the attention of the House has been concentrated and focussed on the first Bill, and that the second Bill was not debated on the Second Reading, and could not have been divided upon on the Second Reading, and that you are going to give this House no opportunity of dealing with it at all. Remember the two Bills were prepared in different Departments, were explained and defended by different Ministers, and are going to be conducted upstairs, of course, by different Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman could not possibly go to a Grand Committee upstairs and then come down here, however anxious he might be to do so. It could not be done. For all these purposes they are two Bills, and I ask the House to consider how we must appear as legislators with regard to the second Bill. We had a speech by the Minister who explained and defended the Bill, and I think there was one other speech by a Minister. There may have been one or two speeches by Members of the Labour party, but very few. I think you will find that out of the whole of the discussion on the two Bills, which took three days, a mere fraction of time, and an even smaller fraction of interest, were devoted to this Bill. It then does not 135 come down to this House. It goes upstairs, and in the relative privacy of a Grand Committee it is debated and comes to this House. How long do you think the Government are going to give us to discuss the Bill when it does come down? One day and a-half. A day of six and a-half hours and half a day in addition. Then, on the Third Beading, of course, the incidents of the Second Reading will repeat themselves. What people have to say they will say on the Insurance Bill, and the other Bill will be squeezed into a corner. Is that the way to treat what ought to be a great scheme for dealing with a great problem? I say it is a Parliamentary scandal. I came down to this House deeply distressed at the proposals of the Government. I am far more distressed than I was before after the speech of the Prime Minister. He boasts of the course which he has taken. That is too strong an expression, but he stands up and says, "I am now doing what will always have to be done. I am creating a precedent, and I am creating it deliberately, willingly, with my eyes open, and as the best possible precedent to set." What is that precedent? It does not leave this House a shred or a tatter of liberty. Never before in all our history has such a scheme been put before us. Never before in all our history has such a defence been attempted for any scheme at all like it. The defence of the scheme and the scheme itself are each worthy of the other, and this is one of the worst days for a free assembly. This is one of those anniversaries on which people will look back and say, "On this day finally a Radical Government decided, having destroyed the House of Lords in the first part of the Session, to destroy the liberties of the House of Commons in the second."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I should like to add some reasons why the House should hesitate before it supports this extremely drastic form of Closure. The Leader of the Opposition has dealt with some of the days' work that is before us, and I propose to show the House what it will be asked to do on the third allotted day. We are to deal with Clauses 24 to 29, upon which there are on the Paper seventy-three Amendments. All of these clauses, I think, are extremely important, and in every one of them I think a mistake may have a very serious effect upon all existing members of friendly societies and upon others who may be driven into 136 the insurance scheme. It will not do, I fancy, for Members of this House to go to their constituents and say: "Of course I am sorry this or that has got into the Bill. I was supporting the Bill generally, but on this occasion I was not able to put down an Amendment to the Clause which has caused this hardship," because if Members support a Closure Motion, they will have cut themselves off from any such excuse. Clause 24 deals with the admission to approved societies. There are twelve Amendments down to it, and, as it stands now, it can have but one effect, that of selecting or allowing the selection of the best lives into one society and making the worst lives go into other societies. It will have the effect, not of insuring what are called in the Bill minimum benefits all round to the insured persons, but it will have the effect of giving to some, the strong, the well, the better-off of the community, larger benefits than to those who are not so well off, and a larger share in the Government subsidies. That, surely, is a clause which requires not to be treated with six other clauses, but to be treated by itself and carefully considered. Clause 21 is another clause of this series to which there are already on the Paper some seven Amendments. It deals with transfers from one society to another, and it seems to me if we are going to maintain the freedom of the insured person, one of the things that we ought to secure is that there shall always be to his credit his full transfer value, and that there shall always be the power for him to transfer from one society to another if he gives any reasonable ground for desiring to do so. He ought not to be, as it were, locked up in one society and prevented from transferring to another society.
To that Clause the Chancellor has an Amendment which, if I understand it at all, is intended to prevent, rather than facilitate, the transfer from one society to another, and in the same Clause the transfer values which are to be attached to a member who desires to transfer from one society to another are to be calculated in accordance with regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners. The House is going to part with this Clause without the faintest notion what transfer value is to be attached to a member, without the slightest idea whether it will be an adequate one to permit him to move freely within the insured circles, or whether they are going to tie him for life to the society which he first happened to 137 join. To Clause 26 there are twelve Amendments. This Clause deals with the transfer of emigrants, and it may affect 200,000 people a year. In this Clause, if they cannot get into a foreign or a Colonial society which is approved by the Insurance Commissioners, their transfer value and their rights are to be entirely forfeited. Surely it is their misfortune. If there is no society to which they can transfer, why add to that misfortune by fining them of the transfer value which properly attaches to them. Hon. Members will, no doubt, meet with that in after years amongst their constituents, and perhaps they will remember that this was one of the Clauses which they refused to take steps to have a proper discussion upon. Clause 27, another most important one, especially to those who have already been insured, prevents what is called double insurance. It restricts men's liberty to the extent of preventing them from insuring in other societies beside the Government society if the total of their insurance would exceed their wages. That is a broad way of putting it. It is not an actual prevention of double insurance, but it is a fine if there is a double insurance, for the Government benefit is reduced down to the amount which makes the total insurance equal to the wages. Is that Clause to be smuggled through amongst this little group without any discussion whatever?
There are many men now who have come to the conclusion that they require more in sickness than they do when they are well and carrying on their ordinary occupations, and many of these men have joined a sharing-out society or a shop-club, as well as their friendly society, and in addition to their trade union. They are to be practically fined for continuing the existing form which they have voluntarily chosen in the past. In this group also is Clause 28, which deals with accounts. That is a worry which will not perhaps fall on Members of the House, but which will fall on those who are concerned with running friendly societies. A large number of accounts and books are to be kept, which are to be prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners. We are not entitled, of course, to know what those are to be. On Clause 29 there are seventeen Amendments. This turns on valuation every three years, valuations which are extremely important, because upon this depends whether there is a surplus to be made available for future additional benefits, or whether there is to be a deficiency which will carry with it a compulsory levy or a reduction of benefits. 138 The basis of that valuation is not fixed in the Bill. It is all left to the Insurance Commissioners. Surely that is a thing which we ought to have some hand in settling. There is one matter which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to meet. I do not know whether he has promised already as a concession to members of friendly societies that they are to have some direction as to the investment of their funds, and that the basis of this valuation is to be a 3 per cent. basis. Of course, the intention of the friendly societies is to try to get a better rate of interest than 3 per cent. These Clauses which I have enumerated—six clauses with seventy-three Amendments—have to be got through in half a sitting. That is to say, they have to be got through before dinner, and on the same day and on the first part of the next day Clauses 30 and 31 are to be dealt with. One of these Clauses deals with surpluses, and the other deals with deficiencies. I venture to ask the House to consider whether this is anything like the time required for even the most superficial discussion upon these Clauses. Let me point out the effect of Clause 30 as it stands. If there is a surplus to a branch society half of it goes to the central body of which it is a branch, and it is then available to make up deficiencies in other branches. But suppose deficiencies do not exist, and that the surpluses have gone to the central body, there is no power to get the surpluses, or the balance of the surpluses, back again. They remain in the central fund as unclaimed balances apparently, and here they differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own Amendment, which he is to propose with regard to the small societies. In their case the surpluses are to return to the source which created them. The central body will be able to retain the whole of these surpluses which are created by the branches. That is the effect in my view.
There will be naturally a desire on the part of people to insure in those societies which have not got branches, but which can be approved societies by themselves. If they do that, and if their lives are well selected, they will be entitled to retain the whole of the surplus, and they will not require to divide it with any branch. Consequently they will get bigger and bigger benefits, and as the benefits become bigger and bigger they will have a larger share in the State subsidy. This is supposed to be an Insurance Bill in which each man shoulders his own burden and shares the burdens of others. But this Clause as it 139 stands is nothing of the sort. It is an endowment of the best lives, and it differentiates between classes of society. One class get benefits which the other do not. If this Clause goes through as it now stands, it will form a real menace to the large affiliated orders, for members will think it will be better not to remain members of these orders, and that it will be better to be members of independent orders on their own account, so that they may retain their surpluses. Are Members of the House going to pass without adequate discussion a Clause like that which raises really big questions of principle going to the root of the whole question of insurance? Are they going to allow it to pass without making any endeavour whatever to secure proper discussion? The other Clause in the same group which is to be dealt with at the same time is Clause 31—the deficiency Clause. There are twenty-one Amendments on the Paper to that Clause, and some of them are most important. If there is a deficiency, there are two ways under the Bill of making it good. There may be a compulsory levy, which may be followed by notice to the employer with respect to a man who is a member of a society to in future deduct not 4d., but 5d. or 6d.

§ Sir GODFREY BARING
Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the details of the Clause on this Motion?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
He can only do so in so far as it enables him to say that there is some substantial point which ought to come under discussion and in respect of which the scheme does not allow sufficient time. The hon. Member is not really discussing the details of the Clause. He is endeavouring to indicate that there is some question involved for which sufficient time is not allowed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I was pointing out that this is a very material Clause, for which considerable time in Committee ought to be granted because of its great importance in two different directions. One direction is the greater liability it might put upon an insured person, and the other and alternative direction is the reduced benefits which the insured person might get. In the Bill there is the expression "minimum benefit." I have not the slightest doubt that Members of the House who have not followed the discussions closely, and certainly large numbers of people in the country, have 140 been misled by the words "minimum benefit." A large number of people think it means "minimum." But it does not mean minimum in the Bill. It means the average which the actuaries will be led to arrive at as the average. But, like all averages, there is something above it and something below it, and I think the word is entirely misleading. I wish to point out that in six hours we have to dispose of about sixty-two Amendments to these Clauses, and that we ought to correct what seems to me the anomalous position of centralised societies having so much greater advantage than the affiliated orders. We ought also to deal with the question of excess surpluses.
I want the House and the country to realise what is being done. There are points with respect to which hon. Members have from platforms in the country stated that we shall do our best in the House of Commons to meet this or that grievance which has been brought to our notice. I want the country to know that it does not follow that Members, at least on this side of the House, have not tried to bring these points before the House if they are not discussed, but because the action of those Members who support this form of closure makes proper discussion absolutely impossible. I would call attention to what is to happen on the fourth allotted day. On the last part of that day—7.30 to 10.30—there are two Clauses in regard to deposit contributors to be dealt with. I suppose it will be eight o'clock before the discussion will begin. There are fifty Amendments to Clause 32. There is a series of Amendments which propose to lay before the House an entirely new scheme for granting to deposit contributors a real and proper, although a modified, form of insurance. The Clause starts with the words "Deposit Insurance" when it is not insurance at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has on several occasions boasted that this scheme is a better scheme than that of Germany. There is no deposit contributors' scheme in Germany, and in my view it would be a disgrace if the House of Commons allowed this schema to go through without proper discussion, because there is no organisation at the back of the deposit contributors as there is at the back of the friendly societies. I think the House of Commons ought to be trusted to ensure proper discussion on be-half of those who have nobody at their back—people who are certainly deserving of all the assistance which the House of Commons can give. It affects 882,000 per- 141 sons. Personally, I believe it will affect double that number, or, at all events, a great many more than 882,000. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in the interest of so large a number of people, he could give at least another day for discussion, if not more. On the 4th August the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt to some extent in this House with the position of deposit contributors. The right hon. Gentleman said he had refused to give any exceptional State subsidy to the deposit contributors, but they ought, in my opinion, to have an exceptional State subsidy. But even if that cannot be given this ought to be no reason why they should be deprived of part of the benefits which other people are to get. They get no share of the large compensation fund—those large reserves which are created for the purpose of helping all those other people who are better able to help themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on that occasion that they were better off than ever before. I do not believe that is true. In point of fact, they are better off if left alone so far as sickness benefit is concerned. I am not contending that sanatoria benefit is not a real benefit. I want the House, before it agree to the time-table as regards deposit contributors, to remember the Amendments which are already on the Paper. I am actuarily advised—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Now, the hon. Member is going outside the region of proper discussion on this Motion. He must reserve what he has to say on the substance of the Clause for other occasions.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
My fear is that the Clause, so far as discussion is concerned, never will be reached, and that the time will be taken up by other matters. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to something which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said with regard to deposit contributors in order to impress upon the House, if I may, the absolute necessity for further time being given to consider their position. I will try to keep very close to order. My experience is really so limited that while I desire to do so I am not sure that I am not going to trespass.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
On that matter the hon. Member had better give the House the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am afraid I must give the House the benefit of the doubt. There are eight and a-half 142 hours apparently in the time-table to deal with the whole of this question which really is so important that no time ought to be too long to give to it. It seems to me that the Bill cannot be called a National Insurance Bill unless it does give insurance to this class. It will be a disgrace to the Bill and a disgrace to the House of Commons, and it would be an actual failure in the Bill unless something much better is done. I will not deal with any of the other days except to refer cursorily to the seventh day, when the question of soldiers and sailors will come up. The Bill as it stands gives, in my view, a quite inadequate form of insurance. I notice on my notes on this point the words "say something nice." I want to say something nice with regard to this Clause, because I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to meet the case with regard to the soldiers and the sailors, and I am hoping that there will not be finally very much difference of opinion on this subject. I know that the Government actuaries are now considering the question, and I hope when the Clause comes up that the House will be satisfied that some justice is to be done to the soldiers and sailors. But on that same occasion we have got to deal with the persons under sixteen who up to date are not dealt with with anything like the consideration which they ought to have.
There is only one other gross case to which I wish to call the attention of the House. On the ninth day we have got to deal with Clauses 55, 56 and 57, and roughly we have 2½ hours in which to do it. Clause 55 deals with the existing funds of the present friendly societies. It probably deals with some forty to forty-five millions of funds, and probably deals with something like 27,000 branches of societies, and each one of those branches or societies has got to submit a scheme under Clause 55 in order to say how its funds are to be disposed of. As it stands the Clause cannot possibly work, and I fell convinced that the Government will have to have it entirely redrawn. We have not got it in front of us, and we do not know what is going to be done. It is bad enough as it is. It is bound to be the subject of an enormous number of Amendments; yet we are asked to deal with this along with two other important Clauses in about two and a half hours. In that Clause the Government are giving a subsidy of releasing the reserves of friendly societies to the extent of something in excess of ten millions. It may be fifteen millions. There is no 143 provision as the Clause now stands to say how that ten or fifteen millions shall be applied. There are some general permissive directions, but no obligation is put forward in connection with that Clause.
I think the House will agree that the old men who are now in those societies, who will not come into the Government scheme because they are too old, ought certainly to be placed as a first charge on those funds, and properly protected, if the power of continuing is taken away from them, as in effect it will be by the Government Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his talk in the Tabernacle, complained of misrepresentations so diverse and so dark that they were perfectly bewildering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That apparently receives support from some of his followers sitting behind him. He complained of those misrepresentations, which are largely based upon a misunderstanding or perhaps an understanding of this Clause 55. Surely it is all the more necessary to have discussion if there has been any misrepresentation. I deny that there has been any from these benches. The Chancellor himself has been unwillingly, and unknowingly, of course, guilty in the matter. For in Birmingham, so long ago as June, he told the assembled crowd that at the age of fifty-five larger benefits would be got in the future for 4d. than previously had been got for 6½d., and he told them that 3s. extra sick pay could be paid in addition to the 10s., and that 1s. 6d. extra would be paid in addition to the 5s. I think he must now admit that that was quite inaccurate.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I think it would be interesting, if the Chancellor were in order, if he would reassert that in this House, because the statement as soon as it was made was challenged by Mr. Watson, the actuary.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is going outside the Rules of Order, and he is inviting the Chancellor to do so. He really must keep within the Motion now before the House.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I only asked the Chancellor to follow if he was in order. I think I did protect him without protecting myself. Then there are the new Clauses, which are all to be crowded into one day. The House ought 144 very carefully to consider that there are new Clauses which affect the small friendly societies. There are new Clauses which propose to reduce the rate of contribution of those who are already by their employment or otherwise partially covered by present insurance against sickness. Those Clauses have never been considered on Second Reading. I do not know whether they have been subject to the negotiations and deputations of which we have heard. At any rate, this House has never had an opportunity of considering them at any time, though they deal with most important subjects. The new Clauses are intended to cover those who by their employment are already insured against loss of wage during temporary sickness, and I say that in my view they are not at all adequate and will not deal in the best way with the position which has arisen. Undoubtedly those people who are already receiving their wages during sickness ought not to be made to contribute again for similar insurance under this Bill, but when those Clauses come up for consideration we shall have to ask ourselves the question whether or not they really represent the best form of utilising th contribution which is made by or on behalf of these people.
There is another alternative—it is going down to-day as a new Clause—which would give those insured persons the right to elect to have an age pension at sixty, and in addition to have a 5s. pension on the German plan if they are unable to earn one-third of their wages. It is calculated that the two things would be found equivalent. How is it possible for this House to consider a broad subject, a matter of importance like that, in the short time allowed for these new Clauses? One short day of Parliamentary time is all that is allowed for the new clauses, including, as they do, an alternative form of insurance for those who are already covered, and do not, therefore, require the particular form which is provided in the Bill. Those people are not a small class. It has been calculated that they represent some three or four millions, or from one-fourth to one-third of the people who are to be brought compulsorily into this scheme. I thank the House for having been so patient with me. It is very difficult not to trespass beyond the bounds of order, but I think that hon. Members ought to consider carefully before they say they have had enough of this Bill, and are not going to allow it to be discussed, either in its main principles or as regards 145 new clauses, or as regards the details of any other clause, but are going to allow it to be closured in the way proposed.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
It was with extreme regret that I learned that the Government proposed to guillotine this Bill. I desired to hear from the Prime Minister the reason why they think that course should be adopted, but I regret to say that what the Prime Minister said has confirmed me and strengthened me in my opposition to the course which he proposes. He has told us that the course proposed has become a regular process. The House of Commons is no longer free in its discussion of measures of first-class importance. If you look at what the Prime Minister said it will be seen he has not urged that there has been any waste of time whatever in regard to this measure. He has told us that there have been a great many days devoted to this measure, but if the measure is a large and important one needing much discussion, that is not an argument why further time should not be devoted to it if necessary. The discussion has been a very fruitful one. I say that on high authority, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told us shortly before the House rose in August, that satisfactory progress had been made with the Bill, that the House had responded to the invitation of the Government to take part in moulding it, that the alterations as a whole were due to criticism in the House and outside, and on the whole were admirable and had strengthened the Bill, and he proceeded that if we continued on these lines to the end he hoped we shall get a Bill of a truly national character, in the sense that all parties in the nation shall have had a share in it. He said it was very important that we should have a Bill that everybody is fairly satisfied with. He had been glad to accept invaluable assistance from all quarters of the House in fashioning and altering the Bill, and hoped that in the end we shall be able to rejoice together that between us we have been able to put on the Statute Book a measure that will relieve a vast amount of human suffering.
If that was the case, then why should it be changed now? Why should we not continue the fruitful discussion to make a great measure of this Bill? Why should we be called upon suddenly to curtail discussion in a manner which seems to me to be entirely unprecedented? [An HON. MEMBER: "Because of Home Rule."] The measure is one which involves severe taxa- 146 tion on some of the very poorest in the country. In the case of an ordinary measure of taxation we are protected by processes of considerable length. The procedure in this House usually involves Resolutions with a First, Second, and Third Reading. Then a Bill is brought in which must have its First, Second, and Third Reading. In that way we are protected from any undue haste in imposing taxation on people. Here is a Bill imposing taxation of a severe character, and I maintain it ought to be discussed in the most ample manner.
5.0. P.M.
It is said that this is an excellent Bill, and therefore it ought to pass. I entirely agree. It is so good a Bill that I am a supporter of it, and I think it ought to be passed; but even if it be so very excellent a measure, we ought still to devote an adequate amount of time to its consideration. The Prime Minister this afternoon told us that the Bill is long, complex, and far-reaching; that means it is a measure of the very first importance, and ought to have adequate consideration. Anyone who has been in this House since the Bill was introduced must realise from the Debates and from the correspondence which has appeared that the Bill does affect a vast number of people who have legitimate points to bring forward, and which they desire, through their representatives, to have discussed in this House. It appears to me that no time has been lost. Even in the vacation the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extraordinarily busy. He has received a great number of deputations, and he has, it is stated, conciliated very great interests. If that is so, it is no reason why discussion should be curtailed in this House, which has every right to debate a measure of this kind. This is a matter of the first importance to the nation, and is not one to be settled outside the House. This is to take matters of supreme importance out of the hands of this House, a course which was most strongly denounced by Mr. Gladstone.
We have no right to hand over our responsibilities in a matter of this kind. It really comes to this: that we are asked to give a blank cheque to the Minister in charge, and to practically make him dictator in the matter. I am one of those who supported the Government with all the force that I could command in the action they took with regard to the House of Lords, but I must say that I did not consider, when we took such action in 147 regard to that assembly, that we were going to be justified in having less discussion in this House. It appeared to me that our responsibility was going to be increased in this House, and that we were to have ampler power and more serious discussion in this Chamber than we had before. In place of that we are now met with the guillotine, and we are going to have less discussion in regard to any measure of similar importance. I may refer to the plea, and the only plea, that the Bill is a very good one. I utterly object to the principle that the end justifies the means. The argument that the Bill is a very good one does not mean that we are to sacrifice our constitutional rights and to be content with less time for discussion. Even if the Bill be a good one we ought not to sacrifice our constitutional rights to get it. We have our duties to our constituencies, and it seems to me that, though a Bill is a good one, we should not sacrifice our rights and privileges by giving inadequate time for its discussion. I do not think we can get any compensation for giving away our liberties. You may give away a portion of your liberties to get this compensation or that compensation, this benefit or that benefit, but I believe that liberty is very much like chastity, and, like chastity, it must be whole and complete. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that this was going to be the ordinary procedure. Lord Stafford said that there was no more defective instrument of autocracy than a well-managed Parliament. Some of the greatest usurpations of modern times have been carried out by what appeared to be the very freest institutions. What assembly can long stand the corroding influence of registering votes as mere machines. It is impossible that the independence of this House can be preserved if that process is allowed to be continued very long. We have just vindicated the liberties of this House against the most powerful attack ever made upon it by our enemies of modern times—I refer to the action we took against the House of Lords. Yet before the echoes of that great struggle have ceased to sound we are asked by the friends of the liberties of this House to commit an assault on those liberties far more dangerous and far more insidious than the open one made so recently by the Peers. I was returned at the General Election for the great purpose of vindicating the liberties of this House, and I cannot consent, on the invitation of any- 148 one, to diminish those liberties by one iota. Therefore, I am unable to support the Government, and I shall vote against the proposal.

§ Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN
After the liberty-loving speech which we have just heard from the other side of the House, with every sentence of which I concur, I only rise to explain the course which my friends have to take. It is one of the inconveniences of the present relations between the Government and the party of Gentlemen who sit on these benches behind me, that nothing can now be discussed in this House upon its own merits. In reference to this present Motion and to this Bill, as in the case of the Budget and in the case of the Bill for the destruction of land purchase, the real opinion of Ireland is overborne, is put under restraint by fear of imperilling the existence of the Home Rule Government, upon which the Gentlemen behind me—I do not discuss whether wisely or unwisely—now stake all their hopes of Home Rule. I venture to say that the power which the Government have of restraint of that kind upon Irish opinion has been exercised with particular stringency, I might say cruelty, in the case of the present Bill, owing to the threat of the Government that the Home Rule Government will stand or fall by this Bill as a whole, and by its acceptance during the present Session of Parliament. Public opinion in Ireland, while most cordially approving the principle of insurance against illness and especially against unemployment, is as nearly unanimous as the opinion of any country in the world, I think, could well be, as to the hopeless inapplicability of this Bill in its present form to Ireland. In my own experience that is the universal feeling among all classes and all sections of the Irish people—the bishops, the county councils, the chambers of commerce, the commercial world, the smaller employers, and the vast mass of the population, and the only exception that I know of is the opinion of particularly favoured trades in Belfast and in Dublin, and also one other opinion, but an extremely powerful opinion, which, for the sake of peace to-night, I will not refer to further on this occasion, but which we shall have to discuss most fully whenever we come to Clause 59—at all events, until the guillotine falls.
I have myself a shrewd opinion that if you could search the inmost thoughts of many, I will not say most, of the Gentlemen on those benches behind me, it would be 149 found that they secretly sympathise with the bishops. At all events, I do not altogether blame them for the dilemma in which they have been placed, but I do blame the Government for putting pressure, and undue pressure, upon Irish opinion by putting on the Home Rule screw, and by threatening us with the resignation of the Home Rule Government unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets his Bill, one and indivisible, before Christmas. Some of us are happily in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. Nevertheless, we are pretty mindful of all the difficulties of the situation, and nothing will induce us to do anything unnecessarily or wantonly to hamper the work of the Government. We are filled by admiration of the extraordinary pertinacity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to impose his own personality as against the enormous body of opinion in all parts of this House, even including his own party. But we cannot, and I only speak for ourselves, be an assenting party to the position which seems now to be taken up, that whenever any Irish matter has to be discussed in this House we ought to have evil in order that there may be some hope of good coming out of it for Home Rule. We cannot be consenting parties to forcing this Bill upon Ireland by the guillotine, with, I think, one effective day's discussion. We cannot be a party—and I am glad the hon. Gentleman spoke on the other side—assenting to the doctrine laid down to-day by the Prime Minister, that the guillotine is henceforth installed as a regular mode of procedure in regard to every great measure in this House—a doctrine that by and by may have such very awkward consequences whenever the Members of the two Front Benches exchange places in this House. We believe that the Government have undertaken their Home Rule campaign honestly from national and Imperial motives, and not merely under the pressure of narrow party exigencies. For that very reason we cannot believe that Home Rule is going to suffer from our exercising our rights of constitutional freedom to oppose the Bill, and to oppose it to the best of our power in its application to Ireland. For these reasons we must decline absolutely to do anything to restrict still further opportunities that are already sufficiently restricted for discussion by Irish Members of a Bill which, if the question of confidence were withdrawn, I believe would almost cer- 150 tainly in its present form, and for this Session, be rejected on a secret ballot by three-fourths of the Members of this House, and of all parties in it.

