CLAUSE 11.—(Offences and Legal Proceedings.) (Hansard, 15 August 1913)

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "if any employer," to insert the words "knowingly and wilfully."
The object of this Amendment is to provide that any action on the part of the employer which is aimed at by this Clause shall be action "knowingly and wilfully" taken, and I think some such words are necessary. An employer may, quite possibly, without intending it, commit a breach of the law. He may deduct a wrong sum; he may deduct 4d. when the deduction should only be 3d. and he may do so owing to a misunderstanding of the "rate of remuneration of the employed 3067 person." The ascertainment of the rate of remuneration of an employed person is known to be a matter of considerable difficulty. There have been quite a number of decisions come to by the Commission with regard to it already, and that alone shows there has been considerable difficulty in large numbers of cases in finding out what the actual rate of remuneration is. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) will be able to tell us of the difficulty experienced by farmers in ascertaining the actual remuneration in a given week. If the employer makes a wrong deduction he is to be liable to fine or imprisonment and various other penalties. I believe that this Clause as it stands makes a mistake in deduction a statutory misdemeanour, and that carries with it a maximum of two years imprisonment, apart from any special penalty. I recollect that when we had the Company Law Bill under consideration we had exactly the same sort of Clause before us, and there the words "knowingly and wilfully" were inserted. I hope that, under the circumstances, the Government will agree to accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
In regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member, I am informed by my legal advisers that what he suggests is not the case. This Clause is read with the principal Act, and under Clause 69 of that Act the penalties are definitely defined. All we are trying to do now is to place the same penalties upon deductions as are placed upon failure to pay contributions. I have had this question of inserting these words "knowingly and wilfully" before me in connection with a number of Bills with which I have been concerned. We have always resisted a proposal of this nature, and. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw his present Amendment, because, if you put in these particular words, the Clause will undoubtedly become a dead letter to all intents and purposes. If a man deliberately makes a wrong deduction he can always give some sort of excuse; either that he had not seen the Act, or that he had not seen certain pamphlets, or that the wording of the Act was too confused for him to be able to understand it. I believe the hon. Member for the Wilton Division recognises that this Clause has been drawn to meet a real grievance. It cannot be said that the Commissioners, in using their powers of 3068 prosecution, have used them arbitrarily or recklessly, as there have only been from 100 to 200 prosecutions as compared with 14 millions of insured persons. The Commissioners have no wish to use their power recklessly, or anything but moderately, but it is essential that we should have these powers if justice is to be done to insured persons. It is of no use to have the power of prosecution if those who are making the illegal deductions know that there is no possibility of prosecution being instituted. Too many think so at the present time, simply because it is the agricultural labourer himself who has to prosecute. They know there is no chance of the agricultural labourer prosecuting. In these circumstances I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I think my hon. Friend will probably go to a Division upon this Amendment. If he does, I shall support him. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the desirability of justice being done to insured persons. I think we want to secure that justice is also done to the persons who are proceeded against. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the Amendment. I feel certain that they do not want to punish people who have committed an offence inadvertently.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. FORSTER
Therefore, in order to protect the people who may have committed an offence by inadvertence and not in any shape or form by intent, I think these words are really necessary. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept them, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will persist in his resolution not to accept this Amendment. A good case in point is Section 8 of the Factory Act, which says that an employer shall not knowingly employ a woman within four weeks after her having given birth to a child. The result is that that Section is a dead letter, simply because the word "knowingly" is in.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by the words "attempts to deduct"?

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
That comes on the next Amendment.

