§ Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
§ Mr. ROWNTREE
(continuing): I want to rather specially urge this upon the Chancellor, because I believe no benefit has been more fruitful than this maternity benefit or is more likely to be succesful in bringing about better health amongst the poorer classes. I believe there is another Amendment which wants making. It was always understood that in the case of the insured married woman she got the husband's maternity benefit, but, that in addition she should get 30s., the equivalent of four weeks' sickness at 7s. 6d., in her own right, and I fancy that in the last actuarial tables which were issued in connection with the main Bill that sum was reckoned for. Many societies have interpreted the Clause in that Act differently from the Commissioners, and I hope that in this Bill we shall do something to make it absolutely certain that in future the married woman gets this 30s. without having to be forced to get a doctor's certificate, and that the certificate of the midwife will be considered sufficient.
There is only one other point I desire to make, and I hardly know how the Government are going to carry it out, but in connection with a measure like this, which has to be administered by hundreds and thousands of men and women to whom the ordinary Parliamentary language or legal phraseology of a Bill is very difficult to interpret, I believe something wants doing in some way to obtain suitable phrasing so that a layman can understand what is intended. This is an Amending Bill. You naturally refer to the main Bill. Many private Members must find it extremely difficult to interpret this Bill. I am not sure whether many Members on the Government Bench would not find it extremely difficult. I should like to ask anyone what is meant by Sub-section (2) of Clause 6. If it is hard for us to understand it, it is almost impossible for a 1164 simple man who has to administer this Act to understand it, and I hope the Chancellor or the Commissioners will consider very carefully how, when this becomes an Act, the phrasing can be made so clear to those who have to administer it that there really can be no mistake. I think the Amending Bill meets perhaps the most pressing questions which have arisen during the past year, and I hope that not only shall we pass the Bill, but that we shall pass it with goodwill, and that we shall accept with pleasure the offer that has been made by the Government to-day to accept Amendments from all sides of the House, if they really are such as to improve the character of the Bill.
§ Mr. HUNT
I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words—a Special Commission of a thoroughly representative character, to consider the scheme of national insurance with a view to its material amendment as may be found necessary, shall at once be appointed and until such Commission's Report no attempt shall be made to amend the Act.I am moving the Amendment, although in Clause 7 the Government are giving the Commissioners power to give relief to casual labour in much the same way as the Amendment that I put forward during the Committee stage. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Rowntree) say that if you can compel people to pay for insurance, you should be quite sure that they are able to pay. It has been one of my objections to the Bill that so many people in this country, under the Free Trade system, are so poor that they really cannot afford to pay the fourpence a week. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Master-man) said the Government hoped that we should help them to pass this Bill. That is all very well, but the Government ran the Act through the House against the will, not only of Members of this side, but of a great many on the other side of the House. They made a tremendous mess of it, and now they want us to try and get them out. That is their idea apparently of the way to work legislation. I do not think that is a fair way of looking at it. I am moving this Amendment because, in my opinion at all events, the Act is so bad and so complicated, the finance unsound, and unnecessarily expensive, and also because it operates most harshly on those who need help most, that I cannot 1165 see how it can be put anything like right by the sort of Amending Bill that we have now. I do not think that any small, hurried Amending Bill, hidden away, as this is, upstairs, and rushed through with the same idiotic haste as the Act itself was, can, at the fag-end of what is really a double Session, remove the main objections to the Act. The Bill, if it is to be an advantage, and not a curse, as it is now to the great mass of the people of this country, must either be drastically amended or have the compulsory Clauses cut out. It still leaves the Act invidious and unjust, and will not remove the increase of the cost of living which it appears to me the Act has caused, nor will it do away with the extra burden and worry of life to which it has exposed the working people as well as other people. It gives no hospital benefit. The hospitals have suffered very severely on account of the Act, and are likely to suffer more. I think provision for the hospitals is one of the things that certainly ought to have been done by this Bill. An agreement ought to have been come to with the doctors before the main Act was passed, and certainly there should be an agreement with them before this Bill is passed. The Bill will not really greatly help the working people by giving them 9d. for 4d. as the main Act was supposed to do. I understand from the Financial Secretary that now you give 11d. for 4d. Twopence has been added. I do not know how that is made out. I do not think that is the general opinion of the people of this country. How you will give 11d. for 4d. is altogether beyond my understanding.
§ Mr. HUNT
The right hon. Gentleman cheers that because he thinks my understanding is not sufficient to grasp it. Considering that, after all, the State only has the money it gets out of the people, it is a little, difficult to see how they can take only 4d. and give them back 11d. I confess I do not understand it. When the Bill was first introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the working people for the first year would pay £11,000,000. Therefore, during the first six months they paid £5,500,000, for which they got practically nothing. That is how the Chancellor of the Exchequer began giving the working people 11d. for 4d. I think it was a, very odd way of beginning. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer still believes in it, but I do not think anybody else does. I think that very few, if 1166 any, people get even 9d. for 4d. unless you make a calculation of the Marconi nature, and even then I do not know that they get it. This Bill does not to any considerable extent alter the bad effect of the Act. I cannot see how the Act can be amended unless ample time is given for the consideration of this Bill, and that cannot be given at this time of the Session. The Bill is to be rushed through, and it will only make confusion worse confounded. It will increase the already too large autocratic powers of officials, and especially the Commissioners. In a memorandum issued the other day they put down cottages, with the usual gardens attached, at a shilling a week, and they count Sunday as a full working day. Nothing could be much more absurd than that to anybody who knows anything of country affairs.
These are the lines upon which the Commissioners are going. You cannot expect the Amending Act to work smoothly. An hon. Gentleman on the other side showed how badly the Act had worked, because it was not properly worded on account of its having been rushed through the House to please the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A large number of members of friendly societies—I know some of them—are very much against the Insurance Act, and they believe that this Bill is not going to help them to any considerable extent. Members of friendly societies have already for the first six months paid about £2,700,000, for which they got neither sickness, disablement, nor maternity benefit. I think I am justified in saying it is a fact that sickness benefits have only been payable for about six months. The responsible leaders of friendly societies, now called approved societies, are very much alarmed at the great increase of malingering and of sickness pay. They know that if these things go on, they must lead to destruction. They also know that they mean destruction to the self-reliant spirit of their members. These are serious matters, and the Bill does nothing, so far as I can see, to avert calamity. Nor does it do anything to prevent the friendly societies from having to face the dangerous competition of life insurance companies. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that friendly societies are very much disturbed about the immense number of people the life insurance companies are getting, and the comparatively small number they are getting themselves. This Bill does not give the friendly societies back their former power of, at all events, having a fair 1167 chance of securing efficient medical treatment for their members. It leaves them still to a great extent unable to move hand or foot without the consent of the Commissioners with their autocratic powers. In my opinion this Bill does not alter the fact that under the Act the Government are running the dangerous risk of destroying the successful results of the long years of, patient voluntary self-help and self-sacrifice of the friendly societies, and they are doing it without the direct consent of those who may be injured I think that is entirely wrong. I do not think any Government, or any Committee of Parliament, have the right or are justified in doing this.