§ Sir GODFREY BARING
I very seldom trouble the House with any remarks, but as one of the supporters of the Government, I hope I may be allowed to state why I am going to support the Motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) in the excellent speech he addressed to the House, enunciated some excellent principles with regard to liberty. I am afraid my hon. Friend has not always been such a consistent supporter of liberty as he expressed himself to-day, because on several previous occasions in his Parliamentary career I think he has supported Closure Resolutions very much of this kind. I daresay he will reply that those Resolutions were Closure Resolutions on very contentious Bills. I venture to say that a Closure Resolution of this kind is more necessary on a Bill, the principle of which has the support of all parties in the House, than on a very contentious measure, because after all if you put on the guillotine on a very contentious measure, you are limiting the discussion of a Bill which arouses great party feeling, and you are therefore irritating the Opposition to a very great extent. The speech of my hon. Friend was, of course, received with very great pleasure on the other side because we know there is more joy in certain places over one sinner converted than over ninety and nine who need no conversion. I have been only four and a-half years in the House, and therefore, perhaps, it would be presumption on my part to speak of my Parliamentary experience, but I do believe it is impossible to carry any great Bill through the House of Commons, as at present constituted, without some limitation of debate of the nature of such as that proposed to-night. We had an example in the great 1909 Finance Bill, that a Bill could be carried without a guillotine resolution being imposed, but under what conditions was that Bill passed? The House of Commons was forced to sit from the month of February right on to December; we had frequent all-night sittings, and we had also what is known as the "Kangaroo Closure." I do not think the Opposition considered that the methods used in passing that Finance Bill wore really satisfactory.
After all, we have to remember that there are 670 Members of this Assembly, all more or less capable of taking part in 151 Debates, some more and some less, and, having regard to the electoral exigencies of Parliamentary life, it is necessary hon. Gentlemen should take part in Debates in the House of Commons as frequently as possible, and on every Amendment which is put from the Chair in Committee, every one of the 670 Members can speak as often as he pleases. That being so, it is difficult to know how it is possible in the face of any determined opposition to get any measure through the House of Commons. I may be told that there is no determined or organised obstruction to this Bill. I quite admit that that is so. We have had nothing to complain of on the Government side with regard to the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussion of this Bill. I think they have greatly assisted the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has been a most excellent critic of the Bill, and has contributed on many occasions admirable speeches during the discussion. We have to remember something further. Although hon. Gentlemen have supported us very kindly and considerately in this House, their friends in the country have not always given us assistance. We remember there have been various by-elections since this Bill was introduced, and that at those by-elections statements have been made by representatives of the Conservative party, I do not say by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and leaflets have been issued which make it very clear that, whatever may be the case with regard to the Bill in this House, that in the country, at any rate, it is in some instances a very contentious measure.
Many of us have had the opportunities of meeting our constituents and taking counsel with them with regard to this Bill. I think at every single meeting of my Constituents held during the Recess it has been impressed upon me by my supporters, and many Conservatives in my Constituency are anxious, to see the Bill passed into law. I think the country does not take a very intelligent interest in the niceties of Parliamentary procedure. They look at what the results are going to be. I believe they wish this Bill passed into law, and I believe they consider that some form of closure is necessary if the Bill is to pass into law within certain limits. There is such a thing as a Bill being killed with kindness. I believe it is quite possible for this measure to be killed with kindness. If no limit were put on our 152 discussion, I believe it would be found that the discussion would go on over Christmas, perhaps on to January, with some expectations of modifying the legislative programme of next Session. But although I am willing to give general support to this Resolution, even I am not quite so abandoned as to support it in all its details. There is one provision which I do hope the Government will reconsider, and that is the provision which is made for the ninth allotted day of our discussion. I believe, after listening with great respect to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on that point, that it is impossible to defend the allocation of time of the ninth allotted day. I trust that the Government will seriously consider whether it will not be well now to decide to drop one or two of the other Bills which they have in the stocks.
There is the Shops Bill, which does not arouse the greatest interest in any part of the country, and I think we would be glad to be without it. With a little rearrangement, and by dropping one or two of the legislative proposals which they intend to pass into law before the end of the Session, I am certain that it could be found that a better allocation of time could be given to some points which I think will require further consideration in the House than as suggested in the proposal. I propose to give a general assent to the Resolution, but I hope it may be found possible at some future time for the allocation of the discussion of Bills of this kind to be decided in the future not by the Government of the day, but by some impartial tribunal, say Members representing every party in the House with you, Sir, and the Chairman of Ways and Means as a Committee. I believe, if that were done, the Committee could arrive at a fair and proper allocation of time, and we should, at any rate, secure that party feeling and party distinctions should not be aroused in discussions of this kind, and that the Government of the day should not be open to the charge that in limiting and allocating the time for the discussion of a Bill they are acting as interested parties. I believe this Insurance Bill is a great Bill; I believe that unless some limit were put on our discussion it would be almost impossible to pass it into law within a reasonable period of time, and I intend to support the Resolution.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
I am afraid a false impression might be created in the 153 minds of some Members, at any rate, as to the attitude and as to the motives of Members of the Irish party if I did not say a very few words, entirely non-controversial, with reference to the speech made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). That hon. Gentleman seemed to represent to the House that the attitude taken up by the Irish party was really not on the merits at all, but that we were doing evil in order that good might come, and that we were going to swallow, I think I am not misinterpreting the argument, and support a Bill of which we and the country and our constituents entirely disapproved, in order that by doing so we should maintain in office a Home Rule Government. That is not, I respectfully say, a fair representation of our attitude. Our attitude with reference to this Bill has really never changed. The night the Bill was introduced I spoke a few words, and in those few words I gave expression to the attitude which we have maintained all through, and which I maintain is the attitude taken up by the overwhelming majority of the public opinion of Ireland. I think I ought to be allowed to say my few words without interruption. What I said that night was that we entirely and enthusiastically supported the principle of this Bill, but I entered a caveat with reference to Ireland. I said that the Bill as drawn seemed to me to be drawn up with special consideration to the wants and conditions of this country, and that it would require alteration and amendment in order to make it suitable to the entirely different conditions and circumstances of Ireland. I then invited publicly discussion in Ireland, and discussion took place very widely all over the country. Allusion was made by the hon. Gentleman to resolutions passed by the bishops, passed by the county councils, and passed by other public bodies. Those resolutions all pointed out what they regarded as the defects in the Bill, and they were all based upon this principle that the Bill, if those alterations were made, would be acceptable to Ireland. To say that no public bodies made declarations of a different character is not strictly accurate. By to-day's post I received a resolution sent to me by the Cork District Trades' Council, in which they say:— That we reiterate our belief that the provisions of the Insurance Bill would prove of great assistance to the working classes in periods of illness and unemployment, more especially in Urban Districts, and that, while making legitimate efforts to adapt it more to Irish needs, we urge that the Bill should be supported by the Irish Representatives in Parliament.

154

§ Mr. W. O'BRIEN
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to inform him that the resolution he has just read is not a resolution from the trades council of Cork, but is a resolution of a small revolting body composed chiefly of the printers of the "Cork Examiner," organised and subsidised by the "Molly Maguires."

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
The House will understand that I cannot go into those details. All I know is that it is one of very many similar resolutions from bodies representing to speak for various interests in the country from all parts of Ireland.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The Bishops.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
I have already dealt with the Bishops' resolution. I say with reference to the resolution of the Bishops, that the Amendments, which all of us demand, are the only Amendments suggested by the Bishops, and that if the Bill is amended in the direction indicated and requested by us, that then the Bill will be acceptable to the rev. gentlemen who passed the resolution. Our attitude, therefore, has never changed. We propose to ask the Government to adopt certain Amendments for which the whole country has been asking, and which were publicly asked by the report of the committee which we appointed to deal with the matter. These Amendments, I take it for granted, will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. STANLEY WILSON
Toe the line.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
When the Government are accepting Amendments, even from the Front Opposition Bench and from Members above the Gangway on this side, I do not see why they should not accept Amendments from their own supporters. When and if those Amendments are accepted I say that this Bill will be one which has at its back the public opinion of our constituents, and in those circumstances we will support it. I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He is not always so candid as he was this afternoon. He informed us what his programme was. His programme is not only to endeavour to utilise the twenty additional days of the Autumn Session which are to be given to the Shops Bill, the Mines Bill, and other measures of that kind, but after he has got those twenty days the Insurance Bill is to go over to next year, to be taken up again, I suppose, in the month of February. I thought 155 when I heard his speech that that was the first shot in the Parliamentary anti-Home Rule campaign. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was quite transparent. He does not want to take the responsibility of actually killing this Bill, but he wants to throw it over into next year, so as to destroy the Parliamentary programme of next Session. My colleagues and I will take no part whatever in any such policy.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
It is perfectly obvious that we have now got the reason for this Resolution. Many of us have been wondering why, when the Bill was getting on so well in the previous part of the Session, it was necessary to have a Closure Resolution for the remaining part. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the speech already referred to, almost eulogised the action of the Opposition and of those Members who had suggested Amendments. He frankly said that on the whole the progress had been very satisfactory. If the progress had been very satisfactory, if the invitation which he extended to us had been, as he said, very fairly and generously accepted; if, as he also said, the Government had had to give way to the Amendments proposed, and that he was not sorry that they had had to give way—surely if those things were true then, the progress of the Bill must have been so satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman that there was no need whatever in July to suggest any form of closure with regard to the remaining portions of the Bill. Why has there been that complete change between July and October? If I had asked that question ten minutes ago I should have had to give a supposititious answer framed by myself, but it would have been the very answer which is now proved to be the fact by the words of the hon. Member for Waterford. Why has there been a change of tone in the Chancellor's speeches with regard to his political opponents? Because there has been a very decided change during the Recess. There is now "no generosity," "no fair meeting" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as there was in July. There is to-day, according to the right hon. Gentleman, bitter opposition. Why this change of tone? The hon. Member has told us. It is because he fears that further discussion on this Bill will get in the way of the Home Rule programme of next year. It is a remarkable statement for the hon. Member to have made so early in the Home Rule discussion that 156 he took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept any Amendments moved by the Irish party. The compact is somewhat more open than it was a quarter of an hour ago.
I want seriously to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is really doing good to the Insurance Bill by putting on this drastic form of closure. I was one of those who at the earliest possible moment, when speaking in public after the introduction of the Bill, spoke most strongly in favour of the aim and object of the measure. I am not quite sure that I can say the principles of the Bill, because I cannot see any distinct principle running through the Bill. But the aim—the relief of distress and the relief of poverty—has just as great sympathy on this side of the House as on the other. We want to see the Bill improved; we have proposed Amendments for that purpose, and some of those Amendments have been accepted. Why are we not to move our Amendments now? Why are we to be content because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a hundred deputations and written 2,500 letters? Typewriting is fairly cheap at the present time. But when our constituents write, as they do day by day, asking us to press forward various Amendments, what answer is it for us to say, "We cannot move those Amendments, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has settled what he considers to be right with various deputations." It is not a question of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks to be right. The responsibility for the framing of this measure, when the election comes, will be upon every individual Member of the House. We shall not be able to say that the Bill was framed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall have to explain why we did not press forward certain Amendments in regard to which our constituents take strong views. We shall not be able to ride off by placing the blame on the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I am bound to say that, after this Resolution, the right hon Gentleman will have given us a great opportunity of doing so.
I want to refer to one part of the Resolution which has not yet been dealt with, namely, the proposal to refer Part II. to a Grand Committee. It is almost unnecessary to put forward arguments against that proposal, because they were so amply stated from the Treasury Bench in July last. The proposal was then scouted by 157 two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, not merely, as the Prime Minister said, because it was undesirable to take the second part until after the financial provisions of Part I. had been dealt with, but on totally different grounds. If I had time to read to the House the speech of the President of the Board of Trade it would, I think, convince hon. Members that this proposal is utterly unsuited for a Bill of this kind from the point of view of the Government themselves. I assume that the Government still believe in Cabinet responsibility, and still pay some heed to the speeches made in this House by their own Members. The President of the Board of Trade said that the proposal was one which he could not accept, and that if it were accepted he did not think it would save much time to the House as a whole. He said:— In the first place I do not think, in a Bill of this sort, in which to a large extent the two parts are inter-dependable, it would be at all expedient to divide it into two parts, and I do not see that actual time would be saved by sending it to a Grand Committee. On the contrary, I think the amount of time devoted to the Bill by the House as a whole would be much greater if it were sent to a Grand Committee than if it remained in Committee of the whole House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1911, col. 1159.] Obviously the reason is that when there is a really debateable point upon which the feeling between different shades of opinion—not party feeling—runs high, nobody will accept the decision of a Grand Committee, and the point is bound to be put down and argued over again on the Report stage. It is a great shame in regard to a Bill of this kind, if it is to be sent to a Grand Committee, where at most sixty or seventy Members will take part in the discussion, that we should have only one-and-a-half days on Report to review, as it is essential we should review in important details, the decisions of the Grand Committee. Further, the President of the Board of Trade laid down a proposition, which I would strongly emphasise. He said:— I do not think hon. Members will be prepared day after day to sit from 11 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock or later at night. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with his colleagues or not? When the President of the Board of Trade declined to accept this proposal because he did not think it was fair to make hon. Members sit from 11.0 to 11.0, was he speaking on behalf of the Government, or was he not? If he was not speaking on behalf of the Government in July, and if the Government were not satisfied with his reasons for preventing the Bill from going 158 upstairs, I can only suggest that they should send the President of the Board of Trade himself upstairs, so that they will no longer be fettered by his speeches in this House. But it was not merely the President of the Board of Trade who objected to the Bill going to a Grand Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in July, was equally emphatic against the proposal. He said:— Supposing that one part of the Bill is sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, most of the Amendments to be moved with regard to the extension of the Bill and the readjustment of the finances affect the finances of the whole Bill. Are we, or are we not, to be allowed to move upstairs Amendments which would affect the finance of the unemployment part of the Bill? If so, the Chancellor's statement in July, if true then, is true today. Amendments in regard to finance on the unemployment part must affect, perhaps vitally, the financial proposals of Part I. The right hon. Gentleman then said:— You could not have one part of the Bill dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and Amendments introduced which would require the Government to find an increased subsidy, without having regard to the commitments of the other part of the Bill as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1911, col. 1164.] If that was true in July it must be true to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. Whether he means that he does not agree with himself in July or that he does not think his July speech applies to-day I am not certain. How is it possible for us to move to-day in Committee upstairs Amendments dealing with the financial aspects of Part II, which will not interfere with the commitments in regard to Part I.? But the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with us in July on general principles also. He said:— I am still of opinion it is a Bill which ought to be fashioned by the whole House. Again, if that was true in July, I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what has altered his view in regard to the unemployment part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) takes a very great interest in the unemployment part of this measure. Why is it not of sufficient importance to be fashioned by the whole House? Why are Amendments to it to be dealt with upstairs? The Prime Minister asked that it should go upstairs because only five and a-half pages of Amendments had yet been put down to Part II. Simply for the reason that we have all been dealing with Part I. of the Bill. We have not devoted ourselves to Part II. I 159 fancy that nearly all the Amendments with regard to Part II. up to the present moment have been put down from the Labour Benches. It is only fair to tell the House that at the request of the Chamber of Commerce of London I put down forty Amendments for the unemployment part of the Bill. These are Amendments—the House will believe me—fashioned not merely for the purpose of obstruction by some Member on this side of the House. They are reasoned Amendments, formulated after discussion by the Chambers of Commerce of this country; sent to me by the London Chamber of Commerce, and representing their views upon the Bill and the points which they desire the opinion of the House upon.
I suggest that the Government are not treating these great bodies fairly by sending their Amendments up to Grand Committee where they will be discussed with all these new forms of closure, and with a Chairman—I do not know to which Committee the Bill will go—but with a Chairman who possibly has not a great deal of experience in deciding what is and what is not a suitable Amendment to discuss. Many of these Amendments will be closured out, and many of these proposals altered—I do not say detrimentally altered—with a view to improvement, and it will be utterly impossible to discuss the Bill in Grand Committee. These Amendments cannot come before the House on Report owing to the miserable day and a-half allotted to the Report stage of the unemployment part of the Bill. I do venture in conclusion to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are entitled, and those connected with the commerce of this country, who are vitally interested in the unemployment part of the Bill, just as interested as are the Labour Benches, are entitled to have their Amendments discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. We cannot, I think, do better than appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade in July last, and ask them what reason they have for changing their minds and sending this portion of the Bill upstairs.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Before I come to the contents of the proposal before the House, I should like to ask who is the author of this masterpiece? I would suggest that it was not written by any Member of the Government or composed by any Member of the Government. I am not 160 saying that any Member of the Government has not the skill and knowledge to compose it. At the same time I do not believe it is the invention of the Government. I believe that for the first time this so drastic a proposal is the proposal of the Clerks at the Table. They may have acted wisely in making it as drastic as possible. But there is one innovation in it—I think it is an innovation—no doubt I shall, if wrong, be corrected. But I have in former times taken a great interest in the procedure of this House, and whoever has drawn this proposal deserves to have it laid in the form of a wreath on the grave of my late friend Mr. Biggar. It reduces the British House of Commons to practically a nullity. But what I was going to ask was: from where are the phrases got? In this free Assembly of the representatives of the people of the three kingdoms, where, I ask, is the phrase got from that "the Government" may do this, and "the Government" may do the other?
I own no Government in this House. I say that in the Standing Orders of this House, while you have the phrase "Government Bill" and "Government business," which is a reasonable and a compendious phrase, this phrase, "the Government," has never been used in any proposal in the shape in which it has been put down in the Motions which is now before the House. In previous masterpieces, at any rate in the Standing Order of the House, the phrase that is used is, "a Minister of the Crown" may do this or the other, but for the first time now, so completely are we reduced to a position of practical helplessness, that the very phrase, "the Government," is flaunted in our faces. Let me see the way in which hitherto the Standing Orders have dealt with the procedure of the kind. It is not unimportant because it connotes the new view of the Government towards the House of Commons. It is not that the House of Commons governs the Government, but that the Government governs the House of Commons. Let me look at Standing Order No. 1—which is a good way to begin:—
A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to be decided without amendment or debate.…
That is comparatively a new Standing Order, having been in existence for not more than fifteen or twenty years. Wherever you look you have "Government Bills" and "Government business," 161 but what have you in this Resolution? A new Clause or Schedule shall be moved by "the Government"! What is "the Government"? Can "the Government" make a Motion? Can "the Government" move a Bill? Why even on the Government's own Bill, even on the Insurance Bill, you have to put on the back, "Introduced by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer," "Mr. Sydney Buxton," and so forth. You have to voucher Bills by hon. Members in these words. Now for the first time in regard to this extraordinary proposal you have this new phrase invented for the purpose of giving us warning that we have, as regards our future Debates, to consider the threatenings of what is called "the Government." I think it is deplorable that in this newfangled procedure you should have in addition this newfangled phrase which, to my mind, seems to have issued from the brain of would-be despots.
I should like to say a word on the question of form. What is the object, when the Government is bound to get their Bill on the appointed day, of providing that you must not move to report Progress? What difference does it make? On whatever day you have appointed to pass this Bill in this House—whatever day it is—you will get your Bill. Very well; what then is the object of adding insult to injury, and saying, as you say in one of these Clauses here, that in the weeks that this Bill is to be before the House an hon. Member may not even relieve his feelings by a Motion to report Progress? Ex hypothesi on each allotted day you wll do so much business, and whether or not the time is wasted you will get your Clause through, and your Bill at the end of the time. What then is the object of proposing:—
On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate?
What possible reason or good sense in the sense of economy of time the Government have in that proposal, I really cannot understand. I leave the question of form. I come to the question of substance, which is what engages my own attention. I ask what is the amount of time that is to be given to the considera- 162 tion of Ireland under this Bill? I am very sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) has not yet had time apparently to read the Resolution of the Irish Bishops, because a more woeful misrepresentation of what that Resolution contains I have never heard given by any responsible Irish Member. The bishops have no political axe to grind. They have the care and the anxiety of the welfare of their flocks. They have to look both after the wordly and the spiritual welfare of their flocks irrespective of the fact whether their flocks have or have not a vote. They represent also a number of gentlemen, some of whom are the strongest supporters of the hon. Member for Waterford. One of them is so strong that his name was put forward on the Treasury—the Secret Committee in relation to Irish finances—that is the Bishop of Ross. Another well-known supporter of the hon. Member is the Bishop of Raphoe. I take these two alone. I do not suppose that, in season and out of season, you can name stronger supporters of the policy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford than these two distinguished prelates whom I have just mentioned. You have in these score or more prelates a reflex of the general opinion of the country, arrived at without regard to any consideration except the welfare of the masses of the toiling people of Ireland.
6.0 P.M.
This body met not upon a hurried occasion, not without thought, and I think, but I am not quite sure upon the point, not until they had the advantage of all our Debates in the previous Session before them, and they came to a resolution calling upon the Irish party not to support this Bill for Ireland, but to insist either upon a separate measure for that country or for the impounding of such contributions as we should be entitled to, and their allocation either to some other Bill or some wholly different purpose; and to say, as the hon Member for Waterford has said, that the Bishops of Ireland suggested that this Bill should be amended, or that it was capable of amendment in regard to Ireland is, I suggest, deceiving the House of Commons. That is why I say that in the numerous engagements of the hon. Member for Waterford he has not had time to read the resolution of the Hierarchy of Ireland. That being so, I come to his next proposition, namely, that this Bill can be so 163 amended as to make it suitable to the necessities of Ireland. Let me say this, I admire in the highest degree the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has struggled for this Bill for his own country and for the English people. I believe he has performed a giant's work, and much as I admired him in the past I never admired so much the pluck, the dexterity and courage with which he has faced the situation, so he will not think for a moment that I am depreciating his efforts, or that I am belittling the enormous healing effects that I believe this measure would have upon the working-class situation as its exists in this country. I believe he is perfectly genuine, perfectly sincere, and perfectly Christian, which is the highest compliment I can pay him in regard to his efforts. But the case of Ireland is as different in regard to this measure, not only as if it was another country, but as if it was a country ten thousand miles away from here. I am not going to discuss that, it would not be in order were I to do so, but the fact that it is radically different is proved by the resolution of the Irish heirarchy.
It is an extraordinary thing that of all the Bills introduced into this House since I became a Member of it this is the first time the Irish hierarchy have specially met and emphatically condemned any measure, unless some measure of education in which religious feelings were naturally aroused, but so far as what I may call a layman's Bill, this is the first occasion that the united voice of the Irish hierarchy has pronounced against any measure introduced into the House of Commons. That is a tremendous fact, and I am sure it will be borne in upon the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What did I hear to-day from the Member for Waterford? "Oh," he says, "this case could be met by Amendments," and he is quite satisfied that the Government will accept his Amendments, but why should we have blind man's buff played? Surely, as a humble Irishman I am as much entitled to know before I make up my mind as to whether one day is sufficient for discussion in regard to this Irish question, what the Amendments are going to be. They are not upon the Paper. When the Member for Waterford got up I thought he was going to take the House of Commons into his confidence, and, being still a Member of this House, incidentally that I should be taken into his confidence, but instead of saying anything of that sort—it is not 164 that he did not let the cat out of the bag—he was careful to guard himself from giving the House the smallest inkling of what he believes will be the Amendments suitable and acceptable to the Irish people in regard to the Bill.
We have the advantage of knowing from a speech which the hon. Gentleman delivered in Ireland last week that he commissioned two of the ablest Members of his party to come over to London and see the Treasury—I think it was the Treasury or the Treasury officials. I do not know who the two ablest Members of his party are, but at all events it shows this—they have come over to Ephesus to wrestle, and, having seen the Treasury, and having made up their minds, they must have reported to him as to what the Amendments are which would be suitable to himself and at the same time satisfactory to the country. I put it to the House, is it unreasonable that we should have these Amendments put upon the Paper? I asked the question yesterday, "What is all this about?" Here is a Bill which was introduced months and months ago; it is confessed even by the hon. Member for Waterford himself the Bill is unsuitable to Ireland, and now when we come to the Closure and are to decant the entire business in regard to Ireland into a single Session of six hours, we are not yet told what are the Amendments suitable for Ireland, although, obviously, as a matter of principle, they must be something radically different to anything already in the Bill. We have accused Governments in the past of being unfair to Ireland, but now it is the masters of the Government that are unfair to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford says that he is quite satisfied when the Amendments are produced that they will be accepted, and I quite agree with him—[An HON. MEMBER: "They must be."]—but from a different reason from what the Opposition suppose. The reason will be that the hon. Member will put down nothing but what he knows in advance will be acceptable to the Government. He is quite right. I am not quarrelling with that mode of procedure at all, I have done it myself, and I think it is a most legitimate manner in which to conduct business, but is it a legitimate manner in regard to a Bill which has met the weighty condemnation that this Bill has received in Ireland, and is it a legitimate manner to say that "whatever I and the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree to I know will receive the endorsement of the 165 hierarchy of Ireland," because that is the effect of the hon. Member's speech to-day. Has he submitted the results of his Treasury wrestlings to the Irish Bishops, and if he has not done so, how can he tell the country or tell his party that a measure which was so obnoxious that for the first time the Bishops interfered in what is practically a lay matter will become something, will be transmogrified into something which will suddenly be acceptable to the very able man who composed that body in Ireland.
I do not think the Nonconformist body have any Bishops, and, naturally, in England, where there is such keen lay opinion, Bishops are not popular. You may imagine that our Bishops are practically the same as the number of learned gentlemen whom sometimes we see voting in the House of Lords one way, after they have declared they would vote the other way. We should remember this that the circumstances of Ireland are such, and the interests of our people need such keen looking after that the able men who are created Bishops in Ireland are, to say the least of them, a body of men quite as competent as the general run of the Members of the Irish party. I do not think that is extravagant praise of them, or that anyone will accuse me of flattery, and that is why I say in regard to a measure, which in its present form is admittedly unsuitable to Ireland, that before it can be made suitable to those who are as well entitled to speak on behalf of the poor and the lowly as the hon. Member for Waterford, and before he agrees to these Amendments and can vouch that they will be accepted by those who have condemned the Bill, I would feel much more assured upon the point if he had the courage to put these Amendments much earlier upon the Paper. And lastly, may I correct a somewhat unusual statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The leader of the Opposition, if he has fallen into error in regard to this particular Clause, "Powers to remove difficulties," enjoys the singular felicity of having fallen into that blunder in the excellent company of the editor of the "Freeman's Journal." Because if there was any Clause which aroused the opposition of Mr. Sexton—long a distinguished Member of this House, and a man quite as competent to take charge of finance as the hon. Member for Waterford—it was this. The curious fact is that all the Dublin Press, Nationalist and Conservative, have denounced the Insurance Bill. The "Freeman's Journal" is the 166 organ of the Irish party, and its editor is nominated by them. May I point out that from the day this Bill was brought in—unless some form of closure like this stupendous monument of industry you have here has been imposed upon the "Freeman's Journal," because I do not read it regularly—ithat Government organ—and many of its staff I think are largely obliged to the Government—has steadily opposed this Bill. If the Member for the City has been in error with regard to that Clause, then I may say he has fallen in the excellent company of this Government organ. Let me deal with the correction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is so careful in debate. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised and underlined his correction, and he interrupted the Leader of the Opposition on this point, and said, "We have taken this Clause from one of your own Bills." I am sorry to say that that statement is absolutely without a shadow of foundation. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, for probably he did not have an opportunity of referring to the Statutes, and possibly he made the same mistake on the Second Reading. But what are the facts? The Irish Local Government Act does not contain any such clause. What it does contain is a power to transfer to Ireland a clause out of the Parish Council's Bill which was a measure passed by a Liberal Government. That Clause was of a transitory kind, and was only for the purpose of the correction of the merest mistake.
What is the Irish Clause to which he refers? It is contained in an Order in Council and has nothing to do with anything except the changing of the dates on which elections may take place. Let me give the reason. When the Local Government Act was passed, in order to shorten debate, we invented a system whereby English clauses already passed in English Acts could be transferred bodily to Ireland by a compendious method of reference, and the only precedent the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give for this extraordinary Clause is a power of the Local Government Board in Ireland to alter the dates of elections. What does his Clause do? It makes this extraordinary gentleman—I would like to meet him in the flesh—it converts him into a legislator. Really it does occur to me that if this is to be the normal course of procedure, the Mace there ought to be removed, and a model of the guillotine placed there. Perhaps as I am in an illustrative mood, I might stray to heraldry and suggest that 167 the Lion and the Unicorn should be taken from the Royal Arms and replaced by the Kangaroo. What is this clause? Really when it shocked the editor of the "Freeman's Journal," is it surprising that it should shock the Leader of the Opposition? Here is the proposal:— If any difficulty arises with respect to the constitution of Local Health Committees"— Supposing in this country you do not like the Liberals on the Local Health Committee, or in Ireland you do not like the Orangeman or the Molly Maguires on the Advisory Committee. In bringing into operation this part of the Act, the Insurance Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury"— We can never get on without the consent of the Treasury. May, by an Order, make any appointment and do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for the establishment of such Committees"— [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I know you think nothing of Committees, because the Committees of this House has practically been abolished, and it seems to be despised. And for bringing this part of the Act into operation, and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary and expedient for carrying the Order into effect. In Ireland we speak of— Hempenstall, As judge, jury, gallows and all. This is a modern Hempenstall, for he hangs the Bill over his shoulders as Hempenstall hung the croppies in 1798. I think, so far as Ireland is concerned, one would like to know what is going to be done. I know all this has to be debated, and I am afraid I am straying beyond what is legitimate on this Motion. I was going to say that, so far as Ireland is concerned, her powers are all to be bottled up and considered in the course of a single afternoon. I notice that you have given us the fag-end of another day for the Irish Clause, but I thought the intention was to give us a second day. In regard to all these questions that we have discussed, I say that it is cruel, considering the importance of this Bill to our country, and the numerous and difficult questions that will arise, to expect us to be satisfied with 168 the time which is allotted to us under this Motion. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said if this Bill goes over until the next year it will impinge upon the discussion of Home Rule. The Government have been in office since 1905, and really if this Bill is of such enormous importance one would have thought it would have occupied as much time during this Session as would have enabled it to be passed without any difficulty. I am afraid that if we assent to the passage of this Bill under these closure conditions we shall be told that the very fact that we have assented to its passage is a reason why the Government, in dealing with Home Rule next year, cannot give us that kind of finance which is necessary to satisfy Irish Members. That is a point which is too controversial for me to go into now, and I do not propose to trouble the House any further upon that matter. As regards this Closure Motion, I believe it is unprecedented. On this point I differ from the Prime Minister, the skill of whose speech to-day I admire more than ever, because he was skilfully dull. I believe he deliberately arranged dullness to-day so that it should act as a sort of anodyne to the House to secure the acceptance of his proposal. I deny the proposition, as an Irish Member, that this kind of Closure is necessary. How did Mr. Gladstone get through the Irish Land Bill, the most contentious Bill ever passed? How did he get through the Franchise Bill, that hard-fought measure? How did he get through the Redistribution of Seats Bill, and in a Parliament which we can only recollect, how did he pass the Ballot Act, the Irish Church Act and all the great controversial measures of that extraordinary Gladstonian time? How were all those great measures got through? It was only in the month of November, 1883, that the Closure was, for the first time, invented. What has happened? Having given yourself a dose of this poisonous medicine and promising yourself at the beginning that it would only be a very small dose, you are now in the position of the normal drug taker, and you must increase the dose, and so the Closure has grown from little to great, until now instead of being the servant of this House it has become its master.
No Minister can pass anything now without the Closure. I remember Sir William Harcourt and his Finance Bill of 1894. If ever there was a man kind to an Opposition and animated by a desire to promote good feeling in this House when he led it, 169 it was Sir William Harcourt. His boast was that he passed the great Finance Bill of 1894, which practically for the first time imposed the new Death Duties without a single Motion of this kind. Can you pass nothing without the Closure? You feel the divine afflatus of a series of general elections, you feel the great spirit of democracy, and you are full of zeal for the interests of the people, and yet you cannot pass a measure which you announce is going to bring these national boons into every poor home in the land and bring joy and hope to every heart without a Motion of this kind. Have you not sufficient control over the House of Commons or sufficient reliance upon the good feeling of its Members that in the case of the Bill, which you admit is non-contentious, you are driven to bring down the most terrible engine ever brought to the House of Commons? Why, when you proposed Coercion Bills for Ireland there was no such thing as this. When you declared that all law, order, and society was insolvent in Ireland, and that means must be taken at once to ram a thousand men into gaol, there was no such Closure as this. I remember the Rules of Urgency proposed on the 1st June, 1882, and there was a previous Resolution in the Parliament of 1881, but I say there was no such Closure in regard to these drastic proposals affecting liberty in Ireland as you are proposing to-day in regard to what you say will be a handsome boon to the democracy of this country.