Mr. BATHURST
This is a matter in which I am very much interested. I am conscious of the fact that there is an 3069 extreme ignorance prevailing both amongst low-paid labourers and their employers as to the provisions of Schedule 2 of the principal Act. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept this Amendment, he ought to take some steps to make it better known that in the case of low-paid labour the contribution is not 4d. and 3d. a week respectively. I find in my own Constituency, among perfectly honourable and well-intentioned employers, it may be a regrettable, but an existing ignorance upon this subject. So far as I am aware, nothing has been done beyond the passage of the Act to make it clear to the employers and their employés throughout the country that there is this differentiation made in the case of low-paid labour. I am not suggesting that in some cases the deduction is not made deliberately. I am afraid it is. But there are other cases in which it is done through a sheer oversight or lack of knowledge. In those cases the Commissioners ought to take some steps to make it known. It happens particularly in a case where the employer is in the habit of employing men in regular continuous employment at good wages, but at certain seasons of the year he employs casual labour at a low wage. It not being his usual custom to pay anything more than 3d. a week as the employer's contribution, he falls into error as to what he pays in the case of the casually employed person. I am not going to press for the support of my hon. Friend's Amendment because I think the case might be met in another way. All I hope is that employers are not going to be dragged before the Courts, and, without malice prepense or guilty intent, either be committed to prison or substantially fined for an offence they have not deliberately committed. I do not know, but I should have thought, whether you put the word "wilfully" into the Act or not, that when the case came to be considered by a Court they would take into account the deliberate or guilty intent before they imposed the penalty.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Section 69 of the Act which this Clause amends does not provide that the prosecution must prove that the employer failed to pay the contributions knowingly or wilfully. Otherwise he would have had the same difficulty of deciding who was or who was not an employed contributor. The Act throws upon the employer the 3070 onus of finding out for himself. Surely it is not suggested that any employer runs any risk of being brought to book unless the prosecution can prove knowledge on his part as to the exact amount, whether a 1d., 2d., 3d., or 4d., he ought to pay!. I hope the Government will resist this Amendment, otherwise the Clause we are putting into the Bill will be absolutely worthless.

§ Mr. G. H. ROBERTS
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persist in declining to accept this Amendment. In practice it will work out very much as desired by the other side. Action will not be taken capriciously against an employer who may unknowingly commit a violation of this Clause. If you insert the words "knowingly or wilfully" in this Clause you will give an employer the opportunity of pointing out that under the law you have got to prove that he did it knowingly or wilfully. I have produced a number of cases to the Commissioners, one of which was of a particularly glaring character, in which an employer boasted to a friend of mine that he did not make the deduction, that he did not intend to do so, and that, so far as he was concerned, he should evade the Act as long as he possibly could. When he was approached he declared that he did not understand the provisions of the Act. Under the Amendment you would, of course, have to prove in a Court of Law that he did understand it. Having regard to the practice that when cases are brought to the notice of the Commissioners friendly representations are made to the parties pointing out to them that they are violating the Act and respectfully suggesting that they ought to conform to it, and that that generally has had the effect of removing the grievance, I see no reason for the insertion of this Amendment. It would be positively dangerous, and would not provide the necessary protection to the workmen.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I want to say one word in response to the request made by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst), whose suggestion I gladly accept. We certainly will make further efforts to see that everyone shall know exactly what deductions are necessary under the Act. Of course, if the man can prove in a Court that he was acting without really knowing the conditions, that would be taken into consideration by the magistrate. What I am afraid of is that everyone would try to 3071 prove that he did not know the conditions. We have had Section after Section in various legislation violated for that reason, and, as a matter of fact, in late legislation in respect of the Home Office and other offices we have always resisted, and successfully resisted, the insertion of the word "knowingly," both in Committee and in the House.