As I understand, the friendly societies were misinformed about this Insurance Bill. I do not say purposely. A very big man in the friendly societies, and a very strong Radical, told me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent out a rough draft of his Insurance Bill three years before it was brought out, and that rough draft was very much in favour of the friendly societies. When the Chancellor found out that he could not pass the Bill according to the rough draft which he had sent out, about six months before the real Bill came out he sent the real Bill to the heads of the friendly societies, but, as in the other case, under the pledge of secrecy, and so they could not do anything. That is not a fair way to treat the friendly societies. This Bill does not secure any minimum benefits. There is still no State guarantee that any person will get the benefits laid down in the Act, because the deficiency will still have to be made good by increased payments or else the benefits will be reduced. The most unhealthy, and therefore I think, as a rule, the poorest of the people, who are rejected by approved societies, will still be branded as Post Office contributors, and will still have extra difficulty in getting employment. For these people there is still no insurance, and they can only draw out the amount standing in their name, which is very considerably lessened by what the Government begins to take out at the beginning of the year. The Government still deduct about 13s. a year from a man's contribution—I am not quite sure of the exact amount. So with the poorest of the poor it still comes to this, not only are they not insured, but if a man is lucky enough to be employed for forty-nine weeks in one year he will not have enough even for three weeks' insurance 1168 benefit, instead of what he is supposed to have for six months. He will not have any at all for maternity or disablement benefit or for the 10s. a week which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would be provided for the families of an insured man who are sent to sanatoria, and if he has not got 13s. to his credit at the end of the year it is still doubtful whether he will get any benefit in the coming year. I know that the Commissioners have got some power if they like to use it.
It comes to this, that in the case of such an unfortunate man's death I think that rather more than half of any sum standing to his credit will be forfeited by the Government, and this is admittedly the poorest class of all. So, then, the position is that the poorest of the people will still get the least benefit and no insurance at all. Out of their scanty wages the Government still take by contribution the full amount under the Insurance Act and rob them of half of any sum they have to their credit. They are still compelled to pay more than they can afford while they are alive, and they are robbed by the Government when they are dead. It appears to me that this is the system which the radical plutocrats and the Labour Members, who are supposed to come here to look after the working people, desire to continue. I suppose that they will go back to their constituents and tell them all about it. Coming to the question of the doctors, they still have on their list of medicines only the cheaper ones for insured people. One doctor can have thousands of people on his panel, and when there are so many he cannot give them proper attention. The young people still have to pay under this Bill full contributions and they get about half-benefit. Many people still have to pay without getting benefit, because the confusion of the Act is so great, and this Bill will probably make it worse. This Bill does nothing at all to supply the first-class sanatorium hotel about which the Chancellor told us, and still thousands of consumptives insure for sanatorium benefit which they cannot receive because the sanatoria have not been built. They are extremely lucky if they get a bottle or two of cod-liver oil. As far as I can make out it is still the case under the Bill that if a man gets 10s. a week from his employer for an accident he gets nothing at all for sickness benefit, for which both he and his employer have paid.
§ Mr. WING
That complaint has no bottom in it, because he is not charged under the Insurance Act for what is no benefit.
§ Mr. HUNT
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. If a man gets seriously injured it may make him very sick indeed, and he is paying for insurance against sickness and so is his employer, and if he gets 10s. a week from his employer for an accident he gets nothing for sickness, for which both he and his employer pay. I think that is perfectly clear; at all events that is what is in the Bill; whether it has been altered by the Commissioner since I do not know. The insured person gets nothing for the first three days of sickness, which he certainly did under the old friendly society; at all events that is what the friendly societies' managers 'told me. The Bill does nothing to prevent or to equalise the extra taxation which the Act puts on British industry, in fact, it rather increases it. I do not know exactly what the increase was, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite does either, because the Government calculation of what the Act was going to cost had been so hopelessly out, that I do not think they know how much the cost will really be. The Old Age Pensions Act was supposed to cost £6,000,000; now it costs £13,000,000. Under the Insurance Act, I think I am right in saying that the figures have been greater than the Government expected, and they are certainly very much heavier than they were under the old friendly societies. It is the fact that this extra tax under the Bill is a special extra tax on British industries. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if a man in this country employs 200 men he has to pay an extra £130 a year, whilst the merchant who buys and sells goods, and employs 200 men abroad, practically does not pay anything, save perhaps £2 for his warehousemen, clerk, and boy. That is the effect of the Insurance Act, and this Bill does nothing whatever to put it right. It rather increases, though we do not know by how much, the other taxation of this country.
Then we get back to the agricultural community. I come from an agricultural 1170 county, and I must say we are not well treated under the Bill. The more healthy, I think admittedly more healthy agricultural labourer, with his wages of 2s. 8d. a day, under the Bill will still have to pay the same amount as the town mechanic who earns 10s. a day, and worst of all the surplus money from the healthy rural districts where the agricultural labourers live will go to make up the outlay in the towns and mining centres where sickness is far heavier, and where wages are very much more. I think that agricultural members have very good ground to complain that you have done nothing in this Bill to alter that very unjust provision. Although hon. Members opposite tell us that they are a democratic party, and that they believe in equal treatment for everybody, yet, despite all they say, this Bill still leaves the country divided into two classes. The poor and less fortunate are compelled to insure themselves; the rich and more fortunate are under no compulsion. The autocratic powers of the Commissioners under this Bill will be supreme, and the people will have no appeal; the inspectors may still continue to submit our working people to an imposition previously unknown in this country for hundreds of years; and it seems to me that the Act is so bad that this Bill is only meant to put off the necessary full consideration of a very ill-considered and a very disastrous Act for the people of this country. It is for these reasons that I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ Mr. STANIER
I beg to second the Amendment.