§ Sir W. P. BYLES
You were then on our side.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I did not catch my hon Friend's interruption. I cannot often do it. Therefore, I say with regard to a proposal so extravagant as regards the liberties of the House as a whole and a proposal, I may say so incompetent with regard to the question of Ireland, I think the Irish Members are lacking in their duty on so terrible and momentous an occasion to accept without protest the Motion of the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not know whether the Government are satisfied with the course this Debate has taken, but I may venture to say that anyone who has listened to it must have been convinced at once of the magnitude and gravity of the proposal which the Government have made and struck by the paucity of argument that has been adduced from any quarter on its behalf. The 170 Prime Minister, in making this Motion, scarcely pretended to base it upon the circumstances of this Session or of this Bill, and I think he was well advised, for the circumstances of this Session and this Bill do not justify such a Motion as this. Indeed, this Bill, by its nature, and having regard to the way in which it has been conducted in the House hitherto, was the last one to which such a procedure ought to have been applied. The Prime Minister placed the proposal before the House not as an exceptional measure to deal with the particular circumstances of this Bill, but as a precedent on which he intended to rely for the future, and one has only to place that speech beside the speech afterwards made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) to see that the Motion we are discussing to-day has really in its essence very little to do with this Insurance Bill, but is intended as a precedent for a similar Motion to be applied to another and a totally different Bill next year. This is the beginning of the Home Rule campaign, and it is in order to make a precedent for the Home Rule campaign that the Prime Minister interrupts the peaceful discussion of this Bill so vitally important to the mass of our people, and forces us to swallow it if not whole in great gulps and many clauses at a time. If the Prime Minister did not defend it, there has come no defence, no whole-hearted defence, from the Government side.
I am sorry that neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here at the moment when the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) made a short but very remarkable protest against the course which the Government are taking. The hon. Member rightly said that what the Government was asking for was not facilities for the passage of a Bill, but a blank cheque to pass what they liked, and he for one said he would not and could not be a party to signing that cheque. One other hon. Member, I think, has spoken from that side of the House, the hon. Member who was recently returned for Barnstaple (Sir G. Baring). The hon. Member was only a partial supporter of the Government. He was prepared to vote for the Resolution as a whole, but, having heard the examination which my right hon. Friend gave to a single day's business under this scheme, he was convinced by that examination that that day's work was far too heavy, and he begged the Government, and, I presume, will if necessary vote in support of his appeal, at least to alter that 171 day. Yes, but why that day more than another? He had read the Resolution referring to that day before he came down to the House just as he had read the rest of the Resolution, and he was prepared to support the Resolution in regard to that day, but when my right hon. Friend took the trouble to make a detailed examination of the work of that one day the hon. Member's resolution to support the Government in their proposals as they stand at once broke down in regard to that day. If he had taken the same trouble to examine other days he would have found the case is just as strong. The day my right hon. Frend chose was not the exception, it is the rule, and, if the work appointed for that day is intolerable, so surely is the work for every day during our proceedings.
I will make only two observations about that part of the Bill dealing with unemployment, which, in fact, we are not going to be allowed to discuss in this House at all, and then I will come back to the time that is allotted to the invalidity and sickness proposals. Let me say in regard to the second part of the Bill, or as I may properly say, the second Bill, that the Prime Minister tried to justify sending it to a Committee upstairs now when the Government had refused to do so earlier on two grounds. In the first place, he made an observation which shows us how very little attention he has been able to give to the Bill or to the interest which it has excited. He said there were only five and a-half pages of Amendments to that part of the Bill. Does he think that the measure of the interest of the country in the Bill or of the questions that have to be raised on that part of the Bill? No. That has been caused solely by the absorption of the country in the other part of the Bill. I venture to say that many important bodies outside this House will hear with alarm that without further delay the second portion of the Bill is to be sent upstairs and proceeded with pari passu with this part of the Bill. I had the honour of meeting a deputation of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce much earlier in the year with regard to the first part of the Bill. They said they found it difficult even then to keep pace with the rate at which we were discussing the clauses in the House, and some of their recommendations already came too late for the Committee stage. Just as they were leaving they said they presumed the unemployment part of the Bill 172 would not be touched this year, and that they need not refer to that part. I give that as a single instance. They have prepared some Amendments which they desire to see introduced, and which are matters at any rate for consideration; but they would not have dreamed it necessary if it had not been for my warning at that time. I am quite certain the Prime Minister will find that the five and a-half pages, which had been put down long in advance of the time at which anybody could expect to reach that part of the Bill if they expected to reach it this year at all, are by no means a measure of the importance of the subjects remaining for discussion.
One other observation with regard to that part of the Bill. He said we could safely send it upstairs now though we could not do it earlier, because our financial commitments with regard to the Bill were now known. To whom are they known? They are not known to this House. Are they known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I really do not know, but, if so, he has kept the information to himself. He has made a series of promises since the House last sat. Some of them are definite, and some of them are excessively vague, but a very large number of them touch questions of finance, and he has not given to the country or to this House the slightest indication of the effect of those proposals on the finance of the Bill, or whether the sum which he originally told the House they might deal with is still the only sum he is prepared to spend, or whether he is going to put a further burden upon the Exchequer. The House has no such financial information. I am not sure whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got it himself, but I say confidently neither this House nor any Member of this House except the Government has any such financial information as that of which the Prime Minister speaks. Nor can we have it if, while we discuss one part of the Bill downstairs, another section of Members discusses the other part of the Bill upstairs. How can you control the expenditure of two bodies sitting simultaneously under different guiders and composed, to a very large extent, of different interests? There is only one way in which it can be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not be present in the Committee upstairs, will, without hearing the arguments there and without knowing what is said, have to lay down to the Minister who represents the Government, "There you have got so I much money to spend; you must not let 173 the Committee spend a penny more." That Committee cannot deal freely as the House could do with the part of the Bill that is committed to it.
I come back to the Invalidity and Sickness portion of the Bill. I say the day with which my right hon. Friend illustrated the working of this Resolution was only a sample. Let me call attention to two others. One is, I think, the sixth day. On that day, it is true, we have only two Clauses to discuss, and I choose it for that reason, because it looks a very moderate day. What have we got to decide on that day in six and a-half hours? The whole position of married women under the Act. What are the proposals which the Government mean to make? We do not know at this moment. The only thing we do know is they are not the proposals in the Bill which have been universally condemned, and which the Government do not propose to stand by. It is not this Bill which we are guillotining; it is a new Bill which has never been considered. Some parts of it have been faintly adumbrated, but no man on earth knows what it actually is the Government will lay before us. Would the whole six and a-half hours be too much to give to the consideration of entirely new proposals to be made by the Government for dealing with the position of married women under the Act? I do not say six and a-half hours is enough. There is no question that has caused graver searchings of heart to many of us than the treatment of women under this Bill, and to those of us who are opposed to the extension of suffrage to women and to the direct representation of women by women in this House it is of vital importance when matters of such consequence as this concerning women are under discussion that the fullest time should be given to those who can speak on their behalf, and that the House should grudge no attention necessary to assure them they have fair play. I say to divide that six and a-half hours with another clause is absolutely ridiculous.
What is the other question? It is a question as to which, as far as I know—and I have been in fairly constant attendance in these Debates—really nothing has been said at present at any stage of this Bill. It is the question of the treatment of aliens. I assure the House that that is a very difficult question. I am not prepared to say exactly how they ought to be treated, but I am prepared to say that if the Government leaves the Clause as they have put it down, or if the House passes 174 the Clause without discussing it, a grave injustice will be done to many aliens long resident in this country—British citizens in sympathy and feeling and in all but naturalisation. In the second place, vital injury will be done to the great Jewish friendly societies and to the members of those societies who are British, either naturalised or by birth. The Clause will not merely inflict a great injury on these men, but it will tend to destroy the educative patriotism and good feeling they have for this country, a feeling which is entertained by many foreign Jews who have settled here. It cannot be denied that the question of the treatment of married women raised in proposals we have not seen, and the question of the treatment of aliens which has not yet received our consideration, is more than enough work for six hours and a-half.
Then we come to the days which are allotted, to the Schedules "and to any other matters necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion." What are the matters therein concerned? The first Schedule decides what employments are to come under the Act, and the second part sets forth what exceptions shall be made from their general character. More than once important questions have been raised, and at the request of the representative of the Government or by the desire of the Chair they have been postponed until the Schedules are reached. It may have been the ruling of the Chairman that the more convenient place to deal with these questions was the Schedule, and the Government, having secured the adjournment of those questions until the Schedules were reached, now come down and tell us that we must swallow the Schedules in two days. Then there is the question who are to be insured, and what each man is to bear—whether the relative contributions of employers and employed are fair, so far as regards all grades of men earning different wages. All these questions will have to be considered, and again I say what is it we shall have to discuss? Not the Schedule, which was printed, or which was adumbrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what, I think, was advertised as a non-party speech in the Tabernacle. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had better give up the pretence of being a non-party speaker outside this House. But what we have to discuss in regard to these matters is the contributions of the employed, and those questions are not the proposals in the Bill, but they are other proposals which have not 175 appeared on the Notice Paper. There are, too, rules for the payment and recovery of money in the Third Schedule, and if the House will forgive me for just referring to one paragraph in the Schedule they will see that the Clause which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition commented upon, and which was also referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, does not appear in the Bill itself. It is the Schedule that deals with the rules that are to be made under the Act, and not by Parliament, as to the contributions to be paid by employers on behalf of the employed. And then there is the question as to the contributor employed by more than one employer, which of the employers shall be deemed to be the person liable to pay? This is a Schedule which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks can be dealt with in four hours.
Next there is a Fourth Schedule. Let us consider that. It deals with "benefits under the Act" and with "additional benefits under the Act." The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the proper time for dealing with these questions would be on the Schedule, but are the Government allowing us sufficient opportunity to discuss them on the Schedules. As a matter of fact the main part of the discussion all along has been reserved for the Schedule1? The Fifth Schedule deals with the reduction of benefits to which contributors are to be subjected under certain conditions. Now I have given the House what is put down as two days' work, and I venture to say that it is absurd to pretend that this House can have any real share in the fashioning of a measure of this complexity and importance when it is required to dispose of such matters as these in the course of thirteen hours. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork spoke of the position of Ireland and of the right of Irish Members to know beforehand what were the proposals of the Government, and to have time for the discussion of those proposals. I do not deny their right, but I suggest that that right is not confined to them. This Bill does not deal with purely Irish questions, and as long as this scheme is to be financed from the common Exchequer, the application of the Bill to Ireland is of common interest, and other Members have the same right as the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, to protest against the arrangement between the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and 176 the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have an equal right to claim full time for the discussion of proposals of the Government which have not yet been made known.
7.0 P.M.
I will not spend any more time upon details. I want to say a word or two on the general history of this Bill. I think the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister to-day is a confession of pitiable failure—not of their laudable experiment, which all of us hope may succeed. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his measure, it certainly did not divide the House on party lines—it dealt with a subject, the importance and urgency of which we all recognised, and for which we were all anxious to find a possible solution. We were all willing to co-operate with the Government in amending the measure and improving it so as to make it a work by which the nation would really benefit, and of which the whole House might be proud. That was the spirit in which we received this Bill, and up to the very last moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no complaint, any more than the Prime Minister has ventured to do of the conduct of the Opposition and of the Members of the House generally in regard to this measure. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted the improvements which have been made and the assistance which has been given by hon. Members sitting in all quarters of the House. I think his parting words were an invitation for similar co-operation in the future. But what occurred outside Parliament? [An HON. MEMBER: "Bye-elections."] I am obliged to the hon. Member; he reminds me of a point I have had in my mind to deal with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that when Unionist candidates found themselves face to face with the electors, candidates chosen in the constituency who have not been Members of this House and have not taken part in the discussions on the Bill, they have proved to be much more hostile to the Bill than we are here. What is the moral he draws from that? He says, "Thank you for nothing: henceforth I will have no more to do with you. I have used you as far as possible: I do not want you any longer." But I draw this moral: that the measure of the pressure on Opposition candidates who take a hostile line on the Bill is the measure of the restraint we have exercised. There has been a change during the Recess. I am not sure that it did not 177 begin before the Recess, because I remember a letter written by the Home Secretary to a colleague in distress, commending him to the support of the electors, which did not at all express the same view or speak in the same spirit as was being breathed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons, and which sought to turn this Bill against the Opposition whilst the Opposition in the House of Commons were being invited to co-operate in it. But these are minor points. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself changed his whole tone and attitude. It is idle to invite co-operation, to try and share with the Opposition the responsibility for all that is unpopular in this Bill, to ask our help to relieve him from the difficulties which he is afraid to face alone, and then to go out into the country to denounce our conduct, to misdescribe his own Bill, and to try to use it as an ordinary weapon in party strife. I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer misdescribes his own Bill, and that makes it more of a scandal that a discussion in the House of Commons should be limited. Never were such wild statements made by a Minister in charge of a Bill as were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to his Bill. They were received with rapturous applause at the Tabernacle. Here they would be known and proved to be false. That fact cannot be divorced from a consideration of the limits put upon our rights of discussion. Let me take a single case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a right to have an example of such a charge as I have made. This is the Tabernacle speech:— What a fine thing it is to get the doctor you want and to get somebody else to pay for it. That is the Government, Insurance Bill. It is not. The Government Insurance Bill says that you shall compulsorily contribute out of your wages every week in order to pay a doctor. The Government Bill says you shall contribute in order to pay a doctor, whether the circumstances and conditions of your employment be such that you ever require to call in that doctor or whether you do not. That is the Insurance Bill of the Government. What a scandal it is. I do not speak of the spirit which animates a discourse of that kind. It is an open attempt to bribe—so different from the very high appeal with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched the Bill and on which he sought our sympathies. I do not speak of that, but I say what a scandal it is that a Minister who cannot describe his own proposals 178 more accurately than that outside the House should gag discussion of them inside the House.
The right hon. Gentleman in the same speech observed that he had time and again invited even closer co-operation from this side of the House. Within the House he admitted that he had received it. Outside the House he did not admit it. Outside the House he alleged that we combined dishonestly—that was the innuendo—with men of entirely different views in support of things we should not have otherwise approved in order to embarrass the Government. It is not true, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that it is not true, and that probably no Opposition has ever more carefully restrained its action or ever less sought by chance divisions or chance aggregation of votes to embarrass a Minister in pursuit of a Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that we did not go to meet him at the Treasury. He made that offer very early in the day. He knows perfectly well what some of the difficulties were. I would venture to remind him of others. On the Second Reading of the Bill, when he had made the proposal, I, amongst others, asked for information. I said we could not possibly meet him to discuss the Bill until we had more information than he had at present given us. He stated then that the soldiers and sailors are to have the full actuarial benefit of their contributions. I asked for a paper showing how that calculation was arrived at. That was in the month of May. When was the paper forthcoming? In the month of August. That was the first thing I asked for, in order that we might deal with the position to form an opinion on the Bill. I asked him for other information. Let me remind the House, as my right hon. Friend has already done—it is important that I should do it at this stage—that when that paper was produced it showed that the actuaries were unable to confirm the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it showed that if we had proceeded upon his statement we should have proceeded upon a false assumption. The soldiers and sailors do not get their full actuarial benefit. I asked at the same time for a paper about the women. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the same statement about the women. Is it true or is it not true? I asked for the calculation which, in order to be able to make that statement, he must have had in his hand. He surely would never have 179 made that statement with no actuarial calculations. I asked for it in May, and we have not got it yet. Where is the co-operation? You cannot work that way. If the facts are not given to us for which we ask, if the statements which are made to us are not trustworthy, we cannot co-operate on so insecure a basis as then alone remains to us.
The plot grows deeper. The Prime Minister says that the principle of this Bill was agreed to. As defined by him, yes. We agreed—substantially agreed, I do not want to arouse contradictions—that it is desirable to have a scheme for invalidity, and that it is desirable that it should be a contributory scheme. Can anybody say we are agreed as to the proportions in which different individuals or different classes should contribute, or that we are agreed on what is perhaps a still bigger question, the best use that you can make of the money which is so contributed. This Bill is so drafted that the House is hampered at every turn in dealing with the allocation of the money. I pointed that out on the Financial Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not say "You may have so much money; deal with it as you will." He says, "You must not pay in any case more than two-ninths of the benefit out of the State funds," and accordingly by the framework of this Bill he makes it necessary that to him who hath shall be given, that those who are most well to do shall take most out of the Bill and out of the Treasury, and that those who are poorest and most necessitous shall get the least benefit from the funds. He does that in the guise of an Insurance Bill which he calls a National Insurance Bill. If it were a National Insurance Bill, it would pool the risks of the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has so drafted his Bill that you cannot discuss with any freedom whether that should be done or not. He allows the best risks to be pooled in one way and pools all the worst risks in another. The greatest assistance goes from the State to those who are the best risks and who have the least need, and the least assistance is given to those who are the worst risks and have the most need. That is a fundamental difficulty which I and many others pointed out at the Second Reading of the Bill and have referred to since.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer genuinely wants the kind of co-operation he professed to desire previous to the 180 Recess, he ought to have invited us to co-operate in the framing of the instructions to the draftsmen, and to have submitted the principles of the Bill to the House in the first place as Resolutions. Then the House could have taken a real and efficient part in laying down those principles. As it is, it is impossible for us to take the kind of responsibility that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to thrust upon us, because in the first place, if the Bill was not drawn in this manner, we could not put the Amendments we desired into the Bill, and secondly, our attempts at co-operation were further limited by the inaccuracy of much of the information the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to us, and the total want of information on other points for which we continuously pressed him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now determined to abandon all attempts to co-operate with the House. In the circumstances I do not criticise his decision. It is his decision, and it is the result of his work, and he has no right to saddle the blame upon anybody else. Henceforth, although we agree it is desirable to have a National Insurance scheme, although we are glad to acknowledge that he has framed that scheme on a contributory basis which we believe to be essential, he must not suppose that we think that this is the best Bill that he could have produced with the means at his disposal, and he must not seek to make us bear responsibility for defects which it would have been difficult to cure in any circumstances, but which it becomes impossible for us adequately to discuss under the decree and under the Motion which the Government are asking the House to pass to-day. It is not only we who henceforth will have no real power to influence the ultimate form of this Bill. The whole House will be excluded from that task. We might talk a little on some detached points here and there, but for any practical influence that we can have, unless a majority of the House is prepared to kill the Bill outright, we might just as well not be here. If the Government really contemplated a Motion of this kind when we separated, I think it would have been very much better if they had put one other Clause into their Bill, and really given power to themselves to do what they will do now under cover of the House of Commons, but without any real control by the House of Commons, make this Bill exactly what they please without any full or adequate discussion at all. Treating a Bill of this kind, begun under such auspices, in 181 that way, breaking the spirit of conciliation which we had maintained on all sides, except perhaps the Labour Members on one memorable night, and turning the Bill into an electoral instrument, using it to appeal, not even to the nobler sentiments which it arouses, but to the basest greed of mankind—that action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the death knell to such proposals for co-operation as he has made, and I for one, though I will not destroy the only Bill that we can have, say that if we had had genuine discussion we could have made this Bill much better, and if the Government were not considering another programme for another Session, but were concerned really about making the best Insurance Bill they could, they would redraft this measure and would make it far more beneficial to the nation at large. They might not pay so high a price to the vested interests and the organised interests whom the Chancellor denounces on the platform, and with whom he closets himself in private negotiations the next day, but they would make a fairer and better measure. The great mass of the poor and suffering will get scant justice out of the present proposals.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman, in the concluding part of his speech, entered into a great deal of matter which, with all respect, I do not think very relevant to the Motion before the House. So irrelevant is it that it would be quite impossible for me to answer it without entering into a general defence, not merely of the merits of the Bill, but of several Clauses in it as well. But what I do note is the change in his attitude towards the Bill. Now in a compendious sentence he denounces it root and branch, and ends by saying that even without a time limit it could not be amended by the Opposition. That is his reason for not meeting the invitation which was offered by the Prime Minister three or four months ago to the Opposition that they could not do it, though if they had been invited before the Bill had been introduced it would have been a different matter, and they could have shaped it; but once it was introduced they could not alter it. His view is that the Bill cannot be amended. That is the justification for what I have stated, that the attitude of the Opposition towards the Bill has altered. But I was really rather amused at that part of his speech in which he was good enough to describe me as a poor, timid creature, afraid alone to face the unpopu- 182 larity which raged around this Bill without getting his protection. He rather suggested that all the conciliatory attitude which I had displayed towards the Opposition throughout was purely an attempt to seek the protection of himself and others against the raging multitude outside. He went beyond that statement. He said, "We are the people who restrained our supporters in the country from attacking you."