§ Mr. NEWTON
The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he hopes it may be possible to circulate further information, so that employers may know exactly what deductions they are entitled to make. I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic because there is at the present time a mass of misconception prevalent throughout the country. I think he will admit that the early speeches of all parties on the Insurance Act are responsible for much of the misconception that exists today. During the early discussions on the Act, I, like many others, tried to explain it to my Constituents, and 1 know perfectly well that in the country districts everybody thought that in calculating the wages of agricultural labourers an average was to be taken for twelve months, and that harvest money and the rent of a cottage and so on would be included in calculating what rate of wages they were receiving. However unintentionally, we have undoubtedly spread a great deal of misconception throughout the country, and consequently farmers do not know what the deductions are that they should make. Regulations have been issued by the Commissioners, copies of which have been forwarded to those Members of the House who desired them. I was one of those, and I received a mass of printed matter. How you can expect employers of labour or employed in the country to really understand their position passes my comprehension. The right hon. Gentleman has promised that he will make further attempts to bring the true facts to the notice of persons interested. I should have been more disposed to accept his assurance if he could have indicated what steps he was going to take to bring a real knowledge of the position to interested persons. I am very much afraid there will be great difficulty in doing that satisfactorily, though, of course, if the word "knowingly" is added, I can quite see that that might have the effect of making it impossible to secure a conviction in a bad case. I am quite sure none of us desire to do that, but I believe we desire, 3072 on both sides, that where, through the complexity of the situation and owing to the misconception that exists, men make innocent mistakes they should not be penalised. It is recognised that ignorance of the law is not a defence, but we are now in a different position, because now it is ignorance of a mass of regulations issued not by Parliament, but by the Commissioners, which may bring people into trouble, and therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will devote a great deal of thought, and take any steps he thinks necessary to bring the actual law, as interpreted by the Commissioners, to the notice of persons interested.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
I would ask the hon. Member who moved the Amendment what he really means by the word "wilful"? I can understand that the defence might be made that a man did not know the law or did not understand the regulations, but I am rather curious to know under what circumstances an offence could be proved under this Clause if the word "wilful" be inserted.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am perfectly willing to drop the Words "and wilfully," and, with the permission of the Chair, I will withdraw that Amendment, and move it simply with the word "knowingly." The right hon. Gentleman told us the Government always resist the insertion of "knowingly" and "wilfully," because they find it has the effect of making it impossible to secure convictions; but in Section 68 of the principal Act itself you have an exactly parallel case. Section 68, Subsection (3), says: "If any person knowingly levies or attempts to levy any such distress or execution upon the goods of people who are sick." That is precisely a parallel case. There is an action which has got to be taken by a person, and, if he takes it knowingly, it is an offence. If he takes it without knowledge, it is no offence, and here also it should be that if he knowingly deducts too much, then it should be an offence. In order to support the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, you have to go as far as this: You have to say that if an employer by accident deducts too much, he is to be guilty of a criminal offence. He is to be subject to the indignity of being brought up in the Police Court, charged with a statutory crime, even though the penalty is only £10. I will defy the right hon. Gentleman, or those who support him, to attempt to make that kind of defence in the House of Commons. It is all right in Committee, 3073 but I will undertake to say that when this is brought up on the Report, he will be ashamed to bring forward the defence that he has made to-day.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
If the Committee supports me in this, I shall certainly make exactly the same defence in the House, and I am quite sure the House of Commons will support the Committee in the matter. The real parallel is not dealing with the question of distress, but dealing in the original Act with penalties on employers in connection with their relationship to insured persons. The original Act, in Section 69, Sub-section (2), dealing with such cases, does not contain the word "knowingly."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Read Sub-section (1).