I have very great pleasure in doing so, and I take the opportunity of putting before the House what, on several occasions, I have brought before it by way of questions during the last few months, though I have got very little in the way of an answer that carries the matter any further. The first question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, what is he going to say about the six months' card instead of the three months' card. When I first asked this question in the House of Commons, he told me that it was a matter which would be seen into and put right by the authorities who administer the Insurance Act. I put the same question to him yesterday, and he told me that it was a subject for debate to-day. Therefore I raise it as a matter of debate. I know perfectly well that there are argu- 1171 ments for and against a six months' card being issued to these people who wish to have it.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I did not say that it was a matter for argument in Debate to-day. I said that the six months' card— I want it as much as he does—was a question on which could be produced some Amendment of the Bill upstairs, and then, I said, it would be a proper subject for debate, and I am not against it.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. STANIER
Perhaps I ought not to have used the word, "to-day," but it will be a proper subject for debate, and I accept what the right lion. Gentleman says. Another point to which I desire to call attention is the question of forms, in regard to which undoubtedly a great saving of labour might be effected. That is a most important question, for the enormous labour connected with these forms is breaking down the Act. The writing and issuing of the cards will be lessened. Writing is a heavy tax on many people connected with the friendly societies, and the issuing of the cards a great labour. There would also be less entries and less book-keeping, and, therefore, less returns. I contend it would be a great saving of expense and labour. For those reasons I ask that earnest consideration should be given to this matter. I deeply regret it is not in the Amending Bill. I know the change I suggest might make a certain amount of difficulties in calculating the arrears, and perhaps there would be some delay in dealing with the matters owing to the calculations that have to be made, but those could easily be got over by the presentation of the card at the time the benefit is asked for. Even if the card is lost, and that is another very serious thing, the benefits for are overwhelming against those few points that could be brought up against the proposal which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the proposal will be in an Amending Bill in the near future, if it cannot be drafted into the present Bill. The next point to which I wish to refer is one as to which I have already questioned the right hon. Gentleman and I feel deeply that it is not brought into this Bill, and that is the question of the marriage certificate. If there is maternity benefit required, you have to get a marriage certificate in order to get it. The cost of that is very considerable and makes a large hole in the thirty shillings benefit. In order to get that certificate 1172 you have to pay 3s. 7d. or 3s. 9d. I want to know why we could not have in this Bill an Amendment on the lines of the provision in the Old Age Pensions Act, where a birth certificate can be procured for sixpence. If such a provision were included in this Bill it would mean a saving of at least 3s. I put that question before the right hon. Gentleman and he told me the matter is receiving consideration. That was a long time ago, and I thought it was going to appear in this Bill. I think it is a flaw that it does not, and I earnestly ask that it shall be taken into serious consideration, and not the ordinary consideration which I generally get handed to me as an answer to any question I ask on the subject. I trust that it will be dealt with in this Bill if possible. Those are two very important questions. I am also going to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is going to answer about the Lincoln verdict given to-day on a great question of insurance which was brought forward by an hon. Baronet on this side. It is a most serious question to the farmers of this country and to the community at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer. in this House and out of it, praised the six weeks' agricultural agreement between the farmer and the labourer, whereby the labourer was to have full wages for the first six weeks' sickness. But if the farmer has to pay twice over—that is, the full agricultural wage for those six weeks and also the premiums of the Act—should it not be the law that the farmer should be allowed to deduct the benefit of the Act? I think that the judge who said today that the labourer was to have the benefit and the wage was creating a state of affairs that was not equitable or fair to the farmer, who took over the responsibility for those six weeks, and also had to pay the premium. I understood that the benefits were promised by the Chancellor to be deducted, and if I am wrong perhaps I will be corrected by some hon. Member opposite. If he did not use absolutely those very words, he used words to that effect. I contend that the law ought to be altered in such a way now by this Bill that what the Chancellor really meant, and what he really promised, should be carried out by the judges who have to interpret the laws. Those are criticisms that I think I can fairly claim to be for the good of the Bill and of the cause that we all have at heart, and that will not cost the Exchequer any more money, and which should be put 1173 into an Amending Bill at the earliest possible moment, and ought to be in the Bill now before the House. For these and many other reasons, I have very great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
Surely the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanier) has given us very good reasons, not for supporting the Amendment, but for rejecting it. He has pointed out the urgency of certain matters, the interest and importance of which he has very forcibly put before the House, and yet, his mind being exercised by this urgency, he pleads with us to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend. I shall prefer to believe that the hon. Member wished to deliver a very interesting speech, upon which I venture to congratulate him, and I hope that some of his desires will be fulfilled in the near future by reason of the fact that we shall refuse the Amendment which he has seconded. At any rate, in regard to some of his suggestions, I can cordially promise my support. For example, his suggestion with regard to supplying marriage certificates for 6d. is a very useful one, and precisely the kind of suggestion that we want to elicit at such a stage as this. In regard to the great majority of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite to-day, we have no cause for complaint. They have been moderate, and many of them very useful and informing. Certainly a characteristic jarring note was struck by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), bat we should be disappointed if he did not do something of that kind. We have learnt to expect it from him. He will, however, probably learn that his useful work in this House is not helped by the kind of language in which he indulged today. I might suggest to hon. Members opposite that "toujours Marconi" is not exactly good electoral warfare. I should like to deal with one or two general considerations which I think might well be considered on this occasion. The remarkable thing about the principal Act is the degree of success which it has achieved in so short a space of time. Contributions have been collected for about a year, and benefits paid for about six months. It is nothing short of remarkable that in such a short space of time a business, which my right hon. Friend truly described as gigantic, has been set on its feet.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) paid a very deserved tribute to the Insurance Commissioners for their 1174 devoted work. Perhaps my right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) will forgive me if, even in his presence, I, for my part, pay tribute to his devotion to the same work, and the very great ability which he has displayed in connection therewith. This success has been achieved in spite of difficulties which ought never to have been created. In spite of the provocation given by the hon. Member for Colchester, I do not want to reply in the same vein. I may, however, remind hon. Members opposite that what they succeeded in doing was this: they created throughout the country an atmosphere of suspicion. That atmosphere has not yet been dissipated. I have had the misfortune to meet more than one member of the working classes who have been so impressed by what they have read in certain daily newspapers, that they unfortunately do not avail themselves of the advantages of the Act. The deposit contributors are few, and they would not be as many as they are if it had not been for that atmosphere of suspicion. According to the prophecy of the hon. Member for Colchester, in regard to which we may truly say that the wish was farther to the thought, at first there were to be 3,000,000 deposit contributors. Then, according to the official work issued by the National Conservative Union, the number was to be from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000. In fact, the number turns out to be only a few hundred thousand. Some of us honestly believed that the number would be larger than was estimated by the actuaries. We believed that, not because we wanted to believe it, but because we feared it. I am afraid that that cannot be said in regard to the hon. Member for Colchester.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