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
No, I said we were restraining ourselves.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I know. I do not think that looks like the experience of Kilmarnock. At Kilmarnock there was no restraint.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
My argument was that there were these attacks, and that that showed the pressure put upon candidates to make the demands and show the amount of discontent there was. I said that was the measure of the restraint being shown in this House. The unpopularity, of course, was at once taken advantage of at any by-election.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is exactly what I said. I said that restraint, whatever it was in this House, was not extended to the platform outside, and that in Kilmarnock even Members of the late Government went on the platform and denounced the Bill wholesale, and I think the candidate there would have been better pleased if he had exercised the same restraint at Kilmarnock as his leaders did in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman goes on and talks about appealing to the basest greed of mankind, when we are offering simply medical attendance for poor people who have not a doctor, and 10s. and 5s. a week. How is the appeal made to the basest greed of mankind? By telling them there is a Bill which will provide medical attendance for them when they are ill, and 10s. and 5s. a week, and a sanatorium for consumptives. That is appealing to the basest and the most sordid nature of mankind.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I said nothing of the kind.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I never explained to them that they were to contribute. If instead of reading the comments on my speech he had done me the honour of reading the speech itself he would have found I made it perfectly clear 183 that they were to contribute, and that I even gave the amounts of the contributions in each case.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of reading comments on his speech and not the speech itself. I read "The Times" report of the speech:— What a fine thing it was to get the doctor you want and get someone else to pay for it. That is the Government Insurance Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman has done what he very often does. He has just torn out a sentence of about a couple of lines, when if he had only gone a little in front or a little after it he would have known that I explained at great length the actual amount which had to be contributed. What more could I have done than that? When the right hon. Gentleman begins to talk about the immoral attempt to bribe the working classes, that is about the limit, coming from him. What about the record of his party? They made a promise of Old Age Pensions. If there is one thing more immoral than a bribe it is promising a bribe and getting a vote and then not giving the bribe. Then what about work for all? The right hon. Gentleman talks about an immoral attempt to bribe the working classes. His real complaint is that the working classes will not accept their bribes. They were made a promise once, they did not get it, and they will not trust him again. That is the real complaint. I am very sorry—it is no fault of mine—that I have been called upon to embark on all these things. I am only replying to some stinging phrases which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to use which were not quite strictly relevant to the question of the time limit. No one listening to his speech, or even the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, would ever have thought that either of them had ever proposed to impose a time limit in their lives before, but I have repeatedly heard the Leader of the Opposition say he regretted it, but he had come to the conclusion that it was almost inevitable. I have heard him at this box proposing a time limit for the Education Bill, and stating in the course of his speech that he did not charge the Opposition with obstruction, that after listening to most of the speeches he has not said there was any obstruction, but he had come to the conclusion that it was the only way to carry the Bill.
184 What did the Leader of the Opposition say to-day? He practically admitted that it was impossible to carry this Bill through during the present Session. I remember the illustrious relative of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) promoting a Bill in this House for compensation for workmen, and I remember him stating that unless the Opposition refrained from taking part in the discussion and helped the Bill through he could only get a few more days' time and the Bill would be killed. What happened in that case? The Opposition responded. There were only two Members of the Opposition who were opposed to the Bill out and out and the rest really assisted by refraining from taking part. That was one way of doing it, and the Opposition might, have assisted in that way on this Bill. We responded to the invitation on that Bill, and that is the only way the Bill got through. That is one of the difficulties of all Parliamentary procedure. One reason of that is that we are undertaking work which ought to be delegated to other authorities, and we are taunted that we want to get this Bill through in order to improve our procedure in such a way that Resolutions of this kind will not be as necessary in the future. What is the time that has been given to this Bill altogether? We have already had seventeen days. There will be fifteen days in Committee, there will be probably about twelve days in Committee upstairs, there will be four days on Report, and a day on the Third Reading. That will be forty-nine days.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY
You are counting the same days twice over.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
But they are days which will be occupied on the Bill. If you are going to count the time to be devoted to the examination of the Bill, how can you do it without counting the days which are taken upstairs? It is quite impossible. I have listened to the criticism of this time limit, and I shall have something to say about time limits generally later on. What struck me very much in listening to the Debate was that with one exception, which I shall deal with later on, no case has been made out against the allocation of time which is proposed, for there is nothing which is regarded by any section of the House of Commons as of importance which has not been fully discussed. [Indications of dissent.] There is not a single case, apart from, as I have said, one exception, and that is one which I am going 185 to deal with. The Leader of the Opposition went through the whole of the points which he thought ought to be discussed, and I was relieved when he came to the end of them, because I felt when he came to the end that we had met every point except one. The Leader of the Opposition, with the instinct of an old Parliamentary hand, instantly fastened on that one flaw in the scheme, and he dwelt upon it and criticised it. An hon. Friend on this side supported the Leader of the Opposition in that respect. I agree that he made a case there for an extension of the time for discussion, and we propose to give a day on that particular point. Take all the other points in the Bill. There is not one of the matters referred to which will not be given ample time for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) added nothing to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition on these points. Take the Schedules. There are two days for the discussion of the Schedules. The Schedules have been discussed over and over again in this House. Take the benefits. The right hon. Gentleman said, "You are going to dispose of the benefits in two days." Everybody who has been in the House, and who has taken part in the discussions, knows that we have discussed the benefits over and over again. We had one special day's discussion upon them. The same thing applies to the contributions. We discussed the question of the contributions on a Motion proposed by an hon. Members on the Labour Benches specificaly raising it. It was discussed on the Financial Resolution. We have had repeated discussions upon all these questions.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
There are new proposals which have not been discussed.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
What are the new proposals? The new proposals are proposals which have been debated in this House repeatedly. I am really responding to the invitation given from the other side. The new proposals are purely with regard to the lower grades of labour. How often has that matter been debated? It was debated on the Second Reading, and it was repeatedly debated on the Committee stage. The Government were appealed to to give some relief for people who were earning 9s. or 12s. per week. We are only responding to an appeal that was made to us from all parts of the 186 House. That is the only alteration that has been made. The right hon. Gentleman opposite used the words, "This is going to be a new Bill." There is nothing new that has not been debated in the House already. Everybody knows what happens as the result of discussions in Committee. I have taken part in the discussion of Bills in Committee, sometimes as a supporter, and sometimes as an opponent. Everybody knows that during the first few days, when the first few Clauses are in Committee, you really review the whole Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, how comes it, then, if that is not the case, that we promised Amendments when the first and second Clauses were under discussion, which had reference to Clause 34 and other Clauses? Several Amendments were promised, and have been already tabled. Many weeks ago Amendments were promised in respect of Clauses not yet reached, but which have been debated by anticipation on the first few Clauses. It is very difficult for the Chair to rigidly confine discussion to the particular Amendment before the Committee, because somehow or other they have reference to other matters which are to come later on. With one or two exceptions, there is nothing in the Bill which has not been the subject of debate in this House over and over again, both on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage.
Something has been said about Ireland. The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) does not think two days sufficient to discuss the Irish Clause. He has only one Amendment so far as I can see. I listened very carefully to all he said. His one Amendment is to leave out Ireland. Surely the discussion of that ought not to take two days. Not a single practical suggestion have I heard from him for the improvement of that Clause. His position is that he does not want the Clause at all. As to the £500,000 or £600,000 to be spent on medical relief in Ireland he made no suggestion. At any rate, he has never communicated any suggestion to me. If that is the only thing he has got to oppose, he can surely do it in two days allocated in the time-table. I do not wish to follow him into a discussion of the Local Government Act. I will only make this observation. He said that the Unionist Government copied the precedent from the Liberal Government. The Parish Councils Act was passed by the Unionist Government in 1888. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is different."] It is only different 187 because it refers to a different matter. I am not criticising it. It is really known as the Henry VIII. Clause, which deals with the Protestant religion. No wonder the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork was rather opposed to it. He regards it with suspicion. He has not pursued his historical researches. The Act of 1888 is the first modern precedent, but I am told it is known as the Henry VIII. Clause. I do not think the origin of the Clause will commend itself to the hon. Member. I am not complaining of it at all. The Leader of the Opposition discovered that the introduction of a Clause of this kind was absolutely necessary in order to get rid of the preliminary difficulties which arise if you put the Act in operation. It is purely temporary. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the 1888 Clause. I agree that it was necessary to bring that Act into operation. It was purely transitional. The same thing will happen in this case. It is to enable us to bring the local committees into being. You must have general power of this character. It shows the foresight of Henry VIII.
I come now to the detailed criticism upon the proposals which were made by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that the Leader of the Opposition made out a very strong case with regard to Clauses 46 to 57. I think he was supported with great cogency by my hon. Friend on this side, and we propose therefore to give an extra day, and that it should be allocated in such a way as to allow full discussion of sanitoria benefit. But if the Leader of the Opposition will look at the other Clauses he will find that there are very few Amendments on them. I think it was in regard to Clause 49 that he made a great case. There are only three Amendments, and I am not sure that they are in order. When framing a time-table you must look at the Amendments and find out how many are in order. Some of the Amendments are not in order because they propose financial burdens which cannot be moved at this stage. Perhaps there is a good deal of force against the limit as regards the period for the discussion of the Unemployment Clauses when they come back to the floor of the House. It is proposed that another day should be given for the discussion of the unemployment scheme on the Report stage. That will add two days to the time-table already proposed. I have only one or two more observations to make. I 188 have seen a good many guillotines in this House, and I have never regarded the guillotine as anything but a very hateful expedient; but it is necessary. There are Bills that you could never have carried otherwise. I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble as I have done to figure out the time this Bill would have occupied going on at the rate it was going before the vacation. I referred to the discussions which had taken place before the adjournment as quite friendly and conciliatory, and I am not now withdrawing a single statement I made before the House adjourned for the Recess. If we had gone on at that rate, you could not have carried the Bill if you had given the whole of next Session to it, without attempting to deal at all with Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment. The Leader of the Opposition said that he must have finance provisions.
By the way, it is not my fault that finance has been dislocated in the matter of time. It was not my action that we were confronted with the Finance Bill of 1909 in 1910. That is an answer which I am giving to the Leader of the Opposition, and it is perfectly fair for me to say this, because he has already commented upon it. But even if you had given the whole time of the House over and above financial business to this Bill, at the rate which we were progressing we could not have carried it through in the whole of the next year. It is obviously impossible to carry on in that way. Still, I say it would be worth while, if possible, in the interests of the methods of procedure in the House of Commons, to think out the problem whether we could not find some other method of dealing with great problems. We are making an effort next year to relieve the pressure upon the House of Commons, and we are making it as much, if not more, in the interests in the House of Commons than in the interests of Ireland. But even then I think somebody or other will one day think out the problems whether or not some other means of getting through business cannot be devised. Minister after Minister has had to resort to this expedient, because it is the only thing you can do under present conditions. I sincerely wish it were possible to avoid it. I tried the experiment myself on the Budget of 1909. We went without the Closure through that Budget, and it took six months. That does not exhaust the description of the time. It took six months of sitting up to two and three or four, five, and six o'clock in the morning, until those who took part in it were little better 189 than wrecks at the end of that time. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last man to challenge that.
If all great Bills had to take up all that time and involved such pressure upon the House of Commons, it simply means that the House of Commons would be prevented from doing an essential part of its work. This is the only method by which at present you can get Bills through. The fact is that the work of social reform is in arrear. I am not going to enter into reasons why. It may be because there has been neglect in the past, but at any rate, there are most urgent problems to be dealt with, and you cannot proceed by this leisurely process, which takes two years to deal with each important problem. For in the meantime people are suffering. I do think that this is the only expedient which we can suggest at the present moment to carry through this contribution towards social reform, which has already had fourteen days of debate in Committee. But I would like to say this, that I do hope it will be possible by means of relieving the pressure upon the work of the House, so that we should not discuss matters which would be so much better discussed elsewhere, by means of strengthening the rules against repetition, which has been pursued, and even by a time limit of speeches, for all of us who are concerned in the welfare of the House of Commons, as a House of Commons, without any distinction of party, to devise some means of avoiding all these exceptional methods of dealing with Bills. Yet as I said just now, this is the only method which is possible at the present moment to get this Bill through. We cannot do without it. We think it is urgent and should be got out of the way for the sake of settling one of the most urgent problems of the moment, and in order to get on with other work which I think is equally urgent.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
I beg to move, in paragraph "(1) Committee stage," to leave out "Part II. of the Bill (including the Schedules therein referred to, namely, Schedules 6 to 9, and any new Clauses dealing with the subject-matter of Part II.) shall stand committed to a Standing Committee as if the Bill on being read a second time had as respects those provisions been so committed. The remaining provisions of the Bill shall continue committed to a Committee of the whole House, and fifteen. 190 The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) appears in one character when addressing the House of Commons, and in another when, as Member for Carnarvon, he is addressing a meeting, and if he complains of my right hon. Friend it is entirely because he made a statement which has been read out since which was utterly unjustifiable, which he thought to evade, and which at last he was obliged to admit, although he endeavoured to parry the attack when brought in the first instance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I remind him at this time of the astounding stories of black bread and offal and of the poor in protected countries being fed upon food which you would not give to a tramp in England. He said all that from his own lips from his experiences in Austria and Germany. Why, I was there at the time for many weeks while the right hon. Gentleman was there. I know quite as much about the subject as he does, and I should like to take this opportunity of asking him how he can reconcile even to a political conscience all he said to the people in this country with regard to the horrors of black bread and offal? If he falls into those habits which cannot be too strongly condemned in arguing that these powers must be introduced which give the House of Commons a totally different character, he has no right to complain if he is told some truth which may not be very pleasant for him to hear.
I turn from that altogether. After the admirable speeches which have been made by my colleagues on this side of the House, I do not intend to dwell on the general subject except to give another illustration. I saw the Chief Secretary for Ireland here. I am sorry he has gone, because I am sure he would have admitted the force of what I am about to say, in regard to what my right hon. Friend, I think, has described as the monstrosity of the Budget at this time. I may be permitted to remind right hon. Gentlemen on the bench of some of the things which have happened in the past under the guillotine, and will happen a great deal more in the future under the guillotine with which we are threatened to-day, to my great regret, by the Prime Minister, and which he tells us will become in future, as far as he can effect it, the normal and regular practice in the conduct of our proceedings. In 1909 an Irish Land Bill was introduced by the Government. It was brought in and subjected to the guillotine. It was a most important measure. It consisted of seventy Clauses, involving an outlay of £180,000,000 ster- 191 ling, for which British credit is responsible. The time allotted for the consideration of that Bill in Committee was eight days, four of them being half-days, or six whole days. The natural result was that out of seventy of the Clauses sixty were never discussed at all. That was not all. Some of these Clauses related to most important financial matters. The first question raised by those Clauses was how were agreements already entered into to the extent of £56,000,000 to be financed; and the second was, what were to be the terms of payment in regard to future agreements involving £99,000,000. These were never discussed at all in the House of Commons, and they could not be discussed in the House of Lords. That is not all, because on the Third Reading of the Bill there happened something more remarkable, I should think, than was ever known before, because the Minister in charge of the Bill had to get up and to apologise to the House of Commons for making what he called an explanatory statement. What was his excuse? It is all recorded in the official reports, which I have read myself. His excuse was that a great many Clauses in the Bill had not received any proper consideration, and a great number besides had never even been considered at all.
I have given there a clear, concrete instance happening under your own Government which cannot be contradicted or denied. I have given you an avowal of your own Minister as to the evils of this system. I hope you will reflect upon it, and that it may even yet have some effect on the proposals that you are trying with your present majority to cram down the throat of the House of Commons to, as I believe, the intense disapprobation of millions in this country. Only this morning I had a communication from Manchester from the cotton industry, and they wound up their letter with a strong denunciation of the attempt of the Government to pass this guillotine, of which they had already had intimation. I pass to the question which I really rose principally to discuss, and upon which I want to submit some questions to the Government. Both the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the proposals with regard to non-employment when the Bill was introduced on the ground of the experience upon, this subject which they have had from abroad. Here is what the Chancellor says:— On the Continent many efforts have been made, mostly failures, because they were all on the voluntary 192 system; I came back after examining these schemes with the conviction that we must have at any rate three of four conditions. Well, one of the conditions was that the scheme must be compulsory. But the Attorney-General went even further than that. What he said was:— The whole of the scheme as presented in this Bill is, in my judgment, the greatest effort ever made in constructive statesmanship to remedy the evils and alleviate the misery caused either by sickness or unemployment. … We are not in this matter entering upon unknown or unexplored territory. The House must remember that we have a large accumulation of statistics and facts based upon the experience of Germany in regard to this form of insurance. 8.0 P.M.
This was compulsory insurance for sickness and for unemployment. I should very much like to know where that experience is to be found with regard to compulsory insurance against unemployment. I have made it my business to get all the information I can upon this subject, and here is a little book which was recommended to me, and which I have read with great care. It is called "Unemployment Insurance," by Mr. I. G. Gibbon. It is very well authenticated, and there is a preface by Mr. L. T. Hobhouse and Mr. Martin Whitehouse, professor of the University of London. I will just read a passage:— It is a searching and most painstaking analysis of experience gained abroad, and which can and ought to be brought to bear on the solution of the great practical problem at home. That is what Mr. Gibbon himself tells us on the subject.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is going at too great length into the arguments on the Clauses. He is entitled to say that there are certain Clauses that ought to be discussed in the House and not in Committee upstairs, but I do not think he is entitled to discuss them now.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
May I not adduce these reasons why this part of the Bill should not go upstairs. I want the Clauses to be discussed in the House, and I am now trying all I can to give reasons why they should not go upstairs. One of the reasons is that the House was entirely misled, must have been misled, by the statement of the two right hon. Gentlemen, which, I am prepared to say, on the best information I can get, was not accurate. As a matter of fact there is not a single case known on the Continent where compulsory insurance against unemployment has turned out to be satisfactory. That is a very serious matter indeed with regard to a proposal of this kind, which has been supported 193 and defended on the grounds I have stated. What were the words used:— We have a large accumulation of statistics and facts based upon the experience of Germany with regard to compulsory insurance against unemployment. But I will not dwell further upon this. I will not go into the particulars now if you, Sir, think it unreasonable, and not within the strict bounds of order on this occasion. I could have gone through particulars with regard to Germany, France, and many other countries, but I may perhaps be permitted to read the last conclusion to which this gentleman comes at the end of his book. He says:— Experience, so far as it goes, is against compulsion, only one such scheme has ever been tried, and that was at Ghent, in 1894 and 1895. It signally failed. Schemes of compulsory insurance against unemployment have been considered at several other places, but have not been adopted. Experience shows that compulsory schemes have been tried over and over again and have given no encouragement for the adoption here of compulsory insurance against unemployment. I should like very much indeed to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on the subject, because I am strongly of opinion that although the other part of the Bill may be perfectly right—I do not think it is—but at least we have never shown any direct hostility whatever to it, because here and everywhere there has been any amount of experience with rgard to insurance against sickness—it is a strong order to ask the House to send part of the Bill to the Committee upstairs, because I think I have shown, unless I can be contradicted—and I have seen no evidence to the contrary—that this part of the Bill is at all events deserving of the very careful attention of the House.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It seems to me that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman in support of his Amendment were directed rather to the character of our proposals than to whether they ought to be examined by a Committee upstairs. As far as I understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman it is that proposals of this kind have failed on the Continent, and that, therefore, a similar scheme in this country ought to be examined by the House itself. As a matter of fact there has been no scheme of this kind except that mentioned in Mr. Gibbon's book, a very able book, and so far as I am able to judge a very well informed book. But I do not think you will find any scheme there which is on all fours with this scheme. I 194 am fully aware that schemes have been attempted on a very small scale, but there was nothing in the nature of compulsion in them, and that is the reason why they failed.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
No.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
They were a comparative failure, and one reason why they were a comparative failure, at any rate, is that under a voluntary scheme only men who are likely to be found unemployed would join them.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
No, no.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman is drawing me into a discussion of the merits of the subject, and that I must avoid in the interests of progress. The real question is whether it is desirable that this part of the Bill should go upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman opposite goes further than this, and his proposal is that the whole of Part II. should be dropped.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
Certainly.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is not the effect of the Amendment. That this part of the Bill should not go upstairs is a very different proposition, and my experience of the Committee upstairs is that you are very much more likely to be defeated than you are on the floor of the House. This is the very kind of proposal which ought to go upstairs for examination by the Committee. There will be a Committee of something under 100 Members, who are experts on the subject, or who take a special interest in it. Those Members will be very well informed as to the general nature of the proposal. I should also like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this. He is opposed out and out to the unemployment proposal.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
indicated assent.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No attempt has been made up to the present at opposition against this part of the Bill. All we desire is, in order to make progress, that the Bill should be examined by a Committee upstairs, because we are anxious that the measure should go up to the House of Lords in time for full and fair consideration before the adjournment. I hope that in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will see his way not to press the Amendment. We are really agreed on a complete and thorough examination of this proposal. We could not add ten or twelve 195 days to the guillotine Resolution, and this part of the Bill will have to go upstairs for discussion. The speeches in Committee are very much shorter, and the Bill will be examined quite thoroughly under the circumstances.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
I only rise to deal with the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to some observations I made on the Second Reading. I have only got the quotation which he read, but it cannot possibly bear the meaning which he has attributed to it.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
I read the speech.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I was referring to an accumulation of statistics which we had then before the House, and from which we knew exactly what the position was with regard to unemployment. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not find anything in my speech to suggest that we had statistics on which we could base a scheme for compulsory insurance against unemployment. If he refers to what I said he will see that I was referring to sickness insurance and not to unemployment insurance. The figures had reference entirely to the sickness part of the scheme, and they did not refer at all to unemployment.

§ Mr. CHAPLIN
The right hon. Gentleman said the whole of the scheme was presented in this Bill, and the whole of the scheme included compulsory insurance against unemployment.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I wish to support the Amendment made by my right hon. Friend. The Grand Committee cannot sit after four o'clock without the leave of the House, but it may very well happen that the Grand Committee and the House may be sitting and dealing at the same time with the particular part of the Bill committed to them. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I suppose the Attorney-General and other Members of the Front Bench who will be conducting the sickness and invalidity part of the Bill, and who will confine themselves exclusively to that part. That means that they will be concerned only with what goes on in the House. The unemployment part will, I imagine, be in charge of the President of the Board of Trade, probably assisted by the Solicitor-General and other Members of the Front Bench. They will act as a second shift, and will be concerned only with what goes 196 on in Grand Committee. There are other Gentlemen who take an interest in both parts of the Bill. I know that a good many of the Labour Members take an interest in the unemployed part of the Bill as well as in Part I. Those of us who sit on these benches who have devoted some time and trouble to acquire such information as we could in reference to both parts, we naturally wish to take our share in the discussion of the unemployment part just as we have taken our share in discussing Part I. If we are to sit from eleven o'clock or half-past eleven in the morning until late in the afternoon in Grand Committee, and if we are then to pass the whole of the rest of the time until we drag our weary limbs and brains to bed in discussing the sickness part of the Bill in this House, then I can only say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be imposing on us a strain that flesh and blood cannot endure. Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us how many days per week Grand Committee will sit?

§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)
It will be for the convenience of the Grand Committee that a certain number of Clauses should be got through, more or less, by a certain date in this guillotine Resolution; but I could not say what date.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I should like the Committee to consider what that means for people who are taking an active interest in both parts. They would have to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock, or later, at night. We are to devote the whole of our time and the whole of our energies to the discussion of those two quite separate problems. The discussion is carried on in separate parts of the building and, it may be, at the same time. I say that that really is putting a strain upon Members of the House that they ought not to be called on to endure. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have realised that he was going to invite other Members of the House of Commons to undertake labour which he himself is not called upon to perform, and I do not think he is treating the House fairly in asking them to do it.
There is one other point in connection; with the proceedings before Grand Committee as to which I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us some satisfactory assurance. When we conduct our debates here we have the advantage of the Official Report; we are able to refer to it to see what has occurred. 197 Are we going to have any Official Report of our proceedings in Grand Committee? When a Bill of this great importance is to be dealt with by Grand Committee, and when we are to have so short a time in this House to review what the Grand Committee has done, then it is absolutely essential that we should have an Official Report of our proceedings while the Bill is before the Standing Committee. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade may be able to give us an assurance that an Official Report will be taken. I desire to make one further observation in answer to a point which was made against my right hon. Friend by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "if you disapprove so heartily of Part II. of the Bill, you should have taken such a step as to vote against it." Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer remembers that we had no opportunity of voting against it unless we voted against the Second Reading of the Bill as a whole. We unfailingly and unreservedly approved of the principle, and we have given earnest of our endeavours to assist the Government in improving Part I. We could not possibly have voted against Part II. without voting against Part I. when those two separate measures are contained within the framework of the same Bill. That perhaps will explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer why my right hon. Friend was wholly unable to take that course which he might have wished to take if the Bills had been introduced separately.