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
That has to do with declarations as to reserve values—"If any employer has failed to pay any contributions which, under this part of the Act he is liable to pay in respect of an employed person, he shall, for each offence, be liable on summary conviction." There is nothing about "knowingly" at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I must deal with that. The payment of a contribution is a matter of fact. No man can doubt whether he actually paid a contribution or not. There cannot be a question of paying it without knowing it. He must know whether he paid the contribution or not. In the same Section, 69, Sub-section (1), which the right hon. Gentleman took care not to read, there is the word "knowingly" again. "If any person knowingly makes a false statement." That is again a parallel case. He may not know. He may make a statement believing it to be true, but it may turn out to be false. In such case, you do not put him under a penalty, but if he knowingly made a false statement, you do put him under a penalty. Where it is a matter of opinion the Act of Parliament has put in the word "knowingly," and where it is a matter of fact which the person must know himself, they have left out "knowingly." Here it is a matter of opinion, whether he has deducted or not deducted the correct amount.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
The Financial Secretary said he was quite certain no magistrate would convict an employer if he thought he had deducted this without knowledge of what he was doing. If that be the case, what can be the objection to putting in these words? It is only to guide the magistrate in the decision he should give. I cannot see that there can be any objection. The Financial Secretary would have saved a great deal of the time of the Committee if he had only been willing to accept this word "knowingly." It cannot possibly have such an effect as he has indicated.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
The hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has made an extraordinary distinction between matter of fact and matter of opinion. These cases are both exactly parallel. The question in this Amendment is whether we shall insert the word "knowingly." Surely it is a matter of fact whether an employer has deducted a contribution. It may be a matter of opinion as to whether he was liable to pay the contribution or not, but it is a matter of fact whether he has deducted it, and if we go to the original Act, in which we are dealing with the payment of the contribution that is deducted from, it is a matter of fact whether the employer has paid it or not; but it may be a matter of opinion whether the employer was liable to pay it or not. So far as matter of fact is concerned, and so far as matter of opinion is concerned, the two things are exactly parallel.

Mr. BATHURST
I am afraid I cannot quite agree with the reasoning of my hon. Friend if he wants to move his Amendment in its present form. If he moved it in this form, "if the employer either by himself or his agent knowingly deducts," I should have some sympathy with it, but I am conscious that a large number of men have no knowledge whatever as to the amount deducted from the wages of their employées. That is to say, that men employ agents upon a large estate or in other walks of life, which agents actually make the payments and make the deductions, unless you insert some words like "by himself or his agent," you are possibly going to do a great injustice to the workmen. If he is willing to accept these words I am ready to support the Amendment, but I am not prepared to support it in its present form.

§ Mr. NEWTON
If my hon. friend goes to a Division I am not sure whether I can 3075 support him or not. My decision on that matter would be influenced by a statement which the right hon. Gentleman might be prepared to make to me. I understood him to say a minute or two ago that he would take steps to bring a knowledge of the law to the persons concerned. If I were confident that the steps would be sufficient in fact, and that those concerned would have a knowledge of the law, then I do not think that there is any need for this Amendment, but if he cannot do that—I cannot see how he can do it, although he seems to be very confident that he can—then I have no option but to support my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). If the hon. Gentleman would only realise the complexity and the number of points involved, and the ignorance of so many persons who are compelled to take some interest in the Insurance Act-if he would realise the difficulties of the situation, perhaps he would be able to take proper steps to meet them. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to indicate what steps he would take to ensure the fulfilment of the promise he has made to bring a knowledge of the facts to the persons concerned.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I have sent a Memorandum on agricultural labourers' remuneration to 350,000 farmers and others engaged in agriculture, and I will continue through the Recess by the inspectors and by other means to get the necessary information disseminated.

§ Mr. NEWTON
I have read every document which the right hon. Gentleman's Commissioners have sent out, and unless the farmers in this country are a great deal better fitted to understand the documents than are Members of the House of Commons, I am certain that there is still a mass of ignorance rampant in the country, and that the right hon. Gentleman's documents, which are so voluminous, have done absolutely nothing to remove it. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that his Commissioners should make further efforts to bring a knowledge of the facts to the public.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Although I feel that there is a majority of the Committee against my Amendment, I want to put it to the vote.

Mr. BATHURST
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "wages" ["from the wages of an employed contributor"] to insert the words "or other remuneration."
I should like to explain that in Schedule II. to which this Clause really has reference the expression is "remuneration" and not "wages," and, as is common knowledge to this Committee, the wages of a certain class of labour in this country do not represent the whole of the remuneration. It is quite possible that deductions might be made from the other side of the remuneration—the remuneration in kind and not in cash—and that might result in injustice to an employed person.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I shall be very glad to accept that Amendment, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving it.