If the hon. Member says that it is untrue, I, of course, accept his statement. I can only say that when the statement is repeated with glee on many occasions it naturally leads to that suspicion. If the hon. Member wishes to avoid that suspicion he will in future couch his remarks in a somewhat different tone from that adopted in some portions of his speech to-day. For example, there were his references to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend has been most generous to the hon. Member in this House. He has recognised the work which he has done. How has the hon. Member repaid that 1175 generosity? Looking at him sitting there, I wonder how he could do it. Let us see how the general principle of the Act has been accepted by the various classes of the community. These matters are of very great importance, because the acceptance of this Act by a great community like ours is, I hold, a very good augury for the future. The working classes, as a whole, have accepted the principle of compulsion.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
There again the hon. Member lays himself open to the suspicion that, if he could, he would repeal the Act. Would he? If not, what did that interruption mean? I repeat that the principle of compulsion has been accepted with great common sense by the people of the country.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech with as little interruption as I gave him, sorely tempted as I was to interrupt. The working men have accepted the principle. In some cases they have been inclined to doubt whether they were getting value for their money. That is an entirely different question. Who could wonder if they entertained such doubts, when we remember what has been done in the country. Take, for example, the South Manchester by-election. What were the people of South Manchester told by the successful candidate?It (the Act) gives an insured person only half the benefits that would be given for the same money by a well-managed friendly society.It was that kind of statement, made not once but millions of times throughout the country, in newspapers and in leaflets, which led a certain proportion of the working men, not to reject the principle of compulsion, but to doubt whether that principle was being applied in such a manner as to give them the best possible value for their money. What is the case to-day? To-day we have hon. Members opposite getting up and, not so much com- 1176 plaining that the working man is not getting 9d. for 4d., as pointing out that he is getting too much. The benefits are too great. They are being too freely applied. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanier) referred to the question, which was also dealt with by an hon. Member on this side, of certain agricultural labourers getting not only their full wages but the benefit into the bargain. I think myself, if that speech was delivered, that 9d. for 4d.—
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
That belief was not entertained by the hon. Gentleman and his Friends when they raised a suspicion of something less than 9d. for 4d. It was not excused on the Christian ground that we had made a mistake. It was denounced as an intention on our part to deceive. I suggest that the hon. Member ought to change the character of his arguments in view of that.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
Still it is the result of the Act. Now I turn to the employer. Here, surely some considerations will arise which are of the very greatest interest. The employers have for the greater part accepted the Act as loyally as the workmen. Certainly a tribute is due to them on those grounds. The question arises here, and, I think, in the future will have to be considered more than it is considered now. We have a great complex civilisation in which we have the products of industry produced by certain captains of industry, and distributed and managed by them and by other commercial agents. The first remark about such a community as ours is the diversity of employments, and the extraordinary way in which the wealth of the community is distributed, not necessarily or chiefly amongst those who produce the wealth, whether they are manufacturers or employés. The point I particularly wish to put is this: Not a few manufacturers urge that, in view of such considerations as these, a larger share should be borne by those persons in the community who are either distributors or professional men who earn great incomes but who do not employ many people. Let us get clear views on this subject. Let us compare the Workmen's Compensation Act with sickness insurance. It is clear that in regard to accidents we have a calamity which 1177 occurs directly in connection with the manufacturer's business. There is absolutely a direct and complete connection between accidents and the business which bears the burden of supplying the compensation because of the accident. Take the case of sickness: Is the connection quite so clear? In the case of sickness, if the man falls ill who is in the employ of the manufacturer, it is perfectly true that the state of the man's health must in part depend upon his employment, but it does not necessarily or wholly depend upon it, and indeed the sickness may be due, and the cause entirely apart from anything that the manufacturer may do. It may, for example, be caused by the unhealthy house in which the man lives, and, which is no fault of the manufacturer. I do not say that this is conclusive. I am not asking the House to make up its mind finally upon this subject. I only do suggest that it is possible that we do not do complete justice to this question of contribution by the present division between the worker, his employer, and the taxpayer.
At present the taxpayer has to pay two-ninths of the benefit, but that, as I say, leaves out of account the fact that a not inconsiderable number of the wealthy people of this country do not employ many people and almost entirely escape the direct contribution towards sickness insurance, although they do themselves enjoy the products and make as much as the people who directly employ those by whom the articles are manufactured. I suggest that for consideration. These subjects will have to be very carefully considered in the future. Turn now to comparatively minor matters. It must be remembered that the existence of a certain number of complaints in regard to the working of sickness insurance is not to be deprecated. It is one of the happy results that follows from State management of any business. It is a curious thing to remember that in the old days before the passing of the National Insurance Act insurance grievances were unknown. Why is this difference? Something like 200,000 or 250,000 people were turned out of membership of friendly societies every year, forfeiting the contributions they have paid, and losing their membership. Whoever heard of it? Millions of these cases have occurred in the lifetime of those who are now listening to me. Did the public hear of them? Did the newspapers ever ventilate them? Were questions ever raised in Parliament about them? Not once ! I cannot call to mind one single instance in 1178 which a grievance of that kind was raised in this House. But notice what happened. You make insurance national. You remedy that particular grievance. It is no longer possible, at all events it is scarcely possible, for a man to be turned out of membership of an approved society. I think the hon. Member will go with me thus far that it is much less possible than it was. In spite of that, note what happens. Even the casual labourer in relation to this matter is much better off. We have remedied this particular grievance almost entirely. Still we hear of grievances. Again, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester referred, in passing, to what a horrible thing—that was the word he used—it was to contemplate that owing to excessive sickness insurance societies were broken up.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
What about the past working by the societies? Whoever heard of them? Consult the official records. What will you find. Year after year you will find little societies smashed up and going out of existence—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he has given a State guarantee of the benefits now. That is why it is horrible.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
Surely that is an explanation that will not serve. Is it not clear that in the past you have hundreds of thousands of men losing their membership of societies? You had hundreds and thousands of these men losing their membership because of the destruction of their societies. We are told that in the future it will be simply horrible if a society goes out of existence. Was it not horrible to contemplate in the past?