§ Mr. BUXTON
In regard to the question of an Official Report of Grand Committee, I will look into the matter and see what ought to be done in regard to it. I am afraid I have not sufficient knowledge of the position to be able to give a definite answer at the present moment. My recollection is, and it may be incorrect, because I have not had the opportunity of refreshing my memory on the point, that when Grand Committees were set up the question of official reporting was raised, and that the House, I think unanimously, agreed when considering it that on the whole it was better that Grand Committees should not be reported. I believe what largely induced them to come to that conclusion was that if you did not have reports in Grand Committee you would have businesslike proceedings, and if you did have a report you would have speeches more than business. That, I am afraid, may apply equally at the present moment, but, as I say, I will look into the matter 198 and see how it stands. He must not think I am promising to meet him. I do not think I shall be able to do so, but I shall refresh my memory.
The hon. Gentleman has made an appeal in reference to this matter for the Member who desires to attend both Grand Committee and the House in respect of Part I. and Part II. When this particular question of sending this part of the Bill was discussed last July I myself thought at that time that that was a fairly sound argument against sending Part II. to Committee. At that time the Bill had not been at all considered. I am not quite sure whether we had carried the Second Reading, but we had not got into Committee. Hon. Members had not really up to that time the opportunity of looking into the question of Amendment and of arranging as to the best method of dealing with the matter. That is some months ago. Since then hon. Members not only have had a sufficient period, but have had the opportunity, which, as we know, they have used with great effect, of taking the trouble to go into the matter and see what particular parts they are interested in. I doubt whether, as a matter of fact, there would be any large number of Members who would desire both to attend Grand Committee on Part II. and to attend also on Part I. While the matter stood last July in this way, that an individual Member might have considered that he took a particular interest in Part II., and had important Amendments to move, and that he might be left off that Committee, that really has now very largely ceased to exist, because the Bill is better known than it was, the Amendments which are proposed have been more or less prepared, and what might have been an individual Amendment in those days has now become an Amendment adopted either by a group or a party. It is a matter of common knowledge that hon. Members opposite have, quite rightly, formed Committees of various kinds to consider Amendments to the Bill. They have, I believe, a Committee with regard to various parts of Part I., and another in regard to Part II.

§ Mr. FORSTER
Only one Committee.

§ Mr. BUXTON
There are, I believe, a considerable number of Members on that Committee, and the Committee is divided into sections dealing with various parts of the Bill. In the same way the Government is divided in that sense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, 199 and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office deal with Part I., while I, assisted by the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, will deal with Part II. Similarly hon. Members generally will adapt themselves to the circumstances and divide their forces. Therefore, while I admit that there is a theoretical grievance, I do not think that as a matter of practical politics any difficulty will arise. Hon. Members who are interested in both parts of the Bill will agree among themselves as to who shall attend to certain sections of the Bill, and who shall attend to Part II. What is the alternative to the present proposal? We, at all events, believe that the only alternative is that either the Bill shall not be passed at all or that it shall be driven over so late this year or into next year as to spoil the next Session. That is a position in which we do not wish to place ourselves. We believe that without any undue pressure upon hon. Members we may by the proposal we are making give full opportunity for Part II. to be thoroughly discussed. On these grounds I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
The right hon. Gentleman frankly admits that in July he said that this was a perfectly unworkable proposition having regard to the fact that it was impossible for Members to take part in the proceedings on both parts of the Bill. He now says that Members may divide themselves into two bodies, and that is his solution of the difficulty. With regard to proceedings in Grand Committee, not only is there no OFFICIAL REPORT of what takes place, but there is a very limited report in the newspapers. Little interest has so far been taken in the unemployment part of the Bill outside the House, because there is a general feeling that it was never meant to be passed this year. Very few people really thought that the Government seriously intended to force through the House the large number of Clauses dealing with sickness insurance and also the unemployment part of the Bill.

§ Mr. BUXTON
Apparently the hon. Member does not attach importance to what Ministers say, but we Ministers do attach importance to what we say. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have more than once emphatically stated in this House that the two parts of the Bill must stand or fall together and be passed or not passed together.

200

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
I quite admit that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues attach great importance to what they say, and I will refer to that shortly. The country was not led to believe by the previous utterances of the President of the Board of Trade or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were to have this very drastic system of closure forced upon us, or that the unemployment part of the scheme would be sent to a Grand Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman attaches such importance to the speeches he has previously delivered, may I call his attention to another part of his speech on July 5th? He then said:— Further, there is this objection, which is really fatal to the proposal. I suppose every Member of the House has had some experience of Grand Committees. I have had the advantage of the hon. Member's (Mr. Lansbury's) occasional support on the Copyright Bill. At all events, all Members who have attended meetings of Grand Committees know that they very often take a very different view from that which the House as a whole takes. Here you have two Bills which in general lines and on general principles are drawn in the same direction—compulsory contributions, contributions from employers, from the workmen, from the State, and so on. You have many details of machinery and other matters of that sort which are very similar, so that if the two Bills are to be passed and are to work they must be substantially on the same lines. They are interdependable in those respects. Mr. Austen Chamberlain: Why? Mr. Buxton: That is at all events the view of the Government. I cannot help feeling that if you have one part of the Bill kept in the House and the other part referred to a Grand Committee, the upshot of it might be that you would have the two Bills instead of being, as we desire, entirely on the same lines, on different lines and founded on different principles. At all events … we do not think it is a practicable proposal; we do not quite believe it is one which hon. Members interested in the matter would desire. And so on. The right hon. Gentleman's real objection in sending Part II. upstairs was that one part depended on the other, and that it was absolutely essential to discuss both parts in the House. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? He said:— You could not have one part of the Bill dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and Amendments introduced which would require the Government to find an increased subsidy without having regard to the commitments on the other part of the Bill as well. The same thing applies to the contributions of the employers and the workmen. When the 2½d. was fixed as the limit for the workman and for the employer in the second part of the Bill, we had to take into account the amount charged in respect of the first part of the Bill. Well, after all, the House of Commons can alter these figures if it chooses. The responsibility is entirely with the House of Commons, and we ought to be in a position to know what are the commitments of the employer and the workman, and also what are the commitments of the State on the first part of the Bill before we come to consider the second part of the Bill. It is obvious that you cannot consider the one apart from the other. As the right hon. Gentleman attaches enormous importance to the speeches which he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have 201 previously made, I would respectfully draw his attention to the speeches of 5th July, and ask what has persuaded them so diametrically to change their view. I would further ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position and to go back to the position he took up on that occasion.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
In regard to dividing the Bill, the Government have, of course, entirely changed their attitude. If they had adopted the proposal when it was made in July they would not now have needed this drastic Closure Resolution. If they had done then what they are proposing to do now, the unemployment part of the Bill would have been thoroughly discussed and we should have had a good deal of time in which to discuss the remaining portion of Part I. [An HON. MEMBER: "You could only give the same time."] During all the weeks that intervened between the time that Motion was made and the adjournment for the holidays, we could have been getting on with the Bill upstairs, and instead of commencing to discuss Part II. now, it would have been a good way through. I am one of the very few Members who are against this Bill root and branch. I cannot go into details on this Motion, but the Bill in its financial arrangements would establish an entirely new principle in methods of levying taxation, and the amount of time that is to be given to the discussion of this new principle is, so far as I can see, one day. What is the new proposition? That we are to levy a poll-tax over the whole of the men and women of the country with an income of between 15s. per week and £150 per year; you are going to levy that on a flat rate without any regard to the fact that incomes between these limits differ so tremendously.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)
The hon. Member must remember that there is an Amendment before the House to leave out a portion of the Resolution, and the Debate must be confined to that.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. One does not know for a certainty whether if one sits down now there will be a chance to put my point of view at all. I would prefer to speak on the main subject, but there are two or three things which I wish to say on the unemployment part of the Bill in case I do not get another opportunity. Even there what I was going to say does apply. You are going to give, as I understand it, 202 on the Report stage of this Bill something like a couple of days. In that time we are to move new resolutions and new clauses, and on those two days only. With regard to unemployment, you are going there again to levy a flat rate for the men who earn, not a week's wages, but daily wages. The question has been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "How are you going to collect the contribution of a man who is a casual labourer, a man who works for many masters?" I want to point out in that respect that that is an entirely new method of levying the taxation of this country. You are going to say to the casual labourer, the builder's casual labourer, who may only do one day's work in the week, that he is to have deducted 2½d. from his 3s. or 4s. which will be his week's money. That is a proposition which this House ought to be discussing at much greater length than the mere time than is put down here.
There is another side to it so far as I understand it—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—but I believe women will come under this part of the Bill as well as under the health part of the Bill if they are engaged in the specific occupations that will be scheduled. There again you will have the amazing sort of arrangement that a woman, in a given industry, will perhaps be earning quite a tiny sum per day, and another woman will be earning 9s. a week. But I believe I am going back on the health side of the Bill. What I wanted to point out—I will not say any more about the weekly wage—is that a woman may be earning quite a tiny sum per week, and that you will be deducting this 2½d. from her very scanty earnings, and neither she nor the casual labourer will ever be out of work long enough to entitle them to get any benefit out of the Bill at all. The casual labourer and the woman—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but the only question before the House at the moment is as to whether Part II. shall go upstairs to Grand Committee or shall remain with the other part of the Bill on the floor of the House. We cannot enter into the merits of the proposals of the Bill while the Amendment is before us.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I will take my chance of speaking later.

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

203

§ The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 103.

205

Division No. 343.]	AYES.	[8.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	O'Malley, William
Adamson, William	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Addison, Dr. C.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Harwood, George	O'Shee, James John
Alden, Percy	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Parker, James (Halifax)
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Armitage, Robert	Hayden, John Patrick	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Higham, John Sharp	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Hinds, John	Pointer, Joseph
Barnes, George N.	Hodge, John	Pollard, Sir George H.
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Holt, Richard Durning	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Bentham, George Jackson	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Power, Patrick Joseph
Black, Arthur W.	Hudson, Walter	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Boland, John Plus	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Booth, Frederick Handel	John, Edward Thomas	Pringle, William M. R.
Bowerman, C. W.	Johnson, W.	Radford, G. H.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Brace, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Reddy, M
Bryce, John Annan	Jowett, Frederick William	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Joyce, Michael (Limerick)	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Keating, Matthew	Rendall, Atheistan
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Kellaway, Frederick George	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Kelly, Edward	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Clancy, John Joseph	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Clough, William	Lansbury, George	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Clynes, John R.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Roe, Sir Thomas
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Rowlands, James
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r'ld, Cockerm'th)	Rowntree, Arnold
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Levy, Sir Maurice	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Logan, John William	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Lundon, T.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Crumley, Patrick	Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)	Scanlan, Thomas
Cullinan, John	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	McGhee, Richard	Sheehy, David
Davies, Eills William (Eifion)	Maclean, Donald	Sherwell, Arthur James
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Shortt, Edward
Dawes, J. A.	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Delany, William	MacVeagh, Jeremian	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Macpherson, James Ian	Snowden, Philip
Devlin, Joseph	M'Callum, John M.	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Dillon, John	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Sutton, John E.
Donelan, Captain A.	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Doris, W.	Martin, Joseph	Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Meagher, Michael	Toulmin, Sir George
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Verney, Sir Harry
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Millar, James Duncan	Wadsworth, John
Farrell, James Patrick	Molloy, M.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Ffrench, Peter	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Wardle, G. J.
Field, William	Mooney, J. J.	Waring, Walter
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Morgan, George Hay	Watt, Henry A.
Fitzgibbon, John	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Webb, H.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Muldoon, John	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
France, G. A.	Munro, Robert	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Whitehouse, John Howard
Gill, Alfred Henry	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Nolan, Joseph	Wilkie, Alexander
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Norman, Sir Henry	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Goldstone, Frank	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)	Nuttall, Harry	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hackett, John	O'Doherty, Philip	Young, William (Perth, East)
Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	O'Dowd, John
Hancock, John George	O'Grady, James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

204 205

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Forster, Henry William	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Gardner, Ernest	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Ormsby Gore, Hon. William
Astor, Waldorf	Grant, James Augustus	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Guiney, Patrick	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baldwin, Stanley	Hamersley, A. St. George	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Quilter, William Eley C.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Harris, Henry Percy	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barnston, H.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Helmsley, Viscount	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hills, John Waller	Sanders, Robert A.
Bigland, Alfred	Hohler, G. F.	Sanderson, Lancelot
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Horner, Andrew Long	Stanier, Beville
Bridgeman, William Clive	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bull, Sir William James	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Starkey, John Ralph
Burn, Col. C. R.	Ingleby, Holcombo	Stewart, Gershom
Butcher, John George	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Kimber, Sir Henry	Swift, Rigby
Cautley, Henry Strother	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Larmor, Sir J.	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Walker, Colonel William Hall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Lewisham, Viscount	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)	Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Crean, Eugene	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han S.)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Dixon, C. H.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Doughty, Sir George	M'Mordie, Robert	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Magnus, Sir Philip	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Duke, Henry Edward	Malcolm, Ian	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Younger, Sir George
Fell, Arthur	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Finlay, Sir Robert	Newton, Harry Kottingham	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fleming, Valentine	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Mr. C. M. Barlow and Mr. Rawlinson.
Fletcher, John Samuel

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the word "fifteen" ["fifteen allotted days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sixteen."
The object of this Amendment is to give effect to what was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Debate when he promised that sixteen days would be given to the Committee stage instead of fifteen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he expected to give two additional days—one for the Committee stage and one for the Report stage—and this Amendment is intended to carry out the first part of his promise.

§ Mr. AMERY
I rise to protest against the allowance of time given us as wholly inadequate, and I do so, not so much in order to bring out the utter inadequacy of the number of days allowed for the discussion of the details of Part I. which previous speakers have already amply demonstrated. All I would say about these details is that most of them are matters of first importance to millions of people in this country, towards whom this House is in a position of trust which it cannot abrogate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to any conference of vested interests which he managed to get together 206 in the summer and persuade into compromise. The point I should like to urge upon the House is this: that not only is the time allowed inadequate for the discussion of the details of this measure, even if the principles had been agreed upon, but as a matter of fact it is still more inadequate because the real working principles of this measure are only now gradually becoming clear to this House and to the people of this country. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir G. Baring) said we were all agreed upon the principles. Yes, we were all agreed upon the general principles or rather intentions announced by the Chancellor when he introduced this measure, and which he repeated in several speeches, but those principles bear no relation whatever to the working principles of the Bill, as we are slowly and painfully discovering for ourselves. As to that we have had no enlightenment, no reciprocity of co-operation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On many points vital for the understanding of this measure the Chancellor has deliberately concealed the facts from this House, as I hope to be able to show later, and what is more, by the particular division of the short time allowed upon these Clauses, he deliberately means to burke discussion. In every case the facts are gradually making it clear that the 207 original speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear no relation to the working principles of the Bill. In some cases this is because the Bill has undergone profound changes since the time he introduced it and since he first framed the general idea of his speeches. Let me take as an instance the question of approved societies, which we are going to discuss in two days. Judging by the actual Amendments on the details themselves two days are by no means adequate. What is becoming clear, and what became very clear yesterday, is that the whole meaning of the words "approved society," and the whole principle of the Bill as to friendly societies and trade unions, has been profoundly modified. When this Bill was introduced, on my first day in this House, I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation was that this measure was in the main to be worked by certain great institutions, namely, the friendly societies and the trade unions, which had done great service to the cause of insurance in the past, and he said that these associations would become approved societies in order to work the Bill. That was the original intention and the basis upon which the discussions with the great friendly societies were conducted. Now that basis has disappeared, the last threads of it have, in fact, been removed by the Amendments now on the Paper. We had only to listen to the discussion yesterday and to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke to realise this. The hon. Member protested against the inclusion of approved societies connected with political bodies. The hon. Member for Stoke was speaking under the impression, which is prevalent throughout the country, that various societies are allowed to become approved societies, but that is not the case. What is true is that any body of respectable people exceeding 5,000 in number, whether a society or not, may be allowed to constitute an approved society, a body or association whose rules, composition, and nature are entirely different from the original society. This was particularly manifest in the discussions on the first Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire dwelt upon the defects of the style of the opening sentence of Clause 13, and spoke of the wording being cumbersome. That early wording represents a survival of an earlier stage of this Bill.
208 It is the outcrop of an earlier scheme—of an earlier Cambrian formation.
I wish to urge upon the House that this difference, which has never yet been fully considered by the country or by the House, profoundly affects the whole working of the scheme and the whole future of friendly societies and trade unions as they exist to-day. This Bill breaks up every friendly society and trade union into two separate bodies, the existing institution and the approved society. The approved society is separate not only in finance, but its membership is different. We gathered yesterday that the officials of most of the friendly societies would not be members, except as honorary members. There is also a difference in the rules and regulations, and the existing society or friendly society or trade union has no effective control over the members of the approved society in that capacity. The rules of the trade union or friendly society as regards lapsing and other points are not enforceable, and there is no effective control over the members. The power of expulsion loses its terrors when the member can carry away his transfer value.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member must not now go into the merits of the question.

§ Mr. AMERY
I apologise for having strayed away from the rules of order. We have no chance of a real discussion of these questions, and this is a matter which profoundly affects the whole future of friendly societies and trade unions. Whatever may be the effect upon the financial interest of these societies the question of their future character is a national question. I will pass from that to another point, where again I think the space of time allotted is inadequate. I refer to Clause 32. This inadequacy of discussion was shown by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colchester. The time allowed precludes any real discussion of the important questions which the Clause contains. It contains one of the vital principles of the Bill, which has never yet received full discussion, namely, the principle that unto him that hath shall be given, and unto him that is in need shall be taken away, even that which he hath. Clause 32, which we shall not have a full opportunity of discussing, lays down that the deposit contributors are the scrap heap upon which the refuse of all societies is to be thrown out, and they are invited and tempted to do this by the financial 209 clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member for Colchester suggested that the deposit contributors would be worse off. Undoubtedly they will, because the opportunities they now have to enter friendly societies will not be nearly so good when competition enters into the matter. I do not wish to enter upon details, but I do wish to insist that a most important question of principle is bound up in the discussion of this Clause, and we have had no real opportunity of discussing sufficiently this matter in order to bring out one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Bill.
The Leader of the Opposition has converted hon. Members on the opposite side in regard to Clauses 46–57. I submit that the case for discussion in reference to the seventh day, to Clauses 36–41, is even stronger, and they ought not to be discussed in a single day. We have not only the question of soldiers and sailors to deal with—and surely they are entitled to the fullest consideration of this House—but there is also the question of the young people under sixteen, and besides these matters we have the whole of the finance of this measure, which is the key to the working principles of this Bill. I maintain that in this instance the finance is not an exposition, a mere working out of the principles of the Bill. The principles are embodied in the finance, depend upon the finance, and the finance has never been properly discussed and will never have a chance of discussion under the time allotted. This is an absolutely monstrous invasion of the rights of this House, and it is a monstrous attempt to hide the whole nature of this Bill from the House and the people of this country. How monstrous it is, can only be understood when we regard the disastrous results which, whether foreseen or not, follow from the ingenious combination of the devices by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer postpones payment from his own shoulders to the shoulders of the Chancellors of the Exchequer of the future. Into the details of that matter I need not go. The shortening of the period under which the £80,000,000 loan is to be repaid so reduces the fund contributed by the workmen and employers that the State contribution of two-ninths will be two-thirds of a penny less than it would have been if eighty years had been allowed for redemption. I do say we shall have no opportunity of adequately discussing the fact that by the finance of the Bill the money now withheld 210 from those who need it most will be stored up in order to give it to those who are already well off and who will be better off in the future. Again, under this Clause comes another question of very grave importance—that marvellous scheme of rejuvenisation, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like another Paracelsus or Cagliostro, wishes to renew all to boys of sixteen. The fact is he is not giving to those depositors who are really in need of it that rejuvenisation. For the sake of a flat rate, he is wasting £80,000,000 of money collected from the workers—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is attempting to do that for which I had to pull up the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He is entering into the merits of the question. I gather that the hon. Member is not in favour of fifteen days remaining. Perhaps I had better get rid of that question, and then I will call on him again on the question that sixteen stand a part.

§ Question, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the paragraph," put, and negatived.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 'sixteen' be there inserted."

§ Mr. AMERY
I do trust I shall not transgress your ruling any further. I do not wish really to enter into the merits of the case, but I do wish to show that the broad principles of the Bill have not yet been elucidated and cannot be elucidated adequately under the time allotted to us. Another subject arises, and it goes to the whole root of the measure. The Bill as it stands does not provide for invalidity pensions. For years we have been promised invalidity pensions for those who are unable to maintain themselves adequately. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in comparing his scheme with the German scheme, made out he was giving greater benefits, but now it is as clear as daylight that either the finance of the scheme is hopeless or that the invalidity pension which was promised is not going to be given at all. On that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has deliberately deceived the House. The question was directly raised on Clause 8 by an Amendment—

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I rise to a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to say in reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he has deliberately deceived the House?

211

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
No, that is not a charge which is permissible in this House.

§ Mr. AMERY
I certainly withdraw the expressions which were not proper, but I should like to say what did happen on that Clause. An Amendment was moved providing that when it was impossible for an invalid to earn one-third of his normal wage, which is the German standard of invalidity, he should be considered disabled. The Chancellor of the Exchequer airily waived it on one side; it was too difficult to calculate a mere matter of tiresome decimals, and it could be settled more easily afterwards. He must have known, if that Amendment had been carried, it would have involved an extra charge on his scheme, which in fifteen or sixteen years would have amounted to an extra five, six, or seven million pounds, and have bankrupted the whole finance of the scheme. He did not give the House the slightest indication of the importance of the issue involved in that Amendment, and the House was not aware of it. I leave the House to judge for itself whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in that matter take the Members of the House into his confidence. I submit he did not, and that he is not going to give us any chance of really dealing with that vital matter which goes to the root of the whole question. That is really the case I wanted to make out, namely, that in the few days allotted to us, so far from dealing with more or less agreed and compromised details of a Bill whose principles are already universally accepted, we are only painfully finding out vital principles of the matter which have been withheld from us and which we shall have no opportunity of discussing before the Bill is carried through under the guillotine at the Request and for the convenience of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond).

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I wish to generally oppose the putting of the guillotine into operation on this Bill. I am opposed to it root and branch, and I believe the more it is discussed, the more time that is devoted to it, and the more the details are examined in this House the more the people outside will understand what a clumsy and ineffective measure it is to accomplish the end the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view. I am very anxious to know how much of the Bill is to apply to Ireland. I thought when the Chancellor 212 of the Exchequer was up just now we should hear, because at the present time nobody quite knows how much or how far that portion of it which is supposed to apply to Ireland is really in the end to apply, and, so far as I can see, there is not going to be a very great amount of time for us to discuss that. If the Irish Members are able to drive a bargain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to settle on Home Rules lines what shall be done in Ireland, then I think they ought not to vote to impose something on us people in England which probably without their votes would not be carried. I believe in Home Rule very strongly, but that in my judgment is not Home Rule.
I want to protest against the amount of time to be allotted to the discussion of this flat rate. I am perfectly certain people who have heard a great deal about nine-pence for fourpence have not at all understood there are going to be, on your own showing, 800,000 people who will be Post Office contributors. In my judgment, to give one paltry day and part of another day to the discussion of that is one of the most disgraceful things in connection with this guillotine Resolution. What really does it mean? People outside imagine that deductions are going to be made from weekly wages, but the Schedule states distinctly that it is on daily payments. You start not with 15s. per week, but with 2s. 6d. per day. I would like the House to notice this. You may have a woman working at some kind of industry earning 9s. per week, and that woman is to be exempt, but you may have another woman engaged in casual work at 2s. per day but only earning 6s. per week, and she is to be brought in and made to pay. I have never heard anyone put forward any proposition to get over that difficulty. I believe it is impossible to get over it, but the House ought to discuss it. I wonder how many people who enthusiastically cheer Ministers' speeches when they talk of 9d. for 4d. are aware of that brutal Clause which, if the House passes, will be one of the most disgraceful things ever done by any Act of Parliament, and which says anything that a deposit contributor has to his or her credit at death is to be forfeited? A proposition like that ought to be debated at great length before it is carried. I am perfectly certain the eighty Gentlemen from Ireland would not allow that to apply to Ireland. They take much too good care of their people to allow any proposition of that kind with regard to Ireland to be carried. I think people outside ought to 213 know why it is that a proposition like that is in the Bill. We ought to have full time to discuss it. Some of us have viewed with a great deal of interest the manner in which certain Members of this House who started with a hostile attitude towards the Bill have gradually become its enthusiastic supporters. But the fact is that the collecting societies and other huge corporations have practically put a pistol to the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and compelled him to do what they want. I want to say in connection with this very thing the question we have to ask ourselves is, why we should save the face of the great insurance corporations, and why the poor and destitute should be robbed in this manner? It is no use saying that the money is to be carried forward for the future depositors. None of those depositors are insured.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is transgressing the ruling of the Chair.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I am putting this point forward for the purpose of showing how very important it is that much more time should be given to the discussion of this portion of the Bill. Take, for instance, the proposals with regard to health committees. There is going to be one solitary day for introducing entirely novel and new arrangements into our local affairs. Anyone who take3 part in the administration of local affairs knows that the present difficulty is to get enough men to serve on the innumerable committees that have to be set up to administer certain matters. But now you are going to pitchfork into local affairs a new committee. It is taken for granted that disease exists in places like Poplar because the authorities are too mean to spend money. We want time to discuss a Clause of this kind. We want to be able to show that it is poverty and destitution which prevents our districts being as healthy as they otherwise would be. To say you can discuss this in one day is, in my judgment, perfectly absurd. Then, again, take the question of the women. What right has this House to impose a poll tax on the industrious women of the country and give such a paltry amount of time for the discussion of the matter? What right have they to say, after a day and a-half's discussion, to working women, "You shall spend your money in a particular manner?" I say that this House has no right to impose any such tax on the industrial women of the country until they have 214 been asked to give a vote as to whether or not they want it. You are going to vote the guillotine upon a Bill two-thirds of which we are not acquainted with.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is entitled to say that the time allotted for the discussion of particular Clauses is inadequate, but he is not entitled to go into the merits of those Clauses.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I will certainly try not to transgress your ruling. I am very sensible of the kindness which has been extended to me both by yourself and the House, but I do protest very strongly indeed against a Bill of this kind, which first of all starts out by doing something which is quite novel, so far as the levying of taxation is concerned, and then extends its operations. I say that to give seventeen days' discussion to such a Bill as this is inadequate. Let the House remember that smallpox, diphtheria, and typhoid cannot be got rid of by insurance. Phthisis and tuberculosis will still flourish, and cannot be got rid of in this manner. You must get rid of the cause before you can hope to get rid of the disease.