Mr. BATHURST
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "contribution" ["any part of the employer's contribution"] to insert the words, "or any sum in excess of that provided in the Second Schedule of the principal Act."
If you look at that Schedule, you will find, as a matter of fact, that in the case of persons whose remuneration does not exceed 1s. 6d. a working day there are certain moneys provided by Parliament, and it is quite conceivable that an employer might do injustice to his workmen by making a deduction in excess of his own contribution. I want to be quite sure that every case is met by this Clause. I do not think every case will be met unless you put specifically into the Clause a statement to the effect that the deduction of "any sum in excess of that provided in the Second Schedule of the principal Act" shall be unlawful. I want to be quite sure that every case is covered, and I am advised that they will not be covered unless these words are inserted.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman. I think it is covered by the terms of the Act, but I am with him in every endeavour to safeguard the interests of low-paid workers, and I think the whole of the Committee are in favour of that. If he will move the Amendment in this form, I feel sure that it might be useful, to insert after the word "contribution" the words "as defined in the Second Schedule of the principal Act."

Mr. BATHURST
Does that meet it?

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
That meets your point.

Mr. BATHURST
I have not had time to consider the effect of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but if my legal friends advise me that they meet the point, I will accept his form of the Amendment. I wish to hear what the members of the Labour Party have to say on this subject.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
I have an Amendment on the Paper to cover this point.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I realise that a later Amendment of which the hon. Member for Leicester has given notice was meant to meet this point. The Sub-section, as amended, would read:— If any employer deducts, or attempts to deduct, from the wages or other remuneration of an employed contributor the whole or any part of the employer's contribution as defined in the Second Schedule of the principal Act he shall be guilty of a contravention of the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
Supposing that an employer deducts more than the whole of his contribution, or any part of his contribution-supposing the employer's contribution is 3d. and that he reduces the wages by 1s., a very common case—that is not met by the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I might make the point clearer if I referred the right hon. Gentleman to the Factory Inspector's Report which we discussed on Wednesday last in the House of Commons. He will find from that Report that there are a large number of cases given of deductions which would not be covered by the amended Sub-section. There is the case, for example of, the Bristol Boot Factory. There is case after case given in Mr. Rowntree's recently published book, showing how deductions which are made by the farmer class would not be covered. There are thousands of cases where employers are reducing wages because the Insurance Act has come into operation, and that is especially the case in reference to women's wages, which would not be covered by this Amendment at all.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
As to the deductions made in connection with those 3078 classes, if an employer who is authorised to deduct 1d. deducts 1s., that would be covered by the Clause. As to the general question of making fresh contracts with regard to wages, I do not think that can be met by this particular Clause.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
I do not want that.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The hon. Member does not want that. I think the particular point now before the Committee is met by the words which I suggest. If the hon. Member on reflection thinks that it is not met, we will listen to any suggestion which may be made on the Report stage.

Mr. BATHURST
I would suggest a slight modification which will, I think, meet the view of all parties. Instead of "as defined by the Act," if we were to read "or any part of the contribution other than that of the employed contributor," that would cover all cases.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I rise to support the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester. I have had a very painful case indeed brought to my notice in which some very poorly paid women and girls undoubtedly have had a reduction from their wages to a greater amount than both their own and the employer's contribution put together. I would certainly support any effort made to meet that which I consider to be a dastardly action.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
This is a very important point. Let us take the Bristol Boot Factory case which is referred to in the Factory Inspector's Report this year. There is nothing there that can be called a reduction from wages of the whole or any part of the employer's contribution, but there is a charge put upon the workmen for standing room, and the employer's agent openly and specifically stated that that was being done on account of his contribution under the Insurance Act. I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give me his opinion as to whether that deduction would be made illegal by this Clause as amended?