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
We are told that it was a much more likely thing to occur. My point is this: Do not let us be deceived by the fact that we are getting exceptional complaints. It is a good thing to get these exceptional complaints. It is one of the virtues of a national system that its members complain a lot. Directly you get national management you get complaints arising which will not be put off. You get more efficiency than before, because complaints have to be attended to.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
When we nationalise the railways we will improve the service by 50 per cent. Supposing you then reduce the rates and the freights to the rates, say in Germany, you would then begin to get complaints that the fares and freights were too high, even though they were lower than before. Pass to another point of minor importance. The hon. and learned member for Colchester spoke of our altering the principle of the Act by the first Clause in this Bill. Surely he has forgotten the nature of the Principal Act. The Principal Act itself does not merely supply from State funds two-ninths of the benefit. It does more than that. To name only one matter, it makes a contribution in the case of ill-paid labourers. That is quite apart from the question of the two-ninths, so that this Bill does not introduce any new principle. It has always been accepted that it was proper that we should make a contribution or contributions, as might be expedient, apart from the question of the two-ninths. There is no doubt in the future we shall continue to do so. I am sorry the hon. Member for Colchester, while falling foul of the manner in which we propose to spend the money, did not himself make any suggestion as to how he would spend it. I venture to ask him, in the course of his speech, did he oppose our expenditure affecting men and women over fifty, and he said "No." Why does he complain? Does he think he can have it both ways? I think he will find that this particular provision will be an exceedingly popular one, and a properly popular one. As to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is granting this benefit now, whereas he refused it two years ago, is it not always the experience when legislation of this kind is entering on its course? Do we blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) and think less of his original Workmen's Compensation Act because he then refused to reduce the risks which now appear obviously right to reduce, and which this House has altered? We do not seek to rob him of any credit because he left in that Act a provision that if a man fell a certain distance he should get compensation and if he fell a lesser distance he should not. Whenever these anomalies appear in an Act, Parliament subjects them, and properly subjects them, to criticism. They do 1180 not condemn the Act in which they are found nor the motives of the man who passed that Act in which they are found.
One word with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University about the medical profession. One seeks to speak of that profession with as much respect as possible, but it is true that Parliament has put millions into the pockets of the medical profession by passing this Act, and while it is true that the medical profession, which is one of the noblest, has a right to ask for all respect, we have a right to ask those of the medical profession to give us good value for their money and to serve the people well whom they are called upon to serve. I am sorry to point to some things that came to my notice which are not particularly creditable to some members of the medical profession. For instance, it does not please me to learn that in a little town the local doctors have raised their charge for attending lying-in patients from 12s. 6d. to £l at the present time. Is it necessary to do that because Parliament passed the National Insurance Act, which put millions into the pockets of the medical profession? The same criticism applies to the fact that they raised their charges to the old members of friendly societies. These things, I say, are not to the credit of the profession, and "they make it hard for many of us to regard that profession with all the honour in which we. used to hold it. As to the panel system, I listened to such criticism as fell from the hon. Member for Aberdeen University, and I found it difficult to remember that the panel system was invented by the medical profession and that Parliament went out of its way to alter the Act to please them and to put that into the Act.
I say this, further, that it must be a very great comfort and credit to everybody who took any part whatever in the passing of this measure into law to think of the nature of the opposition which obtains in this country at this hour because of the passing of the Act. It is perfectly true there are occasionally complaints, and that here and there a man has to wait for his doctor and that a woman is not attended to as quickly as might be. There is a failure perhaps in certain cases to give benefits where desired to give it. In spite of the defects which are exceptional, what is the broad fact at this moment? It is that the greater number of the working people in this country have now medical attendants at their disposal, where before they had no medical attendants. You hear of a case 1181 where a man has had to wait three days or four for his medical attendant, but these cases were constant in the old days and you never heard of them at all. Something like 2,500 women are getting maternity benefit every day under this Act. What an extraordinary thing that is to think of. Need we wonder there is scarcely an hon. Member opposite who in criticising this Act found it possible to use anything but moderate language? Need we wonder there have been few utterances from the other side at which any moderate minded man need cavil? The fact is the virtues of the Act are making their way, and there is not an hon. Member opposite who would to-day repeal it.
§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE
The hon. Member who has just sat down made a great point of the fact that in former days before the National Insurance Act was passed, we heard very little of complaints from members turned out of their friendly society and very little of friendly societies that had become bankrupt, and he seemed to think that because that was the case formerly so it should be the case now. Surely everybody must realise the whole condition of affairs is entirely altered, and that if in former days a man, of his own free will, entered into a contract with a friendly society, and was dissatisfied with it, he had but himself to blame for not choosing the proper friendly society, or for not making terms which suited him. Now we have quite a different state of things, and when people are compelled, whether they like it or not, to join a society, then naturally and rightly we hear complaints made in this House of cases which arise when compulsion is put upon people to enter into a contract. Like many other Members upon this side, I welcome the Introduction of this Bill which is going to amend the National Insurance Act, and I am only sorry it should be introduced so late in the Session, because the former Bill, which is at present an Act, was sacrificed to a very large extent to make room for the passing of Home Rule, and this Amending Bill has been sacrificed to give place in the earlier part of the Session to Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment. I do not think that even the promoters of this Bill can claim it is anything more than a bit of patchwork on a rather tattered and shattered garment that was their original work. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary complained that the National Insurance Act had been sub- 1182 jected to criticisms and questions almost unprecedented during the last eighteen months. I ask him now if it had not been for that criticism would this Bill have been introduced.
§ Mr. GWYNNE
I think when the right hon. Gentleman sees the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he made reference to the fact that the Commissioners had been subjected to this criticism.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
That is quite a different thing. I made a defence of the Commissioners against the criticisms levelled against them.