§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
I do not think that the hon. Member who last spoke, with all his enthusiasm and rounded periods, has in any way exaggerated the miserable case of the deposit contributor, to which, in my opinion, a far larger proportion of time ought to be allowed than is allotted under the proposal of the Government. I should like especially to appeal to the Government to consider whether something cannot be done in the direction of increasing the amount of time allotted for the subjects proposed to be dealt with on the seventh, thirteenth and fourteenth days. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon very properly drew attention to the fact that the classes which are receiving the most consideration at the hands of the Government are those which are sufficiently organised to send deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and these too are the very classes that are going to have the most consideration under the allocation of time proposed in this Resolution. I represent a typically agricultural constituency—agriculturally typical except in one respect, that I have a large number of soldiers in my Constituency; indeed, I might say that my Constituents are soldiers, agricultural labourers, and village shopkeepers, and none of these classes 215 have justice done them in the allocation of time proposed by this Resolution. My hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham drew attention to the fact that the soldier's case could not be adequately considered in the time proposed to be allotted for it, as, unfortunately, these men are not in a position to speak for themselves. They are not allowed to take part in public meetings or to take any active line in politics generally. The result is that there is all the greater need that we should have the power in this House to speak for them. The hon. Member drew attention to certain other subjects which were to be taken on the same day, but he only drew attention to half the subjects, and the remaining half are equally important and require a considerable allocation of time to them. There is a Clause dealing with the knotty question of reserve values, and I fancy a great deal will have to be said with regard to them unless a serious injustice is going to be imposed by the Bill on the younger men who come into the scheme. Next comes the constitution and whole duties and powers of the Insurance Commissioners. That of itself, bearing in mind that they are going to be put into the position of legislators to repeal and amend legislation is a sufficient subject to take up a considerable portion of Parliamentary time. There is still another subject, the constitution and powers of the Advisory Committees upon whose advice the action of the Insurance Commissioners will largely depend.
I want particularly to ask the Government to consider whether they cannot do something to give us further time to discuss the new Clauses. On 10th July, at the request of a large number of agricultural Members sitting on both sides of the House, I moved an Amendment relating to what is popularly known as the flat or uniform rate of payment, and I took the opportunity of pointing out that the Bill as it stood provided for a flat rate, which would impose a serious injustice on the agricultural labourers and their employers, bearing in mind the health standard they enjoy, the low rate of wages, and the small profits that are to be be made in that particular industry. Exactly the same applies to small village shopkeepers, who enjoy the same standard of health, but have to pay not merely the employés, but the employers' rate. The discussion was put a stop to by an assurance on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would 216 hereafter introduce a new Clause—on which, by the way, he said full discussion would be allowed—which would do something to meet the grievance of which I, amongst others, was the spokesman. We urged for the production of that Clause over a period of several weeks, although at the time of the Debate we were told we should have it in the course of a few days. The Clause eventually saw the light a fortnight ago, and, bearing in mind the fact that the Clause is not even now fully apprehended by Members of Parliament, and still less by farmers and agricultural labourers, sufficient time ought to be allowed for the consideration of this Clause in the country, and also in Parliament, and for its full discussion in this place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, said in reply to the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long), that there would be six full months after that Clause was put on the paper to enable the agricultural labourers and their employer's to consider the effect of that Clause upon themselves.
The Clause was only produced a fortnight ago, and there is barely two and three-quarter months for them to consider the effect of it. When we come to look at the Clause, what do we find? I do not know whether hon. Members generally have yet scrutinised the Clause which is headed "Reduced benefits." That is the Clause in question. It relates to a large number of classes of people other than those engaged in the agricultural industry, and if it is acted upon, as presumably in some cases it will be, it will be a charter of insurance as regards practically the whole of these classes. These classes are hospital nurses and other nurses, clerks, domestic servants, and seamen, in addition to agricultural labourers. You have to consider on this particular day, the thirteenth day, when this, amid twenty-six other new Clauses, have to be considered the method of insurance of those particular classes to which I have referred, which is absolutely new matter so far as this Bill is concerned. Surely I may with some reason appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make this appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us some longer period to consider at any rate this Clause, which is of enormous importance, especially bearing in mind the solemn assurance given to the House on the 10th July that there would be ample time to reconsider the position of agriculturists under this Bill. I want to ask what are the Irishmen going to 217 do in this matter, for about two-thirds of the population of Ireland are in the same position as those who form the bulk of my Constituents. They will have to pay the same flat rate as those engaged in urban industries. If they do have to pay that rate a serious injustice is going to be done to them, and they are not merely going to pay for their own benefits, poor as they are, but for the benefits of those engaged in more profitable industries. What are the Irishmen going to do? So far as we Englishmen are concerned, we are going to do the same as they do—that is, do our best to protect the agriculturists whom we represent. I should like to emphatically protest against the 13th day being the only day devoted to the discussion of new Clauses. If one day only is given to the consideration of these new Clauses, in my opinion a gross injustice will be done to all these unorganised bodies, who have the smallest wages in the country, who enjoy the greatest measure of health, and who, in common justice ought to be treated differently from all other classes of the community under the Bill, as they are in every other country where national insurance obtains.

§ Mr. HARWOOD
I rise to bring back the House for a moment or two to the general question involved in the Motion before us. I have been long enough in the House to have heard a great many discussions about these Closure Resolutions, and I have come to the conclusion that the House does not quite do itself justice in the matter. Every time we hear the same melancholy epithets and the same talk about the days of our fathers when everybody talked everything out completely, and had as much time as they wanted for very Clause, and that now we are merely the slaves of a Government with a big "G," and are sent here to record what the Government tells us, and that we have lost the power of free discussion. Are you sure about that? I think you are mistaken, and I think we are taking a somewhat gloomy view of the whole matter. We must remember one or two things. As anyone who reads the papers knows, very few people used to talk in the old days. It was quite well known who would talk, and much better known who would not talk. Even during the time I have been in this House I have seen a great difference. When I first came here, something like twenty years ago, it was quite customary to howl Members down. I have gone 218 through the experience myself several times. That was in the days when the House was confined to what are technically called Gentlemen. Now that the Labour Members have come in—for I attribute it largely to that innovation—we behave like gentlemen, and listen to people. But that is the drawback, and we must bear it in mind. We must be practical people. If you are going to let everybody talk as much as he wants, you are not going to do anything at all. There is not the simplest Bill which could be carried in one Session if everyone was to say as much as he liked about it. You could snow anything under with Amendments—we have seen how that is done generally—therefore you must have some fair consideration for the facts of the present state of affairs. If you let everybody talk there must be some other means of getting on with business because Members of the House say you are losing your position in the country. You are no longer a deliberative assembly, you are simply a recording assembly. Possibly we have lost some of the esteem of the country, but we may lose a great deal more of it for another reason than that. It is that we do nothing. That is the way to lose reputation in the country. I do not think the country cares much about our oratory, but it does care a great deal about our doing something.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
We have passed away from the main question, and are now considering Amendments proposed to the Resolution. The Question proposed is that "sixteen" should be inserted in place of "fifteen," therefore we must confine ourselves to whether or not fifteen is adequate.

§ Mr. HARWOOD
I must apologise. I thought we were on the general question. But the Amendment is only an illustration of the whole general principle. It must be taken as part of the general question. If you add the number of days under this Motion to what we have had already there never could be more days given to a Bill. Unless this House chooses to alter its rules and to allow business to pass over from one Session to another it would never be possible to give more time than is given for this Bill. The time that it is possible to allow to any Bill is necessarily limited and the time allowed for this Bill is as much as could ever be given to any Bill whatever. Therefore the question is, are we never going to pass a great Bill? That is really the serious thing that the House 219 has to consider. We have heard of the past, but it must be remembered that the legislation of the past, from 1832 until quite recently, was rather legislation of mere mechanism than legislation of great principles. Reform Bills and so forth, all were making up the mechanism of the political machine. Now, for the first time, we are going to do something with the machine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in saying that we are dealing with greater Bills than our fathers ever dreamt of. You cannot in the annals of English history find a Bill as big as this. Are we never going to touch big Bills because time is not allowed? The House will sink very much in the opinion of the public if it is going to say, "Henceforward we cannot grapple with a great Bill." We shall have greater Bills even than this. We have heard of the problems which are pressing—of the knocking at the door. Are we going to say, "We cannot grapple with greater Bills simply because of time"? We must meet the matter practically. We must say we will do the best we can in the possible time.
There is no law of the Medes and Persians about these Bills. Once they have passed they are not passed for ever. We know that they can be altered and amended and improved, and the country asks us to do something, not to talk merely, but to do something to pass some legislation which will be of service to the people of the country. That is what we have got to do. That is what we are sent here for. If you do not pass this Bill this Session, when will you pass it? You will have to begin it all over again next Session and you could not allow it next Session more time than it will have during this. We shall have the same points over again, and we shall have to say we are never going to pass a great Bill like this. Has the House no more dignity, no more sense of its great possibilities, than to take up a position of that kind? I therefore hope we shall hear no more of this miserable pleading that this is too short a time. We have got a great opportunity of putting into law the greatest principles probably which have ever been put into law in the course of English history. My hon. Friend has criticisms, so we all have, but I am sure he would be the last man to stand up in this House—I do not think he would dare to stand up in the country—and say on the whole this Bill is not a great attempt to solve most difficult problems, a greater attempt than has ever 220 been made in the past, and an attempt that deserves every sympathetic consideration. Will the House say we can never pass a Bill like this? I hope not. Therefore I plead that we should take a practical view and that we shall make the best of the time, realising that it is as much as could ever be allowed, and that we shall not run off and lose ourselves in the mere fantastic and impossible idea of freedom of discussion.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I think the real opposition to the Motion is not so much for the purpose of securing greater time for discussion of the Bill as for the purpose of wasting the remaining portion of the Session and encroaching upon the business of next Session. I support the suggestion that sixteen days is amply sufficient for the purpose of the Bill. In fact, if every Member was really in earnest and only intended to deal with those subjects that had not been explained to the House before and really wanted to make the Bill worthy of the House, I doubt if it could not be done quite easily in six days. I therefore at the outset objected to this day being given for this special purpose. I do not say that the object of the Opposition is to defeat the Bill. The object of the Opposition is what the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) knows perfectly well to be a perfectly legitimate object of the Opposition—to use a Bill they are in favour of for the purpose of destroying, later on, a Bill that they are not in favour of. Sixteen days is amply sufficient for those who desire the Bill. Those who do not desire it, of course, want an extension of time of such a character as to make it absolutely impossible for it to become law. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lansbury) claimed that it was utterly impossible properly to discuss this question, and he pleaded, of course, for extra time. The House was nearly empty when he tried to make a speech within the rules of order on the same subject a minute or two before, and he started that speech by declaring that he was against this Bill root and branch, so you see it is not discussion that he wants. He does not want fair discussion any more than the Opposition. They have a particular reason for opposing the Motion that the business of the Bill should be expedited. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley gave another reason why it should not be expedited. They both agree that the Bill ought to be obstructed as far as it is possible to do so. One party wish to obstruct 221 it in order to make another measure with which they disagree utterly impossible in the next Session of Parliament, while the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley wishes to obstruct it because he objects to the Bill root and branch. I think I may say that I am as well able to express the opinion of the workpeople of the country as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. I am connected with one portion of casual labour that will be included, I think, in both sections of this Bill, and I venture to say that the workmen belonging to the trade I represent would consider it a great disaster if this Bill were lost.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I would consider it a grave disaster if it were passed.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
In addition to that, a conference was held of the organised workmen of the country, at which they absolutely expressed the view I am expressing now. Therefore, to try to use this Motion for the purpose of defeating the object of the Bill is one of the most astonishing proceedings I have ever known put forward, especially by a man who professes to represent Labour opinion in this House. I agree, of course, that the Bill may not include the whole millennium. I do not dispute that there will be destitution and difficulties among the working classes when this Bill becomes law, but the fact that there will be some portion of the poverty problem still to deal with is not one that should be stated as a reason why we should not deal with any phase of the social problem. You may take it from me that, so far as I have any right to speak—and I am connected with a federation representing 750,000 trade unionists—an overwhelming majority of the men connected with that federation would consider it a disaster if this Bill were utterly lost. There are unquestionably criticisms which may be offered relating to certain of its provisions. Amendments are required. I do not suppose it would be possible to deal with a subject of this kind in such a way as to find everybody agreeing with every other person as to the details of the propositions put forward, but I am positively certain that those who oppose the Bill are not representing the best interests of the working classes of this country. Although the measure may not be perfect, it would be a fatal mistake to destroy the first effort in this direction. I do not believe myself that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley when he demands that such time shall be given for the discussion of the Bill as would make it utterly im- 222 possible for the Bill to become law represents the majority of the opinion of the group with which he is supposed to be acting.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I wish to say that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent is not connected with the people that I am among, and that I am here representing Bow and Bromley. My Constituents have held a conference and asked me to do my level best to defeat the Bill.

§ Mr. J. WARD
I have never pretended that I belong to the group the hon. Member belongs to.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I do not want you to either.

§ Mr. J. WARD
Of course, the obvious retort to that is that the feeling is mutual. All that I say is that as far as my representative character is concerned I doubt if it is not as good as that of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Probably better.

§ Mr. J. WARD
As an officer of a trade union I feel that I am entitled to express what I consider to be the opinion of the working men I come into close contact with, and I say that their opinion generally is that they would consider it a disaster if the Bill were lost by dilatory action, or by discussion that made it utterly impossible for it to become law this Session. That is my opinion, and that is the reason why I will support the proposal now before the House to give sixteen days, though I would much prefer if it were six.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not mean to interfere in the domestic differences of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent has covered wide ground. He has shown considerable ingenuity, or considerable obtuseness, in misrepresenting the views of those from whom he differs. I really do not know whether I ought to congratulate him on his ingenuity, if it be ingenuity, or express regret that he has failed to appreciate their point of view. The Opposition have complained that the restrictions on the time to be given to this Bill are not in the least required by the circumstances of this Bill, and that they are put forward by the Government almost avowedly in the interest of other measures with which we have no sympathy. The hon. Member twists that into the state- 223 ment that we are deliberately obstructing this Bill in order to defeat another. Nothing that any of my hon. Friends has said has given the slightest colour to that statement. Everything the Government has said acquits us of the charge. We have done our best to deal with this without party feeling and without endeavouring in this House to make any sort of party capital out of the difficulties which surround the Government. The Government now, not for the sake of improving the Bill, not for the sake of securing the passage of the Bill in reasonable time, but for the purpose of clearing the way for other Bills, propose that the House of Commons shall only have the most limited power of discussion on this Bill. The Government have given a grudging concession of one extra day, and the hon. Member states he would prefer that the sixteen days should be limited to six. He says that those whom he represents would like—

§ Mr. J. WARD
I said that for myself.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
That is what the hon. Member would like, and that, of course, is much more important than what those whom he represents would like I was not sorry at the interchange of observations between him and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. Both hon. Members claim to have some sort of representative capacity which they are not inclined to allow to other Members of this House. The hon. Member is a member of a committee, an assembly of delegates elected by a very large number of people. He thinks that that entitles him to say, at any time, that he represents all those people, and that when the delegates have passed a given resolution, and he speaks in accordance with that resolution, he can tell us that we represent no such interest. He is very much mistaken. As the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has just shown, even such associations as he belongs to outside the House are capable of failing to represent a great number of their electors, just as much as Members in this House are capable of failing to represent great numbers of those who send them to Parliament. But the hon. Member's whole speech was based on a misapprehension of the alternative before the House. It is not a question of whether you should have a Bill dealing with invalidity or not. It is not a question whether you shall require contributions from employers, employed, and from the State, 224 for the relief of illness and distress. The question is whether, having decided to make that levy, this Bill provides the best relief that can be given for the money available and distributes it in the fairest and most impartial manner, or whether, with greater time and greater care, we could not with the same means at our disposal do much greater good to those whom we all wish to serve.
10.0 P.M.
The hon. Member is prepared to dispose of all these questions, to scrap all Debate, to take the Bill as read, to spend the money as proposed in the Bill, or as it may be proposed by the Government—we do not know how it will be—and to say in the name, not merely of his constituents, but in the name of a wide body of men spread over many constituencies, that that is what they wish. I differ from him. If they knew the real issues I think they would give a different verdict. If they were told that they were to have 9d. for every 4d. which they pay, and that they are to get something for everything at someone else's expense, perhaps they may not think it honest, but all of us would feel the attractions of an offer of that kind. That is not the proposal. The hon. Member says: "If this is imperfect, if it does not deal with the whole problem, if it does not deal with some of the most essential parts of the problem we will do that later on, after Home Rule, after Disestablishment, after all the purely political measures which the Government are going to interpose in front of the great social problems which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says are long overdue and are clamouring for consideration." The serious feature of this situation is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is allocating under this Bill not merely every penny of money that he has got, but every penny of money which he looks forward to in the future. He is not putting the full liabilities on the present day. He is putting the great part of them on to the future. When the hon. Member comes to him and says, "I helped to get this Bill through in sixteen days, and would have helped to get it through in six, but you have left great gaps; please fill them up," the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say to him, "You and I have spent the money, and we cannot spend it twice over. If it went to the wrong people or was wasted, or was not employed to the best advantage, you are responsible as well as I, and the House of Commons also is responsible. They gagged themselves to prevent themselves 225 from getting adequate time for the discussion of these great measures."
I need scarcely say, as between the six days of the hon. Gentleman and the sixteen days of the learned Attorney-General representing the Government, I am for the sixteen days. But it is perfectly plain that sixteen days for a Committee discussion of the problems which we have in front of us is so patent a pretence that for anybody who has taken part in the discussions of this Bill, who knows our House of Commons procedure and knows the many difficulties which are never considered outside the House but constantly arise in the House, to pretend that those sixteen days are sufficient—I do not like to use harsh language—but I will say that it is a pretence to which I will not be a party. It is not adequate. The House of Commons cannot do its duty to the Bill in that time. It will not be the Bill of the House of Commons; it will not be the Bill of the nation. It will be the Bill of the Government, and the defects which are in it will be due to the restrictions imposed by the Government on the free action of the representatives of the people.

§ Sir RYLAND ADKINS
I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman in that Vigorous dialectic which took on so well-known a partisan character in the last few sentences. But as we are dealing now with the exact allowance of time afforded for the remaining stages of this Bill I hope it may be allowed to a Member of the House who, since the recent concessions and Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made public, is a warm supporter of the Bill, to represent to the Government that it is desirable to have and that great good would be done by a still further extension of time within the limits which I for one believe to be possible without leading up to those disasters which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke has referred to. And as I am desirous to address myself to one or two particular reasons why I still ask the Government at this late hour to give us one or two more days, I shall not follow either the right hon. Gentlemen opposite or others into those trackless fields of general controversy in which they have been disporting themselves. In the first place, I noticed in the time-table that only one day is given for Clauses 43, 44 and 45, which, taken together, may be described as local; government Clauses, and which deal with the committees which are to be called I under the Bill as it now stands Local 226 Health Committees and their relations to the local authorities.
I quite agree that there is nothing intrinsically antagonistic between the creation of these committees and the existing local authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I admit, and I am grateful to him for it, gone a long way to meet the views, at any rate of the larger local authorities, who are responsible for local government in county boroughs and administrative counties. What I desire to put before the House and the Government is that if these Committees are to be of the greatest efficiency they ought to reflect at every point the most careful adjustment with existing local government authorities. It is not a question of opposition; it is not a question of collision; it is a question of adjustment. When I look at the Order Paper and see that there are no less than ten pages of Amendments to these three Clauses—and, at any rate, a large number of these Amendments raise issues which are not hostile to the Bill, which are practical, and which in one form or other must be considered by those responsible for local government—I regret that the Government at the present time has not been willing to give more than one day for the discussion of those three Clauses. I fully admit that obstruction, opposition, or even wanton discussion might easily draw out any one of those Clauses for a number of days, but what is important surely in a Bill of this kind is that every issue, if it be a separate issue, if it be a practical issue, if it be an issue which is bound to arise in the working of the Act—every such issue should, at any rate, have the invaluable advantage of being referred to in the House of Commons and dealt with in the House of Commons by one of the Ministers responsible for the Bill. Therefore I would urge my right hon. Friends who are conducting this Bill through the House to consider whether they will not in the end considerably conduce to the efficiency of the Bill and to its understanding and acceptance in the country, if, instead of one day for these three Clauses with their ten pages of Amendments, they could at least have another day as well. My second point is this.
In the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he promised two more days, one of which is the subject of this Amendment now before the House, he spoke, if I may say so respectfully and with the greatest propriety, of giving the shorter time for the Clauses from 46 to 54, and proposed to 227 give the longer time for the consideration of that part of the Bill relating to unemployment when it is brought down from Committee upstairs. From that it follows that neither of the two additional days will be available either on the Committee stage or on Report for the new clauses which are to be added to the Bill. I think Members of this House, in whatever quarter they sit, if they had discussed this Bill, as those of us who have been through by-elections have had to discuss it in detail before the constituents, would agree that some of the most important points of this Bill, which are necessarily controversial, will have to be most carefully considered. They are points which very naturally, and, I think, quite properly, can be dealt with in the new clauses. You cannot have a Bill of this kind, so far-reaching and so intricate, without, of necessity, leaving to the new clauses some most important and difficult, matter to be dealt with under the Bill. There must be point after point upon which the independent judgment of Members of this House will finally be determined by the expression which is given to it in the new clauses which the Government have promised. Therefore I regret exceedingly that only one day in the Committee stage and only an undefined fragment of three days on Report is to be given for the consideration of the new clauses. I press these two subjects for an extension of time upon the attention of the Government, not from the point of view of one who wants to embarrass the Bill for the benefit or the disadvantage of other Bills, or from the point of view of one who wants this Bill hurried through as soon as possible, but from the point of view of one who has had what is no doubt the tonic electoral experience which we all suffer at times, and who knows how acute is the interest taken not only in this Bill, but in all its organic details, by many sections of the public, and also from the point of view of one who believes that the extra day spent in that way would not involve the waste of a single hour, but would help in the exposition of the Bill to the country, and in making clear those aspects of it which are of the most consequence, which at the present time has not been adequately done, and which if left undone will, I am certain, be injurious alike to the reputation of the Government and the value of the Bill.

Major WHITE
I do not think the Government fully realise the intense feeling 228 there is among the rank and file of the electors on this question as to what is the proper time to allow for the discussion of this Bill. I, like other Members on both sides of the House, have received deputations; I have been interviewed by both Liberals and Conservatives, and I have received letters from both Liberals and Conservatives, and the whole of the refrain has been that this is a very complicated question, and that it is impossible unless further time be given to satisfy conflicting interests. Their one refrain has been that we must try and secure in the House of Commons ample time for the discussion of this great matter. We on this side of the House, and a good many Members on the other side of the House, deplore what the Government propose to do from the national standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of the dignity of the House of Commons. We on this side of the House, at any rate, need have no quarrel with them from a party standpoint. If this drastic Closure is carried through, I can only quote the words used by the Prime Minister the other day, that the House of Lords, when they rejected the Budget, signed their death warrant. I think, adopting that phrase, that if this guillotine Resolution is passed, and this great measure, of such vital importance to every section of the community, is forced through without proper time for discussion, then all I can say is that within a very short time it will be proved that the Government who carried through this legislation by means at the Closure in this way will have signed the death warrant of the Radical and Liberal party.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "four" ["four allotted days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
On the Report stage, instead of only allowing four days, I propose that six should be allowed. As the time-table stands, Part I. is only to have two and a-half days, which will be a very short allowance indeed to deal with that part of the Bill on the Report stage. For myself, I personally had promises from the Government with regard to four separate cases, that they would deal with the matters on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna) will remember that he on two occasions himself promised me that he would deal with matters on the Report stage. Speaking 229 for myself, there are four cases in which I have had promises from the Government of that description. Other Members I am sure have also had a great many similar undertakings. Two and a-half days is a very short time to allow for that part of the Bill. To allow only a day and a-half for Part II, of the Bill I think the Government must feel to be an injustice to those who wish proper criticism of the measure. Part II. of the Bill will not have been before the House at all except on Second Reading, when, admittedly, it was only discussed to a very small extent, because the main discussion was on Part I. of the Bill. Insurance against unemployment is an absolutely novel and untried experiment in any civilised country. It has been tried on a small scale in one or two countries abroad, and has failed. I quite agree that this is an entirely different attempt, but it is absolutely novel. Is this House going to be asked, without ever having had it before it in the Committee stage, to deal with a novel experiment of that character, so important and so far-reaching as it may be. It is most unlikely that this House will accept unreservedly the decisions which may have been arrived at in Committee upstairs. That Committee is likely to be not very fully attended, especially if it sits on the same days as the House is sitting on the other part of the Bill. The same Members who take an interest in the health portion of the Bill also take an interest in the unemployment portion, and to expect them to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning to eleven o'clock at night everybody admits is practically impossible. Under those circumstances the decisions of the Committee are not likely to be received with absolute, unqualified approval in this House. I submit the Government ought to allow at least full three days for the first part of the Bill, and full three days for the second part of the Bill, which is an absolutely novel and untried experiment, and one with regard to which the House will have had no opportunity of considering in Committee.