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I would not like to give an opinion off-hand on that legal question. I am no more an authority on that subject than the hon. Member for Leicester. It is very difficult to deal with a manuscript Amendment such as this. I am rather inclined to recommend the Committee to take the words as they stand, with the proviso that they will be con- 3079 sidered, if they do not meet the wishes of the Committee, on the Report stage.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD:
I will accept that suggestion.

Mr. BATHURST
It is a little difficult to arrive at the right words at a moment's notice. I am quite prepared, if the Committee is in sympathy, to accept the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the understanding that we may raise this matter again on Report if after mature consideration we find that this does not cover all cases.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I may point out that the Committee have got as far as the word "contribution," and therefore it is impossible to insert the words before "contribution."

Mr. BATHURST
Yes; that is a difficulty.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
had given notice of the following Amendment: At the end of the Clause to add, (3) The Insurance Commissioners shall have power to sue for any offence under this Act or under Parts I. and III. of the principal Act.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Do I understand that this Amendment is in order? Because I see there is another Motion down as a new Clause in the name of one of my hon. Friends. Personally I think that the form which is proposed as a new Clause is preferable. I would ask my right hon. Friend if he is willing to give consideration to this matter later on?

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
There is a new Clause put down which I think meets the wish of the hon. Gentleman in a more satisfactory manner. I should be very glad if we could consider it in that new Clause.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Then I will not propose this Amendment.

§ Mr. ALDEN
I beg to propose at the end of the Clause to add, (3) The wife of a person charged with an offence under Section 19 of the principal Act may be called as a witness 3080 either for the prosecution or defence, and without the consent of the person charged. I think it most important if possible to raise this point. This is a question as to whether the wife should be allowed to give evidence against her husband. The principal Act makes the neglect of the wife by the husband wino has received maternity benefit a criminal offence. But there is no means of proving that offence unless you can call the wife, and though you can call the wife under the Criminal Law you cannot call the wife for any such offence as misusing the money which has been given for maternity benefit, and this Amendment is intended to make it impossible, as far as that can be done, for the husband to misuse the money and thus ill-treat the wife and in that sense defraud the wife. We are going to discuss later on the question as to whether the maternity benefit shall be the property of the wife or whether it shall be treated as the property of the wife. But we do not know what will happen. We do not know whether it will be carried by the Committee. In any case I think that it is desirable that there should be the power of calling the wife in evidence. I imagine that if the maternity benefit does become in effect the property of the wife it will be hardly necessary to call the wife in evidence. But if the Committee does not accept the new Clauses that are down on the paper making maternity benefit the property of the wife then I forsee that it will be necessary to use this power which I ask for.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I hope that the Committee will reserve an opinion on maternity benefit until we come to the new Clauses which we shall do in a very few minutes. This is modification of Section 19, the existence of which I do not think altogether meets the grievance which we shall subsequently come to consider, but in so far as it is a modification it is a modification in the right direction. Certainly if there is a prosecution for this offence the wife ought to be able to be called because she is almost the only one who can really give evidence in the matter, and I shall have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
May I draw the attention of the Committee to the very great inconvenience caused by not having a law officer of the Crown present. The 3081 Secretary to the Treasury is continually getting up and saying that as a layman he cannot give an opinion on legal matters. I have always understood that when a Bill of first class importance is before the Grand Committee there ought to be present a Member of the Government competent to express a legal opinion besides the Minister in charge. The opinion of the right hon. Member is not worth any more than that of anybody on this side of the Committee room, and I confess that I think that it is rather a slight on the Committee, and a great disadvantage to the practical business that we have in hand, that we have not present a law officer of the Crown.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
May I appeal to the hon. Member. There is only one case in the whole of this long discussion in which I have said that I was unable to give a legal decision. I have legal experts advising me at the present moment, and in the case to which I have referred I agreed that we should consider it on Report. The law officers of the Crown—there are only two of them—are very much overworked at the present time, and honestly I think that we can get on at present in the same manner as that in which we have been getting on.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I do not wish to speak slightingly of the right hon. Gentleman, but in the absence of a really valuable opinion I hold myself quite exonerated from any consequences that might follow from accepting this Amendment. I do not really know what the law is at present. I am very reluctant to change the law by means of an Amendment such as this, but if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to take the responsibility of this I shall not divide against it.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman between the Committee and Report stages to consider the advisability of making this provision in regard to all offences under the principal Act. I do not at all see why there is any necessity to select this particular offence. The whole provision is archaic.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I will consider that.