§ Mr. GWYNNE
So far as I am concerned, at any rate, my criticisms during the last eighteen months have been directed against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary rather than against the Commissioners, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he suggest if it had not been for the questions and the criticisms in this House, and in the country, this Bill would be introduced at the present time in the form in which it is? Can he tell me that this Bill is the result of careful consideration and deliberation with the Commissioners in consultation with the Advisory Committees? Will he tell me that this Bill is all that the Commissioners want and that this is their last word as to the Amendments which should be made? I suggest that this Bill is much more attributable to the Leicester by-election and to the criticisms which have been made of the Act from this side of the House rather than the considered judgement of the Commissioners. Perhaps one of the most remarkable incidents in connection with this Bill is the entire want of explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the Treasury gave this afternoon. He did not attempt to deal with any single Clause in the Bill, and at least two or three of those Clauses, if not all of them, require some explanation. Clauses 7, 9, and 12 are going to give enormously extended powers to the Commissioners. I will read a portion of Clause 12, Sub-section (1), which, provides:—(1) Any Order or Special Order made under the principal Act may be revoked, varied, or amended by an Order or Special Order made in like manner as the original Order. 1183 (2) The time within which the powers of the Insurance Commissioners to make Orders under Section 78 of the principal Act may be exercised shall be extended to the 31st day of December, 1914.This Clause extends unlimited power to the Commissioners, without a word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during the Debate on the principal Act he gave a definite undertaking to the hon. Member for Colchester that this unlimited power was only to be of a temporary nature, and would not be extended after the 1st January, 1914. My hon. Friend had protested against this wholesale power being given, and this is what appeared in the OFFICAL REPORT on the 10th November, 1911:—Mr. Lloyd George: If the Committee thinks 1915 is too long, I should be perfectly prepared to cut it down to, say, two years after the commencement of the Act. That would make it more temporary.My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester then pointed out that in the Irish Local Government Act there was a limit of time to the following 31st January, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:—I now suggest 1st January, 1914, if that will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, we shall have to put off the commencement of the Act, and 1st January, 1913, will hardly be six months. I think we ought, at any rate, to have a full eighteen months, in order to get over these preliminary difficulties, and if it meets the view of hon. Members, I shall be very happy to make it 1st January, 1914."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th November. 1911, col. 2016, Vol. XXX.]Yet, after that definite undertaking we do not have a word of explanation, and we are simply told that it is to be extended for another twelve months. That means that it takes out of the power of this House any chance of considering or amending the proposals which the Commissioners may make. I have on previous occasions asked to be informed how the Commissioners do their work—whether they keep any record, whether they put questions to the vote; whether minutes are kept and so forth— but I never got any satisfactory information. From time to time we are told in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the Commissioners think this, that or the other, but I want to know if any records are kept. Supposing the Commissioners make some drastic alterations under this Amending Bill, have we any right to discuss the question, and can we, as representing constituencies, say anything at all in the matter? What are we to say to our constituents who ask us to intervene? The 1184 Commissioners are not responsible to this House, and we can do nothing in the matter at all.
As Members of Parliament, we do not know what alterations or Amendments they are making, and to hand over such unlimited powers as these, without a word of explanation from the Financial Secretary is a most outrageous thing. I would like to know why the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be broken in this way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point, and tell us why he is extending this power. We have been told that the Act is working very smoothly. If so, why do we need to extend the powers of the Commissioners to remove difficulties if there are no difficulties existing? Again there is no mention in this Bill of any guarantee that the societies should be solvent, and this is a matter which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money). Now that the sick benefit claims are much larger than was originally expected, surely one would have thought that this would have been the occasion, when amending the Bill, to see whether the original promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be carried out, namely, that there should be some guarantee given to a man who is compelled to insure, that he will definitely get the money which he is expecting. The Chancellor of 1he Exchequer, in his book on "The People's Insurance," says:—My first principle is that every friendly society must be passed as sound before it can be guaranteed by the State. That is essential; otherwise the State might be in the position of defrauding citizens.Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand by that now? If that is so, how are we going, in the near future, to meet the difficulties which undoubtedly will have to be met if the sickness claims go on at the rate they have been doing lately. The Blue Book, which is supposed to give us a full account of the working of the Act, does not mention this point, and hon. Members opposite, in dealing with the point this afternoon, of increased claims for sickness, have tried to excuse it on the ground that for the first time people find themselves able to claim sickness benefit, and they are taking full advantage of it, and that in many cases they are women who have never had a chance of being insured before, and they are now claiming sickness benefit. I will take an instance from the report of the Boilermakers Society which appeared in the "Times." I imagine that most of the members of that society have 1185 been members for some time past, that there are no women members and that it is a well-known society. The report in the "Times" says:—In the July report of the Boilermakers Society, the general secretary records a growth of 60 per cent, in the sickness claims of this society, and there has been paid an amount of unemployment benefit which it is difficult to reconcile with the present state of the labour market.Take Lancaster as another instance. There the secretary said:—The amount of sickness benefit is more than 50 per cent. higher than last year, and if the claims continue at the present rate he fears some of the club mortgages will have to be called in to meet the claims.Here is another example from Rochdale:—As regards sickness benefit, all four lodges paid more than 100 per cent, more than they have been in the habit of doing.I might quote one after another, all on the same lines. If we are going to have sickness benefit claims increased on these lines, I say that now is the time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in some Amendment to guarantee that insured persons will get the benefits for which they are forced to pay. I do not think that is at all an unreasonable demand to make. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a very serious accusation this afternoon against the doctors. He said that in some cases doctors have deliberately given certificates for sickness benefit in order to try and break down the Act. I asked him then, "Have you any definite cases on which to make that charge?" He said, "Yes," and he promised to make a statement before he sat down. He omitted to make that statement. I ask again now: Was he justified in making that remark? If so, how many doctors can he prove to have given certificates deliberately with the intention of trying to break down the Act?
Mr. MASTER MAN
I have evidence to believe that in certain cases certificates have been given by doctors to people who were not really entitled to certificates, with the object of breaking down the Act.
§ Mr. GWYNNE
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he has taken to stop that practice? Has he given the doctors any opportunity of putting their own side of the case, or is that merely an ex parte statement?
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
My right hon. Friend has already promised to set up a Committee to inquire into the whole subject.
§ Mr. GWYNNE
According to the right hon. Gentleman, these doctors are en- 1186 gaged in a conspiracy. If that is the case, and I must assume he would not make a charge like that without some justification, these men who are engaged in this conspiracy are the doctors to whom people are compelled to go for advice in matters of life and death. Is that the class of men you are getting to work your Act? If you are going to compel men to insure and will not allow them to contract out, you should at least give them doctors in whom they can trust, but you cannot trust them yourselves, although you are compelling other people to go to them. People were deliberately promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would be allowed to choose their own doctors, but now the right hon. Gentleman says: "It is impossible for us to allow contracting out, because, if we do, we shall have all the healthy people going to one doctor and all the unhealthy people left for another doctor." If that is the case, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer promise definitely at the Tabernacle that people should have the choice of their own doctor as one of the great advantages of the Act. I, myself, know of case after case in which it was not a matter of sending all the healthy to one doctor, and all the unhealthy to another, but where people who have for years employed one doctor, applied to continue under that doctor, who did not happen to be on the panel, and the request was refused. I think that this Bill should have dealt with such cases. There has been an endeavour by several hon. Members opposite to try and misinterpret what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) said with regard to men and women over fifty. I heard exactly what he said, and there was no question of his grudging the money given to those people or of his wishing to have it paid over for the administration of the Act. He said that if you are willing to give full benefits to men over fifty—and with that we on this side entirely agree—it should not be done at the expense of the younger men who already are not getting adequate benefit.