§ Mr. H. TERRELL
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
If the word "four" were allowed by agreement to be left out, then we might get to the subsequent question as to what number should be inserted. I am bound to say the arguments put forward by the hon. and 230 learned Gentleman have considerable weight, and I do not think there is much difference between him and the Government. He asks for three days on Report for the first part of the Bill, and three days on Report for the second part of the Bill. I should be prepared to offer him two and a-half days on Report on the first part and two and a-half days on Report on the second part. When we come so close together as that I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman might be willing to accept as an Amendment to his Amendment to substitute "five" for "six," and then in the subsequent allocation of time to have two and a-half days for each part of the Bill. Perhaps it might be convenient if the word "four" were omitted by agreement.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not rise to oppose the omission of the word "four," as it is generally right to agree to omit what the Government have proposed. What I rise to do is to say one word for myself. I do not desire to bind anybody else or appear to speak in the name of anybody else, but I think that the offers of the Government are perfectly ludicrous and illusory. For myself, I decline to have any part in the Dutch auction to which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has just invited us.

§ Mr. HAROLD SMITH
My right hon. Friend said that he spoke only for himself, but I think he expressed the unanimous feeling of every Member of the party which he represents. The time allotted, particularly to the Report stage, is ludicrous and fantastic, and I think it is a disgrace to the House, and to the Government which makes the proposal, that we should be asked to discuss the Report stage of such an important measure as this, the second part of which is going to Grand Committee, in the time allotted. The Home Secretary suggests that we should take five days instead of six. He might be offering us "Dreadnoughts," so careful is he in cutting down the very modest demand of my hon. Friend. I hope the Government will be a little generous for once, and agree to give us six days, which will still be grossly inadequate.

§ Question, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

§ Question put, "That the word 'six' be there inserted."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 250.

233

Division No. 344.]	AYES.	[10.25 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin	Goldman, Charles Sydney	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Goldsmith, Frank	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Astor, Waldorf	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Grant, J. A.	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Baird, John Lawrence	Gretton, John	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N)	Gulney, Patrick	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balcarres, Lord	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Baldwin, Stanley	Haddock, George Bahr	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Quilter, William Eley C.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barnston, Harry	Harris, Henry Percy	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Helmsley, Viscount	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hills, John Waller	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanderson, Lancelot
Bigland, Alfred	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Horner, Andrew Long	Snowden, Philip
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Houston, Robert Paterson	Spear, Sir John Ward
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Stanier, Beville
Boyton, James	Hunt, Rowland	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)	Starkey, John Ralph
Bridgeman, William Clive	Ingleby, Holcombe	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Bull, Sir William James	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Stewart, Gershom
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Jowett, Frederick William	Swift, Rigby
Butcher, John George	Kerry, Earl of	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cautley, Henry Strother	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Cave, George	Lansbury, George	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Larmor, Sir J.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Touche, George Alexander
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lewisham, Viscount	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Walker, Col. William Hall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)	Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Crean, Eugene	Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Watt, Henry A.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Mackinder, Halford J.	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dixon, Charles Harvey	M'Mordie. Robert	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Doughty, Sir George	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Malcolm, Ian	Wolmer, Viscount
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Faber, George D. (Clapham)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Falle, Bertram Godfrey	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Fell, Arthur	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Younger, Sir George
Finlay, Sir Robert	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Neville, Reginald J. N.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Newdegate, F. A.	Mr. Cassel and Mr. Harold Smith.
Fleming, Valentine	Newman, John R. P.

NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Brace, William	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Adamson, William	Brady, Patrick Joseph	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Bryce, J. Annan	Dawes, J. A.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Burke, E. Haviland-	Delany, William
Alden, Percy	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Devlin, Joseph
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Dillon, John
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth	Byles, Sir William Pollard	Donelan, Captain A.
Armitage, Robert	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Doris, William
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Clancy, John Joseph	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Barnes, George N.	Clough, William	Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Clynes, John R.	Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)	Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Bentham, George Jackson	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Falconer, James
Black, Arthur W.	Cory, Sir Clifford John	Farrell, James Patrick
Boland, John Plus	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Fenwick, Rt. Hon Charles
Booth, Frederick Handel	Crumley, Patrick	Ffrench, Peter
Bowerman, Charles W.	Cullinan, John	Field, William

232 233

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Reddy, Michael
Fitzgibbon, John	McGhee, Richard	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Maclean, Donald	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
France, G. A.	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Rendall, Athelstan
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Macpherson, James Ian	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Gill, Alfred Henry	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Callum, John M.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Glanville, Harold James	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line, Spalding)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Goldstone, Frank	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Martin, Joseph	Roe, Sir Thomas
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Meagher, Michael	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Rowlands, James
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Rowntree, Arnold
Hackett, John	Menzies, Sir Walter	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Millar, James Duncan	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Hancock, John George	Molloy, Michael	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Mooney, John J.	Scanlan, Thomas
Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Morgan, George Hay	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Harwood, George	Morrell, Philip	Sheehy, David
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Sherwell, Arthur James
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Muldoon, John	Shortt, Edward
Hayden, John Patrick	Munro, Robert	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Hayward, Evan	Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Henry, Sir Charles	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Summers, James Woolley
Higham, John Sharp	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Sutton, John E.
Hinds, John	Nolan, Joseph	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hodge, John	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Tennant, Harold John
Hoit, Richard Durning	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hope, John Deans (Haddington)	Nuttall, Harry	Toulmin, Sir George
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hudson, Walter	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Doherty, Philip	Verney, Sir Harry
John, Edward Thomas	O'Dowd, John	Wadsworth, John
Johnson, William	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Malley, William	Wardle, G. J.
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Waring, Walter
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)	O'Shee, James John	Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Joyce, Michael	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Webb, H.
Keating Matthew	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Kellaway, Frederick George	Parker, James (Halifax)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kelly, Edward	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Wiles, Thomas
King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Wilkie, Alexander
Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Pointer, Joseph	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Pollard, Sir George H.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Power, Patrice Joseph	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Leach, Charles	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Lewis, John Herbert	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Logan, John William	Pringle, William M. R.
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Radford, G. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lundon, Thomas	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

§ Question, "That the word 'five' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. PEEL
I beg to move, in paragraph (3), to leave out the word "one" ["one allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
If we are allowed but one day for the Third Reading of both parts of the Bill it is perfectly clear it will result in nothing else but mere self-congratulatory speeches on the part of members of the Government. We have had a foretaste of this sort of thing already. Only the other day 234 the Prime Minister referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a magnificent passage in which he spoke of his capacity, genius, and tact in getting on with this Bill. If the Prime Minister has spoken of his right hon. Friend in that fashion after only seventeen Clauses of the Bill have been got through, what may we not expect on the completion of the whole Bill! It is perfectly absurd to suppose that we can express our feelings on this Bill in one day. The whole of the time will be taken up by very long speeches from the Government Bench. And, of course, there is not only one Bill, but two. 235 I would suggest that the bulk of one day should be devoted to summing up the first portion of the Bill, and another day for summing up the second portion. The President of the Board of Trade has only been allowed to have a sort of half-cake, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stuck the whole credit for the Bill into his own pocket, and left him nothing. Both these measures have been entirely altered in the course of the discussion, and it would be exceedingly difficult to sum up the whole effect of the Amendments already passed in one day. It would be impossible for the country to have any clear notion of what the result of both Bills is after they have passed through the Committee and Report stages, because there will be no opportunity of dealing with these measures as a whole and showing how they will affect the country. If it is important to any measure that the country know its full effects it should be on a measure of this kind, which has such a variety of effects on all the different classes of the community. We should all be allowed an opportunity of protest, if necessary, against the treatment of some of the classes in whom we are specially interested. I am specially interested in the fate of the seasonal workers. So far they have been treated in a very unfair way, and unless a considerable change is made in their favour in the Schedules it will be our duty to protest against the way they are treated on the Third Reading. I think we ought at least to have three days to discuss the general effect of the Bill on the Third Reading, but I only ask for two in order that some other hon. Members may have an opportunity of summing up the results of these Bills.

Mr. STANLEY WILSON
I desire to second this Amendment. We are doing our best to improve this Resolution, which is the most drastic proposal ever moved in this House. We do not for a moment think that we can possibly make this Resolution acceptable to us on this basis, but we hope and believe that the Government ought to give us this additional day in the case of a measure of such vast importance as the one we are now discussing. I earnestly trust the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I cannot see what possible advantage it would be to add another day to the Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman opposite does not 236 appear to have treated his own Amendment seriously. Had he proposed that another day should be added to the Report stage there would have been much more to be said for it, but to add another day on the Third Reading and thus cut short the time to be occupied by the House of Lords might really have the effect of postponing for a whole week the Second Reading. The House of Lords requires time to consider this Bill. I do not suppose really that the House would agree to have two days to discuss the Third Reading, because the Bill will practically have been settled by the Third Reading. By the time this measure reaches the Third Reading it will have been accepted, and there will be no Amendment possible. Therefore I do not think anything will be gained by adding another day to the Third Reading.

Mr. BALFOUR
I am sure everybody must appreciate at its true worth the great anxiety which the right hon. Gentleman shows for a thorough revision of his Bill in another place. I venture to suggest that laudable object, in which I gather we all concur, would be greatly aided if we could no doubt for the last time, but may I say also for the first time, have a survey of the real Bill of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman took two and a half hours to explain the Bill as it was brought in on First Reading. I do not know how many hours he has taken since in various other theatres of operation to explain the Bill in its later phases. I do think it would be an advantage, not only to this House as to the country, but especially to that other House in which the right hon. Gentleman takes so great an interest, if we could have on Third Reading a real survey of the Bill as a whole. None of us have the least conception as yet, through no fault of ours, of what the ultimate framework of this elusive measure is going to be, and I must say I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that two days is not too much to ask for the House to survey its own work, and explain to the country and to the Second Chamber what it is we have actually tried to do and what it is we have actually succeeded in doing. Therefore, as the only argument brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject is that one day would be taken from the House of Lords for their Debate on this Bill if we were to get a second day for the Third Reading, technically the Third Reading, but it may be really the First Reading 237 of the Bill as it is finally framed, if my hon. Friend thinks it is desirable to go to a Division, I shall certainly support him.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY
There is another reason why perhaps we might further press this Amendment upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is one which arises from the peculiar inconvenience which has been mentioned before of enclosing these two Bills in one Bill. A great many of us, when the Third Reading goes to a Division, may wish to vote for that part of the measure which provides for insurance against sickness and invalidity, and may like to be in a position to vote against that part which provides for insurance against unemployment. I do not say that is my own position, but it is a possible position, and one which no doubt will be taken up. That being the case, there are a good many Members who may wish to make speeches on that occasion, and it seems to me only reasonable, as they will be deprived during all the previous stages of the Bill of expressing their opinions and of moving Amendments they deem of consequence, that at the last appearance of the Bill in this House they should have an opportunity of explaining why they vote in any way they choose to vote on that occasion. I suppose it is quite impossible to prevail upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I wonder it does not occur to him when he advances this theory which we all understand from him about wishing to satisfy the requirements of another place that he need not sacrifice the time required by another place if he gives another day for the Third Reading, because there are several other measures upon the Government programme, and it is really quite unnecessary those measures should be proceeded with this Autumn Session. After all, it is a very big task in one Session of Parliament to break up the British Constitution. If that is not sufficient, surely it is quite enough to supplement it with a Bill of this magnitude. The Government cannot well be accused of idleness if by Christmas they destroy the House of Lords on the one hand and on the other pass the Insurance Bill. To suppose that the Third Reading of the Bill can be got satisfactorily through in one day is most grotesque.

§ Major ARCHER-SHEE
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that on the Second Reading only thirty-two Members out of 670 took part 238 in the Debate. An extraordinary assumption appears to be made by hon. Members opposite that this is a popular Bill. But there is a strong feeling in the country against it, and even the Stygian eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to whitewash the white elephant entirely. I am certain that the Bill in its present form is not at all popular, and we ought to have an opportunity of voicing the opinion of our Constituents on the Third Reading when the Bill appears in its final form.

§ Mr. NEVILLE
As a humble backbencher I desire to support this Motion for an extension of time. I would make a special appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us he spent two years in the incubation of this Bill, and surely it is too much to expect hon. Members to form an opinion on it in the very short time we have at our disposal. The time given to the Committee will amount to about thirty-two days. That is a rather low level for a Bill of this magnitude—it is perilously near a frost. I suggest, with all humility, that the least the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do is to grant this House an ample opportunity of considering the Bill as a whole, because up to now there is hardly a man in this House who thoroughly understands what the position of the Bill is, or will be able to understand the position of the Bill until we come to the end of it. At the present time there is hardly anyone who knows what is postponed and what is not postponed, and unless we have proper time allowed us to put everyone of the various interests into their proper places, and see how they are related to the other portions of the Bill, we shall not have Been dealt with in a proper manner. This Bill is not a Bill merely for party purposes. It has been supported by many of my Friends, because it is intended to be a national settlement of a great question. So far as I have had any opportunity I have, done my best to put forward that view of the case, and it seems to me that the least the Government can do on an occasion such as this, when they are going to create what is really a revolution in the industrial outlook, is to allow a proper time for the Members of the Opposition, and of the Government, and in other parts of the House to form a fair and just view of the measure as it affects every part of the country and every interest in the country.

239

§ Question put, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Question."

240

§ The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 172.

241

Division No. 345.]	AYES.	[10.55 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Morgan, George Hay
Acland, Francis Dyke	Griffith, Ellis J.	Morrell, Philip
Adamson, William	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Addison, Dr. C.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Muldoon, John
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Munro, R.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Hackett, John	Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Alden, Percy	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Hancock, John George	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Anderson, A. M.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Nolan, Joseph
Armitage, Robert	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Harwood, George	Nuttall, Harry
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barnes, G. N.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Doherty, Philip
Bentham, G. J.	Hayward, Evan	O'Dowd, John
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Henry, Sir Charles S.	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Black, Arthur W.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Boland, John Pius	Higham, John Sharp	O'Malley, William
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hinds, John	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hodge, John	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Holt, Richard Durning	O'Shee, James John
Brace, William	Hope, John Deans (Haddington)	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Bryce, J. Annan	Hudson, Walter	Parker, James (Halifax)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	John, Edward Thomas	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Johnson, W.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Pointer, Joseph
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Pollard, Sir George H.
Chancellor, H. G.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph	Joyce, Michael	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Clough, William	Keating, Matthew	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Clynes, John R.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Kelly, Edward	Pringle, William M. R.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Radford, George Heynes
Condon, Thomas Joseph	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Reddy, M.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Crumley, Patrick	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Cullinan, John	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)	Rendall, Athelstan
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Leach, Charles	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Lewis, John Herbert	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Dawes, J. A.	Logan, John William	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Delany, William	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lundon, T.	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Devlin, Joseph	Lyell, Charles Henry	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Dillon, John	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Doris, W.	McGhee, Richard	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Maclean, Donald	Rowlands, James
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Rowntree, Arnold
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)	Macpherson, James Ian	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	M'Callum, John M.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Falconer, J.	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Scanlan, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Sheehy, David
Ffrench, Peter	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Sherwell, Arthur James
Field, William	Martin, J.	Shorn, Edward
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Masterman, C. F. G.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Fitzgibbon, John	Meagher, Michael	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
France, G. A.	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Summers, James Woolley
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Menzies, Sir Walter	Sutton, John E.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Millar, James Duncan	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Gill, Alfred Henry	Molloy, M.	Tennant, Harold John
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Toulmin, Sir George
Glanville, H. J.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Goldstone, Frank	Mooney, John J.	Verney, Sir Harry
Wadsworth, J.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Whitehouse, John Howard	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Wardle, George J.	Wiles, Thomas	Young, William (Perth, East)
Waring, Walter	Wilkie, Alexander
Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)	Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Webb, H.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Fleming, Valentine	Nield, Herbert
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Forster, Henry William	O'Grady, James
Astor, Waldorf	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.	Goldman, C. S.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baird, J. L.	Goldsmith, Frank	Paget, Aimeric Hugh
Baker, Sir Randelf L. (Dorset, N.)	Gordon, Hon John Edward (Brighton	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Balcarres, Lord	Grant, James Augustus	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baldwin, Stanley	Gretton, John	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Guiney, P.	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gwynne, R S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Haddock, George B.	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barlew, Montague (Salford, South)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Barnston, H.	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Quilter, William Eley C.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Harris, Henry Percy	Rolleston, Sir John
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)	Helmsley, Viscount	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Bigland, Alfred	Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	Sanders, Robert A.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanderson, Lancelot
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Horner, Andrew Long	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyton, James	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland	Snowden, Philip
Bull, Sir William James	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanier, Beville
Butcher, John George	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campion, W. R.	Jowett, F. W.	Starkey, John Ralph
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Joynson-Hicks, William	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Cassel, Felix	Kerry, Earl of	Stewart, Gershom
Cautley, Henry Strother	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Swift, Rigby
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lansbury, George	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Larmor, Sir J.	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lewisham, Viscount	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Lloyd, G. A.	Touche, George Alexander
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Walker, Col. William Hall
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lowe, Sir F W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Crean, Eugene	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred	Mackinder, Halford J.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	M'Mordie, Robert	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Malcolm, Ian	White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)
Doughty, Sir George	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Wolmer, Viscount
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Worthington-Evans, L.
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Younger, Sir George
Fell, Arthur	Newdegate, F. A.
Finlay, Sir Robert	Newman, John R. P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Hills.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, in paragraph (4) to leave out the words, "and on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of Clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause."
242 The effect of that would be that when certain Clauses are put en bloc there should be power to vote on each of them. As the Resolution stands, if there is a number of Clauses to which the Government have not moved Amendments those Clauses, if they are five, six, seven, or eight in number, are to be put en bloc, and the House would be obliged either to vote against seven Clauses of which it 243 approved in order to express its disapproval of the eighth, or allow the Clause of which it disapproved to pass because it did not wish to vote against the other Clauses which are put en bloc with this particular Clause. I am not suggesting that there should be any discussion on these Clauses. All I ask is that there should be a vote. I am prepared to admit that in the circumstances we cannot expect to discuss every Clause, but we ought to be allowed at least to vote upon each individual Clause. There has been, I believe, a precedent for this, but only one. It was with a Bill brought in by the President of the Local Government Board. I objected to it at the time, and I do not think he insisted upon it.

§ Sir W. BULL
I beg to Second the Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
As I understand the effect of this Amendment would be that the Clauses would be put separately, so that if any Member wished to challenge any Clause he should have an opportunity of voting against it without having to vote against the other Clauses. I think that that is a very reasonable Amendment, and I feel great pleasure in accepting it.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move in Paragraph (4) to leave out the words— The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses to the Bill shall be forthwith put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker without debate. The effect of this Clause is to reverse the practice which has existed from time immemorial that in the Committee stage the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill shall be put at the end of the discussion, after all the Amendments have been disposed of. I think that the Government should at least give their reasons why they seek to omit a Clause. It must be remembered that the Clauses which are to be omitted are Clauses which the Government put in their own Bill. If they are going to omit a Clause, if they are going to say that the usual course is not to be followed, and that we are not to move Amendments to the Clause, they should give us some reason why they desire to do so.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think the hon. Baronet went beyond the Motion. He 244 admits it is not reasonable when the Government mean to drop a particular Clause, that the House should have to go through the whole of the Amendments to the Clause before the Government move that the Clause be omitted. I think it is a reasonable proposition that the Government should move at the start that the Clause be omitted. If those words were left out the effect would be that we would have all the Amendments. All the hon. Baronet wants is that the omission of the Clause should not be moved before the time the guillotine falls; but if these words were left out, there would be no means of moving the omission of the Clause.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The paragraph in question begins— A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee. I do not propose to touch that. The next paragraph refers to the question of a Motion made by the Government for the omission of any Clause. The right hon. Gentleman understands that?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
If my Amendment is carried the Government will have the power of moving to omit the Clause before any Amendments are moved, but they will not have the power to make that Motion without debate.

Mr. BALFOUR
This raises a point which has always been of interest to me. I was responsible for drafting the Rules of the House and I thought, and I still think, that the rule to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention was a poor rule. The Government could not leave out a Clause without every Amendment on that Clause being discussed from beginning to end. I think, and I have always thought, that this is perfectly preposterous. At that time there was a great deal of criticism of my proposal to deal with the point in 1896 or 1897. That was one of the things I tried in the various rules I proposed, but for different reasons I had to drop it. I must say that I think the Government ought to have the opportunity of dropping any Clause without having a discussion on Amendments to a proposal not intended to be carried. I think, on the other hand, that the Government, having brought forward a proposal, should give solid reasons for dropping it. I think 245 my hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the paragraph as to moving the omission of a Clause must be modified. I imagine that the feeling of the Government is that you may have an indefinitely long debate on the Motion. We are only dealing with this Bill, and not with the general rules of the House, and I would venture to suggest that the Government should draft a proposal by which they would be obliged to give a reason for dropping a Clause. Then there might be a speech in opposition if anybody wants to oppose, and then the matter should be put to the House without further debate; that the "Ten Minutes Rule," as it is termed, should be called into operation; and if the Government accept that I think my hon. Friend will be prepared to agree.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is the right one.

Mr. BALFOUR
By leave of the House—my right hon. Friend has made a suggestion which I think the Government are willing to accept. Under the "Ten Minutes Rule," as interpreted from the Chair, nobody may comment unless they mean to oppose. I think one speech in comment even without opposition might properly be allowed on an occasion of that sort.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I fully approve of the suggestion that has come from the right hon. Gentleman and from his colleagues. I do not recollect the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was not aware of it and I do not even know what action I took on that occasion. I should be very much surprised if I opposed, because it seems to me to be so thoroughly reasonable that it is inconceivable that I or my friends could have opposed it. To go on debating Amendments on a Clause which everybody knows is going to be dropped is perfectly grotesque, I think, but to omit these words altogether would mean exactly what the right hon. Gentleman points out, and that you might have a prolonged debate on the omission of a Clause to the detriment of the discussion upon Amendments to the next Clause. I do not think that is in the interests of the Opposition or the House as a whole. I am therefore of opinion that the best plan is that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the "Ten Minutes Rule." After a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from the Member who opposes any such motion respectively, may, without further debate, put the question…

246

Mr. BALFOUR
If you say "criticises" instead of "opposes."

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree, "from the Member who criticises."

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I suggest some such words as "from the Minister who proposes and from any one other Member." There are obviously occasions on which a proposal is withdrawn when the House has some right to know why the withdrawal, though they do not want to oppose or criticise the withdrawal. What they are likely to want to do is to point out how improvident the Government were in making the proposal.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think these words would do: "The question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of a Bill shall be put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from a Member who criticises any such Motion respectively but without further debate."

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendments made: Leave out the word "forthwith"; leave out the words "without debate"; after those words insert the words "after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member in criticism of such statement."

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out Paragraph (5) ["Provisions applicable to Proceedings in Standing Committee"].
These words embody two new procedures in Standing Committees. They give power to the Chairman to enforce the "Kangaroo" closure. In saying that that is not a power which ought to be given to the Chairman of a Standing Committee I do not wish in any way to reflect on Members holding that position. The Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means are special persons, chosen from the best men in the House, with great knowledge of our procedure; and, though I do not think anybody is capable of really judging which Amendments ought to be passed over and which discussed, if there are two men capable of doing that they are the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. But the position is quite different in Standing Committees. The Chairmen, excellent men though they may be, have not and cannot have had the great experience of these matters possessed by the Chairman and 247 Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and to put upon them the duty of selecting the Amendments to be discussed is to impose a burden which they ought not to be called upon to bear.
It is to be a further restriction upon the proceedings of the Grand Committee which certainly ought not to be put. The second part practically exacts that the Grand Committee upstairs shall sit from eleven or twelve o'clock till one, two, three, or four o'clock in the morning without any consent from the House itself. That is to say, a Grand Committee may meet upstairs at eleven o'clock and sit all that day and all the next night, and, so far as I know, the next day too. Surely that is not right. It is going to do that when this House is sitting downstairs discussing the other part of this "one and indivisible," or "inter-dependent," or something of the sort, Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman said when he objected to its being divided. Members upstairs would not know what was going on downstairs—and they might be desirous of discussing the Clauses of the measure there, and vice versa. For the second part may be referred to a Grand Committee the majority of whose members are extremely anxious to discuss the insurance portion of the Bill. I appeal to Members as to whether the procedure suggested is not prostituting the House of Commons? It is absolutely impossible that business can be carried on in that way. I hope—though I am not very sanguine—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will concede both of these Amendments. If he will not, let me implore him to concede the second part—that the Committee upstairs shall not sit all night when we are sitting downstairs at the same time.

§ Mr. BUXTON
As regards the first matter, that of the Closure, I suggest to the House that the proposal of the Government in regard to that question is really better from the point of view of the Grand Committee than the present rule. The hon. Baronet must have forgotten that under existing circumstances under the Standing Orders of the House the Chairman of any Grand Committee at any time on a Motion of the representative of the Government in charge of a Bill can put in operation the Closure down to the words proposed or even the Clause as a whole. The effect of this is to sweep away completely, not selected Amendments, but every single Amendment. That surely is 248 really a much less useful weapon to have in the matter of the Closure than that which is commonly known as the "Kangaroo" Closure, which has been used of late in the House of Commons, and which, apart from the question of the merits of any particular Bill, has given I think general satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Surely there can be no question as between the power of putting a number of lines or a Clause as a whole without any possible Amendment being selected and of selecting those Amendments which seem to be of the greatest importance?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to withdraw from the Chairman of the Grand Committee the power of putting any part of a Clause to which he has just referred? If he is going to withdraw that in order to substitute the "Kangaroo" there may be something to be said for his argument.