§ Mr. G. H. ROBERTS
I cannot take any responsibility for the insertion of this Amendment, and, quite candidly, I, like other members of the Committee, would desire the advice of the Law Officers on the point. I have a very grave objection to any interference in the relationship 3082 between husband and wife. I will have to express my opinions a little later on. They are purely personal to myself, but nevertheless, I could not possibly support the Amendment, and I think the hon. Member would be well advised to withdraw it, and then he can endeavour to secure its inclusion on the Report stage, when we shall have the advantage of the presence of the Law Officers in dealing with the matter.

§ Mr. LYNCH
I rise to say a few words in support of the Mover. I would appeal to the Committee that the decision of the House does not rest upon any legal advice whatever. If we had the advantage of legal advisers it could only be as to the technical position, and not with regard to the principle involved. I should think there could be no more terrible position for a woman who might have a drunken husband, and who in that hour of need might have the money that was absolutely necessary for her sustenance, or even life, taken from her by the hands of that drunken husband.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I believe it is necessary for the Committee to pass a Resolution to sit on Monday beyond four o'clock, with the leave of the House.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I beg to move "That the Committee, by leave of the House, sit beyond four o'clock on Monday." We cannot put in a limit of six o'clock, but I have given a promise that we will not sit beyond that time, and the Committee starts at two o'clock.

§ Mr. GOULDING
I hope we are not going to sit late on Monday.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I have given a promise not beyond six o'clock.

§ Sir W. BYLES
Are we to sit after four o'clock?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We meet at two instead of twelve on Monday.

§ Sir W. BYLES
The Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended.

§ Mr. LYNCH
There is still another point which I feel more strongly even than the Mover. He said that if the Clause giving maternity benefit entirely to the woman were passed he would think this would be unnecessary.

§ Mr. ALDEN
Not so necessary.

§ Mr. LYNCH
I should still think it would be necessary even if this were carried, and if that Clause were carried giving the benefit that still, in nine cases out of ten, she might, be robbed. I think every protection possible, even although this would be inadequate, should be given in that most difficult and trying position.

§ Mr. ALDEN
I do not want to stand in the way of the Committee if they are anxious to get on, but I should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman before I withdraw, if I am going to withdraw. I do not think the Committee really understand how serious the matter is, and how important it is that husbands should not be allowed to behave in the way in which they behave sometimes to their wives in this matter. I do not say the eases are very numerous, but a case has come to my notice where a husband has spent the 30s. on another woman.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
On a point of Order may I ask whether we are now discussing the maternity benefit and the general relations—

§ Mr. ALDEN
I am not going to discuss it. I only mentioned one case. I want to put one question: "Has this Amendment been submitted to any Law Officer of the Crown?" I presume it is a legal point and has been considered by the Law Officers or, at any rate, by a legal authority.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
It has been submitted to all the legal authorities we possess, but it is not a legal question at all. It is a pure question whereby through a technicality evidence is not admitted in these cases which is admitted in 99 out of 100 similar cases. [An HON. MEMBER; "No."] Still I cannot resist the appeal of the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster). If the hon. Gentleman thinks this involves a legal point and that it is better to have it considered and legal advice obtained, I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and we may if necessary bring it on again.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
Surely we ought to have regard to the fact that we have got on these benches no fewer than eight lawyers. It is a very poor compliment to them if one Law Officer is supposed to be worth the whole eight put together.

§ Mr. ALDEN
On the understanding that I shall have an opportunity later, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.