It is very well to remove grievances and to be generous at other people's expense, but at any rate it should not be at the expense of these younger men who do not get what they should actuarially get under the Act. According to this arrangement they will get less still. I should have liked to have seen the Act amended by removing to a very large 1187 extent this compulsory insurance. At any rate, in cases where you cannot give a man a fair or decent insurance the compulsion should be removed, rather than try and further handicap the younger men. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply will give us some explanation or reason why these vast powers are to be handed over to the Commissioners, and that he will also give us some undertaking that we shall have some latitude in Committee to introduce Amendments, and not merely to introduce them, but also to discuss them and to put forward arguments which we think necessary. We do not want this Bill forced through without discussion, and everything left to the mercy of the Commissioners. However worthy a body they may be, they do not have the opportunity Members of Parliament have of meeting insured persons all over the country and of finding out what really arc the hardships which this Amending Bill should remedy.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I will endeavour to approach this question, not from what I have read in the newspapers, or from what I assume to be the position, or from what other people have told me, but from my actual experience of the working of the largest trade union in this country. Unfortunately, much of the difficulty of this Act has been brought about by the deliberate action of the doctors themselves. It will be remembered that we were bombarded with requests from the doctors to free them from the tyranny of the friendly societies. Every Member of this House received circulars to that effect. The friendly societies, on the other hand, asked us to continue the old arrangement, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, largely owing to pressure from Members of this House, gave way to the doctors and said, "Very well, we will accept your suggestion and free you from the tyranny of the friendly societies." What is the position to-day? The claim of the doctors is, "Give us the friendly societies." [Hon. Members: "No."] There can be no other claim, and I maintain that it is reverting to the position when the claim of the doctors was first conceded from this side. We are at this moment considering an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division (Mr. Hunt) to postpone any Amendment of the Act until a full inquiry has been held. The hon. Member himself admitted his entire ignorance of the Act, and, if he will allow 1188 me to say so, some of his references were as irrelevant as they were indecent. The remarkable thing is that the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment did so on the ground that he had three urgent points which require immediate consideration. His view of getting immediate consideration for three urgent matters was to defer altering the Act in any particular. Has the Act justified its existence? I venture to say that no one who has any knowledge of the trade union and friendly society movement could do other than say that many of the difficulties, if not all, were difficulties that we had every reason to believe experience would show. Anyone with any knowledge of trade union and friendly society work knows perfectly well that in some organisations every year we have special conferences for the purpose of altering our rules. Why? Because circumstances arise even in twelve months that necessitate a change of policy and a change of administration. If that is the experience of an organisation with 50,000 or 100,000 members, surely we are justified in saying that in a great Act of this kind, embracing, as it does, millions of members, we were justified in assuming that some alteration would be necessary after an experience of six or twelve months !
Like many hon. Members opposite, I do not think that this Amending Bill goes far enough. My own view is that, instead of the limited Committee as outlined by the Secretary to the Treasury, there should be a full Committee of Inquiry to consider the Act in every possible aspect. Hon. Members opposite agree with me in that, and I should have thought that that was something they could themselves press on the Government. But recognising that a Committee of Inquiry is necessary where we shall be able to get information, that in itself should not prevent us removing some of the admitted grievances of which advantage has been taken in the country from time to time. It is quite true that the Act has not done all that some of us anticipated. I have never hesitated, even amongst a hostile crowd, to defend the Act, not because I believe it is popular—I do not think it will be popular for a long time —but because I believe that in the main it will be of great value to the working classes of this country, and because I believe that having once compulsorily insured everyone, having once given an opportunity to every man to say that in case of sickness some provision is made for him, as time goes on people will begin to appreciate those facts and they will find it 1189 will be to the advantage not of one aide or one party, but of the community as a whole. I would suggest that we are making too much of the question, of the high sickness rate. I have not the Boilermakers' Report to quote in reply to the hon. Gentleman, but he may take it that there is a solid explanation of the particular point he raised. I have no hesitation in saying that as a result of our experience in a society of a hundred thousand members, all picked lives, the same lives as hitherto were in membership and not compulsorily insured, I have no hesitation in saying that our sickness for the last six months is nearly 2 per cent, leas than at the corresponding period of last year. And here, in my opinion, is the real answer to the increasing sickness. Everyone agreed that the real danger was the deposit contributor. There were various estimates given, but surely none of us deplores the fact that the deposit contributor has got into the different approved society, and consequently must of necessity tend to this increase in the sickness rate. Does not that on the other hand help the Act, inasmuch as it equalises the liability over all instead of allowing some society to have picked lives as against others? Besides, if it is a liability to the approved society, as it is, I admit, are we not justified in saying that if the approved society are taking a liability that it was contemplated the Government would have to deal with in three years' time, is their task not simplified by toeing able to deal with these people through the approved societies themselves? I do not agree that the Act has encouraged malingering. It may be perfectly true some folks malinger, but experience shows that working men themselves are the best check of that, and if I may be allowed to suggest, instead of having your State official to check it, the best check would be to allow more money for administration expenses, so that the friendly societies and the approved societies can have more sick visitors from amongst their own class. That, in my opinion, would be a real check for dealing with this particular question. I go further, and I say that the real explanation of the malingering is this: Hitherto, when a man was not compulsorily insured, when he had nothing coming in in cases of sickness, he went back to work before he was really fit. Are we not justified in assuming if he now stops on the club longer because he has something coming in that that in five or ten years' time will 1190 reduce the sickness liability rather than increase it? While at the moment we are, I admit, paying the penalty, I believe it is only temporary, and in the end it will be beneficial for all concerned.
I want to make one observation on the Amending Bill. It will be readily admitted that that Bill touches the most burning question. Everyone will agree as to the hardship to aged people. Everyone will agree that by the action of the doctors themselves the old folk who have been thrifty for thirty or forty years are now penalised to the tune of 4s. The Government have rightly recognised that by making a contribution of 2s. 6d., and the fact of the man being exempt from his employer's contribution when he is out of work is a benefit which will be readily appreciated. But I want the Government to go further in this Bill. I want them to abolish the four Commissioners. I have no hesitation in saying that the Commissioners have done their work well. Everything that can possibly be said in their favour ought to be said. But I have felt that their inexperience has caused them to be an absolute failure by reason of the duplication of work and the throwing unnecessary details on the approved societies. I want working men to be paid for their loss of time whilst serving on the committee. You have no right to say to these people that they shall have representation unless you make some provision for it. You can only make provision for them by paying them for their loss of time. These are only a few of the many points I might have developed. While feeling that many other Amendments ought to be introduced, we will co-operate with all sections of the House in regard to this Bill, and because we are specially interested in our own class we believe that this Amending Bill is a step in the right direction, and that eventually we shall be able to fashion an Act of Parliament which many people, instead of condemning the "Joy-day" as it is now condemned, will be able to say was an Act of Parliament which brought immeasurable benefit to the working classes of this country.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down promised us at the beginning of his speech that he would make a speech based upon his own experience, and not upon what he had gathered from newspapers or other sources. I think he has, more or less, fulfilled his promise. Although I do not agree with much of his phraseology, I do agree, as I shall show 1191 later on, with the main practical proposal he made, and I also agree thoroughly with his view as to the advisability of Home Rule as it applies to his own class and his own trade, and with his desire to get rid of the four Commissions who are now employed. The simple fact that we to-day, within a year of the bringing into operation of this Act, are engaged in a discussion of the Bill now before us, is in itself the best comment upon the way in which this Act was forced through the House of Commons, and is also the best justification for the criticisms which at that time we directed against the methods of the Government, and also the best justification for the attempt we made on the Third Reading—an attempt which failed, unfortunately, as I think, both for the Government and for the country—to get this Bill properly considered in the way in which it needed it more than any other measure that could be brought before the House of Commons. I venture to say that no measure of anything like the same importance was ever treated in the same way.