§ Mr. BUXTON
I was not proposing to withdraw it, but if one form is a better weapon or a better instrument than another it is the one that will be adopted. From the point of view of the proceedings of the Grand Committee it is better that this new power should be in the hands of the Chairman rather than that he should be thrown back upon the present existing rule. As regards the question of hours, I think the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the difficulties of the position. I assume I shall be in charge of the Bill in Grand Committee, and we have no desire to unduly press Members of the House in this respect. We shall have a very satisfactory number of days available for the Grand Committee to discuss Part 2, and if there is a desire to discuss it in a reasonable spirit I can assure the House we have no desire to sit unduly long or late, or to press Members severely. I hope they will meet us in that spirit, and that there will be no necessity to sit to any prolonged hour. This proposal is not an innovation in this sense, that what we are asking for is done constantly in connection with Grand Committees at present. Grand Committees can sit until 4 o'clock at present if the Minister in charge of the Bill moves that the Committee sit until 4 o'clock. That Motion is made without debate constantly in Committees that involve considerable work. Further, any time a Minister comes down to the House and asks the leave of the House it can sit indefinitely. That is done over and over again, and certainly in my recollection 249 that Motion has never been opposed when made by the Minister in charge of a Bill. It is more convenient to do that in the way we are doing it in this Motion than that the Minister in charge of the Bill should have to leave the Grand Committee for some time in order to come down to the House to make a special Motion. It is better in such circumstances to have the Motion made once and for all. After what I have said, that it is not our intention to press the members of Grand Committees unduly, I hope the House will agree to these two proposals, one of which I think is much better than the present existing system, and the other, which will be used as far as we possibly can with discretion.

Mr. BALFOUR
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the two proposals of my hon. Friend. He tries to persuade us with regard to the first that in the proceedings of the Grand Committees there are two alternative methods of Closure. There is only one; and he tries to persuade us in regard to the second that matters will go much more expeditiously and smoothly if the ordinary precautions taken are abandoned in this particular case. It must be clear to the House that if precautions were ever necessary in regard to Grand Committees they are doubly necessary on the present occasion. The ordinary occasions on which Grand Committees sit have no relation to the proceedings of the House, and they are not on the same basis. Possibly they consider matters upon which the majority of hon. Members are not greatly interested, such as questions of routine, and they sit on days upon which Second Reading discussions are taking place in this House, when the immediate attendance of hon. Members is not constantly required. But here you are proposing to have the same Bill in Committee in two different places at different times under different Ministers attended by different law officers. Because the Government can divide their staff their legitimate critics are expected to divide themselves into two in order to carry on their work of commentary and criticism. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says he is going to deal with one part upstairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the other part downstairs.
I presume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be assisted by the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade will be aided by the Solicitor-General. May I point out that 250 the very same people are required down here to discuss one part as are required upstairs. If ever there was a time when the ordinary and customary precautions for preventing overlapping were required surely it is in regard to this measure. If you think it is necessary to ask the Chairman of the Grand Committee to obtain the permission of this House to sit later on matters which have no relation to the work downstairs, surely it is doubly and trebly necessary when the same Bill is being discussed upstairs and downstairs to see that they do not overlap. It is hard enough to meet at 11 o'clock in the morning and go on until 10.30 at night, but you are going further. You are saying not only shall you not work on the Bill in its two phases at the same time—which is throwing a strain upon your powers of endurance which very few people are strong enough to bear—but you are saying that whatever your interest may be in a particular Amendment you shall not be able to do your work in both places on the same day. I think that is an untenable proposition.
All the President of the Board of Trade has said in defence of this proposal is that his intentions are good, and I am sure that he does not wish to sit longer than the rest of us, and he will be glad to finish at 2.45 when this House begins its work. His work is sufficiently severe as the Minister in charge of the Bill and as a Member of the Government, who is expected more or less often to vote in Government Divisions. Therefore I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman desires to stop the discussion of the Bill at a reasonable hour. If that is his desire I would suggest that he had better leave the rules of the House as they are, and do not make any change. If the great necessity of which he speaks arises there is a provision under our existing rules by which the Committee can go on sitting. That is enough and it ought to be enough. If the Government do not mean to give in on the first question, upon which I do not mean to dwell because I spoke upon it this afternoon, if they will not give in to my hon. Friend's argument and mine on that subject, let them yield upon the second part of my hon. Friend's appeal and make this small concession to these overburdened Committees, that even though their joint labours last the round of the clock at all events they shall not overlap, and no man shall be prevented from doing his work on one Committee by the fact that he has at the same time to do work on another.

251

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH
My right hon. Friend has made a very damaging criticism of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, but I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say the President of the Board of Trade made a more damaging criticism of his own speech to-night in a report which I happen to have before me at the present moment. The President of the Board of Trade said, in an earlier stage and on the very proposition which is before the House of Commons tonight:— But quite apart from the question of merits or principle I suggest that this is not a workable proposal. The Grand Committee sits from eleven o'clock or half-past eleven till three or four. Practically speaking Members on both sides who are interested in Part II. are also interested in Part I., and I do not think hon. Members will be prepared day after day to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock or later at night, and if the Grand Committee does not sit on the same days as the House is to consider the matter in Committee it will only leave one day a week for its consideration. The real difficulty in the way of the proposal is that I believe Members on both sides of the House desire to have an opportunity of considering the various proposals put before them by the Government on Part. II. as well as on Part I."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1911, col. 1157.] One might talk at considerable length on the original speech of the President of the Board of Trade as I have just read it, or on the speech of the President which he has just delivered in the House to-night. There may be admirers of the earlier speech as there may be admirers of the later speech, but I imagine there will not be anybody in the House who will attempt to reconcile the two speeches. One of my hon. Friends, when the President of the Board of Trade was tempted to make his first speech, ventured to suggest the very course which the Government is now recommending to the House might be adopted. The President of the Board of Trade said Members of the House who are interested in the first part of the Bill are also interested in the second part of the Bill, and that being so, it would be wrong and unreasonable to say that one should be sent upstairs and the other treated here. The President of the Board of Trade, whatever other Parliamentary quality he has exhibited, has certainly exhibited in a high degree that of courage, because to-night he has said precisely opposite to that which he said in the extract I have just read. The House is face to face with a proposal which is not limited by the Insurance Bill. It is face to face with the whole question as to whether or not we desire to reserve in our own hands sitting in this Chamber the right of consideration of measures which come before the House of Commons, 252 which is distinct from the consideration given to similar measures upstairs.
This question could be illustrated by a variety of measures, but I venture to doubt whether any illustration can be taken more useful and more final than the circumstances of the Insurance Bill. Here are two parts of a Bill of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly told us, and I think with great justification, that, although separate in many points, in the main object have the same points of view, and one of the circumstances which follows from that, and of which in the different parts of the House we are all equally aware, is this: whether you support this Bill or whether you oppose it, those who in the Labour party, in the Liberal party, and on our side of the House, are experts upon one part of the Bill are experts upon the other, and it is certainly due both to the Government and to us that we should not be deprived of the assistance of those who have given special attention to this subject, and without special attention no one can understand it upon either of these parts, whether you take the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) or the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), or the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), who has brought so much knowledge to bear upon the subject. I think the Labour party is entitled to the constant presence during the discussions on the Bill of the hon. Members for Blackburn and Bow and Bromley, and at the same time we are entitled to the assistance of the hon. Member for Colchester and of other hon. Gentlemen who have given special attention to various branches of this question. By your policy you are depriving those who hold strong views with regard to this Bill of the assistance of experts, and I venture to assert that that is one of the severest condemnations of your proposal.

§ Sir W. BYLES
While I cannot add anything to the ingenious arguments which have been addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Member opposite I do feel I ought to express my view that the Government should if possible meet the points that have been so effectively put forward. From the very first moment I saw the Motion of the Prime Minister on the Paper I felt that this last Clause constituted the most objectionable part of it. I have always entertained the strongest objection to Committees being allowed to sit upstairs while the House is in Session, 253 even if it be only until four o'clock, because from three till four o'clock many of us feel it is our duty to be in the House, and it certainly is objectionable to have cast upon one two duties which are incompatible. Cannot my right hon. Friend even at this eleventh hour, see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite? This is a very serious innovation on the immemorial practice of this House. What you are going to do with this very important measure is to take away from some eighty or more Members the opportunity of discussing one part of the Bill. Members who are not appointed on a Grand Committee may be more or less indifferent to the Bill. When this House is in Committee numbers of hon. Gentlemen do not feel bound to be in attendance, but when they are serving on Grand Committees they feel it is a duty to be present at its meetings. Members in attendance at the Grand Committee will consequently be precluded from taking part in the discussion of that part of the Bill which the House itself is dealing with, and that I repeat is a very serious innovation in Parliamentary practice—an innovation which may be extended in regard to other Bills. More than that, the power of Members to take part in important divisions may be restricted and, on the whole, I submit that the proposal of the Government is both mischievous and unnecessary.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
This paragraph is a real effort on the part of the Government to get through Committee upstairs without closure by compartments. My hon. Friend will sympathise with the object we have in view. The only alternative to our proposal is closure by compartments, unless the Debate on the Bill is to foe prolonged to such a date that the Bill will be lost. What are the proposals? The first proposal is to give the Chairman of the Committee upstairs a power which is less than the power he has now. He has the power now of putting a Clause without any further discussion. That has always put him in a very awkward fix because there might foe two or three Amendment of importance, and he would have to put the Clause as a whole. Under the "Kangaroo" Closure he would have power to discriminate between significant and insignificant Amendments, which is better than the closure of Amendments without discussion. The "Kangaroo" Closure has worked very well in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I 254 thought that was accepted and that it was the most popular animal in the managerie. The second part of the paragraph provides that there should be power, without coming downstairs, to suspend the Four o'Clock Rule. The advantage of that is, as everyone who has worked in Committee upstairs or downstairs knows, that the mere fact that a Debate automatically comes to an end at a certain hour rather encourages advance in the way of progress.
The knowledge that yon can keep a debate going until eleven o'clock rather encourages Members to keep it going until that hour, but if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended anybody who is in favour of, or who is opposing, a Bill knows that there is nothing more discouraging than that fact. The same applies to closure upstairs. It does not mean that you will have to use it. The knowledge that it is there in reserve helps progress. I agree that it might not be necessary to use it, but supposing that it is discovered that those who up to the present have taken no particular interest in Part II. suddenly develop a very active interest and that the Debate will have to be prolonged in order to get through the Amendments in time to report it to the House, I think the suspension of the Four o'Clock Rule—not necessarily while the House is discussing Part I—is a far better power to have. The mere fact that it is there will exercise a salutary effect. Something has been said as to those who take an interest in Part I. also taking an interest in Part II. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) quoted a passage from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton). At the time my right hon. Friend made that statement no Amendments had been put down. Since then my right hon. Friend has discovered that those who take an interest in Part II. are quite different from those who take an interest in Part I. There is a very ready method of discovering that. What has been discovered since? Six months have elapsed since the Second Reading of the Bill, and if anyone will go through the Amendments he will find that most of them are put down by two or three-Members on the Labour Benches, and very few by anyone else. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not come to them."] But surely Amendments are put down long before you reach them, otherwise it is quite impossible for the Ministry to know what the real criticism is on the different parts of the measure. When we have heard what the criticisms are we shall certainly meet them if it is necessary. 255 It would be quite impossible for us to make any progress upstairs unless we had these two powers. The only alternative for those powers is closure by compartment upstairs, and it is very much better that we should make a real effort to get through with these two extra powers rather than adopt closure by compartments.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I do not think it requires any special intelligence to understand the position of hon. Gentlemen behind the Government Benches, but it requires more than human intelligence to understand the position in which the Government are now placed. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the powers he is proposing to give to the Chairman upstairs are less than the powers he now has, and at the same time the powers he now has remain, and he asks us to believe that the Chairman has less powers while he has additional powers. But I am not going to speak on that aspect of the question because it was debated in the general discussion. Now we come to the defence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made of the President of the Board of Trade. It is always a dangerous thing for one man, however gifted, to defend another, and I am bound to say that if the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied with the defence of his consistency which has just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he is one of the most contented men in existence. What does it amount to? The President of the Board of Trade pointed out to us, what is evident to everyone in the House, that the men who are interested in this Bill, the men who know about this Bill in every section of the House, are the men who are interested in both sides of the Bill. That was the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer then, but he says it is proved now that that was wrong, and that they are different men. Is there anyone in the House who believes there is a shadow of foundation for that? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe it? What was the proof he gave? He says, "Look at the Amendments."
The Amendments down to the second part of the Bill show that it is not the same men who are taking an interest in it. There is not a man in the House who is interested in the Bill at all who has not had his time wholly taken up with what was immediately before him. I can speak for 256 myself as well as everyone else who is interested in it. The sole reason why there are not Amendments down now to the second part of the Bill is because it was in the distance. We have plenty to do in dealing with that which is immediately before us. But the position taken up by the Government in regard to this Amendment must be seen by every Member in the House to be entirely unjustifiable except on one ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called attention to the fact that I made some observations which drew his attention to me when by a slip of the tongue he told us it did not matter about the discussion of the Third Reading because the Bill had been already settled. That is the sole justification which can possibly be given for the proposal which we are now discussing. It is bad enough to say to us that if we are interested in these two Bills we have to work from half-past eleven till half-past ten, but that is possible. It is absolutely impossible and absolutely unjustifiable to say to any Member of this House, "You cannot take part in the discussion of these two parts of the same Bill by any possibility." The very name "Committee of the Whole House" calls attention to the fact that it is intended to be the whole House. How can it be the whole House if eighty Members, who know most about the subject, are upstairs while discussion is going on here? If the Government persist in their proposal, it is obvious to everyone that our discussions here are a farce, that the Bill has been settled, and that all we have to do is to register the decisions which were made in the tabernacle.

§ Mr. BAIRD
We have heard a great deal about the Members of this House, but there are others we have not heard about. I mean those outside the House who are probably more concerned in this Bill than we are. It is quite obvious that a great many Members of the House may have constituents who are concerned in both parts of the Bill, and consequently, so far as one part or another of the measure is concerned, they may find that their representative cannot properly attend to their interests. I do not know whether that point appeals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is very fond of speaking of the rights of the people when speaking outside, but he does not always defend their rights in this House. I do think that is a point to which attention should be called. In addition to the two parts of the Insurance Bill, the 257 Government apparently is going to force through several other important measures. Supposing the unemployment proposals of the Insurance Bill are taken upstairs on the same day as the Shops Bill, or when the Coal Mines Bill is under discussion here, Members who take an interest in either of these measures will be prevented from coming down here to take part in the discussions. Surely that is a point of some importance. From the expressions that fell from the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) what really is perfectly clear is this. The hon. Member for Water-ford says that the Government is going to receive his Amendments, and it is perfectly clear that he and his friends will agree to their Amendments. Therefore, having a majority, there is nothing more

258

§ to be said. If that is an example of free government and free discussion, then it is very hopeful for the constitutional party left on this side of the House, because the sooner the country learn of this the better it will be for us. I do not know whether it is any use arguing with Members of the Government. Apparently not. I think it is our duty to lay these matters before the House in the hope that the democratic party may at any rate give the representatives of the people some opportunity of stating their views.

§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 164.

259

Division No. 346.]	AYES.	[12.5 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Falconer, James	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Farrell, James Patrick	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Adamson, William	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Addison, Dr. C.	Ffrench, Peter	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Field, William	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Leach, Charles
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Fitzgibbon, John	Levy, Sir Maurice
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lewis, John Herbert
Armitage, Robert	France, G. A.	Logan, John William
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Lundon, T.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Gill, A. H.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Bentham, George Jackson	Goldstone, Frank	McGhee, Richard
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Maclean, Donald
Black, Arthur W.	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Boland, John Plus	Griffith, Ellis Jones	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Macpherson, James Ian
Bowerman, Charles W.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Gulland, John William	M'Callum, John M.
Brace, William	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Hackett, John	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Bryce, J. Annan	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hancock, John George	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Martin, Joseph
Chancellor, Henry George	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Meagher, Michael
Clancy, John Joseph	Harwood, George	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Clough, William	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Clynes, John R.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Menzies, Sir Walter
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Millar, James Duncan
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Molloy, M.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hayden, John Patrick	Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hayward, Evan	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Montagu, Hon E. S.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Higham, John Sharp	Mooney, John J.
Crumley, Patrick	Hinds, John	Morgan, George Hay
Cullinan, John	Hodge, John	Morrell, Philip
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Holt, Richard Durning	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Hudson, Walter	Muldoon, John
Dawes, J. A.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Munro, Robert
Delany, William	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	John, Edward Thomas	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Devlin, Joseph	Johnson, W.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Dillon, John	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Nolan, Joseph
Donelan, Captain A.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Doris, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Nuttall, Harry
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Joyce, Michael	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radner)	Keating, Matthew	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)	Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Doherty, Philip
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Kelly, Edward	O'Dowd, John
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	King, J.	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Toulmin, Sir George
O'Malley, William	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Verney, Sir Harry
O'Shee, James John	Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Wadsworth, J.
O'Sullivan, Timothy	Roe, Sir Thomas	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Rowlands, James	Waring, Walter
Parker, James (Halifax)	Rowntree, Arnold	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Webb, H.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Pointer, Joseph	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pollard, Sir George H.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Scanlan, Thomas	Wiles, Thomas
Power, Patrick Joseph	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Wilkie, Alexander
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Sheehy, David	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Shortt, Edward	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Pringle, William M. R.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Radford, G. H.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Summers, James Woolley	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Reddy, Michael	Sutton, John E.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Tennant, Harold John	Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.
Kendall, Athelstan	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Nield, Herbert
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Fleming, Valentino	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Forster, Henry William	O'Grady, James
Astor, Waldorf	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.	Goldman, C. S.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baird, John Lawrence	Goldsmith, Frank	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balcarres, Lord	Grant, James Augustus	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baldwin, Stanley	Gretton, John	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Guiney, Patrick	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Quilter, William Eley C.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple)	Haddock, George B.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barnston, H.	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rolleston, Sir John
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Harris, Henry Percy	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)	Sanders, Robert A.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Helmsley, Viscount	Sanderson, Lancelot
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)	Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Bigland, Alfred	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Horner, Andrew Long	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Snowden, Philip
Boyton, James	Hume-Williams, W. E.	Spear, Sir John Ward
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hunt, Rowland	Stanler, Beville
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Starkey, John Ralph
Butcher, John George	Joynson-Hicks, William	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Stewart, Gershom
Campion, W. R.	Kerry, Earl of	Swift, Rigby
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cassel, Felix	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cautley, Henry Strother	Larmor, Sir J.	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Cave, George	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lewisham, Viscount	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Touche, George Alexander
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Walker, Col. William Hall
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Walrend, Hon. Lionel
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Mackinder, Halford J.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.)	M'Mordie, Robert	Weigall, Captain A. G.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wheler, Granville
Crean, Eugene	Maicolm, Ian	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Wolmer, Viscount
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Worthington-Evans, L.
Doughty, Sir George	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Yate, Col. C. E.
Faber, George D. (Clapham)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Younger, Sir George
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Newdegate, F. A.
Fell, Arthur	Newman, John R. P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Finlay, Sir Robert	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Frederick Banbury and Mr. Peel.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

261

§ Amendments made, in Table A: Leave out "Clauses 46 to 54–7.30," and "Clauses 55 to 57–10.30," and insert instead thereof "Clause 46–7.30," and "Clauses 47 to 54–10.30."

§ After the word "Ninth" in Column I. insert the word "Tenth," and in Column II. insert "Clauses 55 to 57," and in Column III. insert "10.30."

§ Consequential Amendments made.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I beg to move in Table B, Column I. to leave out the word "and" ["third and fourth"], and after the word "fourth" insert the words "and fifth."

262

§ The effect of this is to add one more day to Report, and apportioning it as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: In Column III. leave out the word "fourth" and insert instead thereof the word "fifth."—[Sir B. Isaacs.]

§ Question put, "That the Resolution, as amended, be the Resolution of the House."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 163.

263

Division No. 347.]	AYES.	[12.20 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Leach, Charles
Adamson, William	Falconer, J.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Addison, Dr. C.	Farrell, James Patrick	Lewis, John Herbert
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Logan, John William
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Ffrench, Peter	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Field, William	Lundon, T.
Anderson, A. M.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lyell, Charles Henry
Armitage, Robert	Fitzgibbon, John	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	France, G. A.	Maclean, Donald
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Gill, A. H.	Macpherson, James Ian
Bentham, George Jackson	Gladstone, W. G. C.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.
Black, Arthur W.	Goldstone, Frank	McGhee, Richard
Boland, John Plus	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Booth, Frederick Handel	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)
Bowerman, C. W.	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Brace, William	Gulland, John William	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Bryce, J. Annan	Hackett, J.	Meagher, Michael
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Hancock, J. G.	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Menzies, Sir Walter
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Millar, James Duncan
Chancellor, Henry G.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Molloy, M.
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Clancy, John Joseph	Harwood, George	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clough, William	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Clynes, John R.	Havclock-Allan, Sir Henry	Mooney, J. J.
Collins, G. P. (Grennock)	Hayden, John Patrick	Morgan, George Hay
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hayward, Evan	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Henry, Sir Charles	Muldoon, John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Higham, John Sharp	Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Hudson, Walter	Munro, R.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Illingworth, Percy H.	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Crumley, Patrick	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Cullinan, John	John, Edward Thomas	Nolan, Joseph
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Johnson, W.	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Nuttall, Harry
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dawes, J. A.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Delany, William	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Joyce, Michael	O'Doherty, Philip
Devlin, Joseph	Keating, M.	O'Dowd, John
Dillon, John	Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Kelly, Edward	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Doris, W.	King, J.	O'Malley, William
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	O'Shee, James John
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Parker, James (Halifax)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Verney, Sir Harry
Pease, Rt. Hon Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Rowlands, James	Wadsworth, J.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Rowntree, Arnold	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Pointer, Joseph	Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Waring, Walter
Pollard, Sir George H.	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Webb, H.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Price Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Scanlan, Thomas	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pringle, William M. R.	Scott, A MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Radford, G. H.	Sheehy, David	Wiles, Thomas
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Shortt, Edward	Wilkie, Alexander
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Reddy, Michael	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Summers, James Woolley	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rendall, Athelstan	Sutton, John E.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Tennant, Harold John
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Toulmin, Sir George	Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Goldman, C. S.	Nield, Herbert
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Goldsmith, Frank	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Astor, Waldorf	Grant, J. A.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baird, J. L.	Gretton, John	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Guiney, Patrick	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Balcarres, Lord	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baldwin, Stanley	Haddock, George B.	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Quilter, William Eley C.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hamersley, A. St. George	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Harris, Henry Percy	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barnston, H.	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rolleston, Sir John
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Helmsley, Viscount	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hohler, G. F.	Sanders, Robert A.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Holt, Richard Durning	Sanderson, Lancelot
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Bigland, Alfred	Horner, A. L.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Hunt, Rowland	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Snowden, P.
Boyton, James	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Jowett, Frederick William	Stanier, Beville
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Joynson-Hicks, William	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Col. C. R.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Starkey, John Ralph
Butcher, J. G.	Kerry, Earl of	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Campion, W. R.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stewart, Gershom
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Swift, Rigby
Cassel, Felix	Lansbury, George	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Larmor, Sir J.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cave, George	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lewisham, Viscount	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Touche, George Alexander
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Walker, Col. William Hall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Mackinder, Halford J.	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Crean, Eugene	M'Mordie, Robert	Weigall, Captain A. G.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Malcolm, Ian	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southpert)
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Martin, Joseph	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Doughty, Sir George	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Wolmer, Viscount
Faber, George D. (Clapham)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Worthington-Evans, L.
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fell, Arthur	Molteno, Percy Alport	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Finlay, Sir Robert	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)	Younger, Sir George
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Newdegate, F. A.
Fleming, Valentine	Newman, John R. P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Forster, Henry William	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Mr. Pike Pease and Mr. Eyres Monsell.
Gastrell, Major W. H.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Question put, and agreed to.

265

§ Ordered, That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill and the necessary stages of any further Financial Resolution relating thereto shall be proceeded with as follows:—

§ (1) Committee Stage.

§ The remaining provisions of the Bill shall continue committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and sixteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of those provisions, including any stages of any further Financial Resolution relating thereto, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be those shown in the second column of the Table A annexed to this Order; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table; and, on the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Chairman shall report those provisions of the Bill to the House without Question put.

§ (2) Report Stage.

§ When the provisions committed to the Committee of the Whole House and the provisions committed to a Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Report stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported to the House as a whole.

§ Five allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of Table B annexed to this Order, and these proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

§ (3) Third Reading.

266

§ (4) Provisions applicable to Proceedings in Committee of the Whole House and in the House.

§ After this Order comes into operation any day after to-day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any further Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill: Provided that 4.30 p.m. shall be substituted for 10.30 p.m. as respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions.

§ For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

§ A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee.

§ The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses to the Bill shall be put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who criticises any such statement.

§ Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on an allotted day, shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be pro- 267 ceded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

§ Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

§ (5) Provisions applicable to Proceedings in Standing Committee.

§ Notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of the House—

(a) The foregoing provisions of this Order relating to Motions to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall apply with respect to the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Part of the Bill committed to a Standing Committee under this Order;
(b) While the Part of the Bill committed to a Standing Committee under this Order is under discussion the Standing Committee to which it is committed may, without any Resolution of the Committee, sit whilst the House is sitting, and, if the Committee so determine, sit on any day after 4 p.m. without an order of the House;
(c) Paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 26, relating to the power of the Chair to select Amendments, shall apply with respect to proceedings in Standing Committee on the Part of the Bill committed to a Standing Committee under this Order.

TABLE A.
Committee Stage.
Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.
First	Remainder of Clause 18	10.30
Second	Clauses 19 to 23	10.30
Third	Clauses 24 to 29	7.30
Clauses 30 and 31	—
Fourth	Clauses 30 and 31	7.30
Clauses 32 and 33	—
Fifth	Clauses 32 and 33	10.30
Sixth	Clauses 34 and 35	10.30
Seventh	Clauses 36 to 42	10.30
Eighth	Clauses 43 to 45	10.30
Ninth	Clauses 46	7.30
Clauses 47 to 54	10.30
Tenth	Clauses 55 to 57	10.30
Eleventh	Clause 58 and Committee stage of any further Financial Resolution	10.30
Twelfth	Clause 59	—
Thirteenth	Clause 59, Part III., and Report stage of any further Financial Resolution	10.30
Fourteenth	New Clauses	10.30
Fifteenth	Schedules 1 to 5	—
Sixteenth	Schedules 1 to 5 and any other matter Necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion	10.30

TABLE B.
Report Stage.
First, second, and third	New Clauses and Part I.	7.30 on the third allotted day
Remainder of third, fourth, and fifth	Remainder of the Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion	10.30 on the fifth allotted day

§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before One a.m., Thursday, 26th October, 1911.