The Bill we are considering to-night is admitted to be—it was almost admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier—simply a tinkering with this question; a tinkering which, in my belief, can never really deal with the problems with which the Government is now faced. Though this Bill is merely a perfunctory attempt to deal with them, it is, in one sense, a serious measure. It is serious from the point of view of the amount of money involved. As the House knows, this Bill means an additional expenditure partly drawn from the State and partly imposed upon the Insurance Fund, of something like £1,000,000 a year. I ask the House to consider for a moment the way in which the burden on the State is growing under this Act. When the Act went through we were told that the expenses for the current year would be something like £4,000,000. When this Amending Act is brought into operation, as I suppose it will be, the expenditure will have increased to £7,000,000. Where is this going to end? It is quite evident that the tinkering which is going to be done to-day is going to continue. What is more, this Bill itself contains provisions which have the express object of making such tinkering easy. As my hon. Friend pointed out this afternoon, the Government have without any explanation, given power to the Commissioners until the end 1192 of next year, which practically means that they can act as a legislative assembly and alter the Act in any way they please.
An hon. Friend of mine below the Gangway, a few moments ago, asked the Government to give an explanation of this. I do not think we need any explanation. We have had sufficient evidence as to what are the ideas of this Government as to what representative institutions should be, and what the proper function of the House of Commons ought to be, to know that this is their idea of how legislation ought to be carried out. It is not only by legislation that they may tinker with it. There is a provision in this Bill which enables the Government to spend any money they please under the Act, without having an Act of Parliament going through this House at all. All they have to do is to do now in a legal way what the Chancellor did last year illegally, and what was condemned by the Prime Minister. They are simply going to take power to spend any amount of money they please, which means that another step is being taken in the direction of removing from the House of Commons control over even finance and placing it instead in the hands of the Government of the day. It is perfectly true that the House would have power to refuse a Supplementary Estimate, or whatever it may be, but it will only have that power after the Government of the day come under obligations to spend the money, and anyone who knows anything about the House of Commons knows that such control would be very different from that involved in the passing of a Bill through the House of Commons in the ordinary way.
I said that this Bill meant an annual expenditure of something like £1,000,000. I think the total amount is £825,000. What evidence have we, and what reason is there to believe that this Amending Bill has been introduced with due regard to all the circumstances of the Act, and that it is the best way, taking the whole of the facts into consideration, in which this money can be spent? We know the methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know the way in which he carried this Act through the House of Commons. We know that all the negotiations, whatever they were, took place outside, and that all the House of Commons had to do was to register decisions which had been made elsewhere. We know that all his ingenuity, all his driving power, and all his influence over his colleagues in the 1193 Government and in the House were directed with this one object—to get the Bill, any Bill, on to the Statute Book, and to leave the consequences to take care of themselves. The consequences are taking care of themselves. Is there not reason to fear that precisely the same method is being adopted now; that what they are doing is simply stopping here a leak and there a leak, not after examination of the whole subject, but simply to get over or dodge the difficulties which, for the moment, are facing them most acutely. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon said, that there has been an inquiry before this Bill was introduced, but I am afraid it has been a rather superficial inquiry. At all events, we know it was undertaken by Gentlemen who, in every speech they have made in this House—and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was no exception—while the Act was going through, and since, have spoken as if the Act, as it stood, was as near perfection as anything human could be, and as if any opposition to the Act was simply that of men with misguided minds who did not know what was good for them so well, perhaps, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, probably, will not have to suffer or enjoy the privileges of the Act.
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) made an appeal to us this afternoon to treat this question as non-party. That is a reasonable appeal, but he justified it on what seems to me strange ground. He held up himself as an example of how the subject could be treated on non-party grounds. I have had the pleasure of listening to many speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject and I listened to them with all the more impartiality because I did not myself suffer from the very active tongue which he exercised on those occasions. Judging by those speeches, there is no Member in the House who has less right to ask that we should put aside party considerations, and who is less entitled to pose as an administrative officer—I think that is what he called himself—without any party spirit unless it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. We know the rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that at the end of the summer Session, when this Bill was going through, he gave us on these benches, as well as the rest of the House, a certificate of good character. He told us we had been doing our best to help him in framing this great measure, and then before there was any opportunity of our exhibiting the latent 1194 vices which the right hon. Gentleman, knew we possessed—
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
There had been by-elections before that and I may remind the hon. Member who made that interruption that the first use of the Insurance Act at a by-election was made by the party opposite at Hull where the candidate, after pointing to the great merits of the measure, urged all voters to vote for the Liberal party. Before we had any opportunity of showing those vices the right hon. Gentleman abandoned that other method which he sometimes adopts, and which his colleague adopted this afternoon and showed that he meant to carry through the Bill by the full and extreme exercise not only of party discipline and the whole party spirit, but what is more by party methods —and that is far stronger than the ordinary party spirit—which are peculiar to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not think they have any claim, either of these right hon. Gentlemen, to ask us to put party entirely out of the question, but I admit this, that it is part of our duty to consider not merely the attitude of our political opponents, but what is best for the country, and I say at once that if I believed it were possible to make this Act a workable measure and acceptable to the people of this country by such tinkering as is going to be imposed upon it to-day I should be glad to see the Act worked in that way. But I have no such belief. I noticed that when one of my hon. Friends was speaking and when he quoted the Joy-day speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he spoke of the opposition to the Insurance Act as resulting from misrepresentations—in the enthusiasm of the moment I think he used a stronger word — of his political opponents, there were cheers on those benches. That was reasonable once. It is surely futile now. It was reasonable to make that claim, as they constantly did, before the Act came into operation, but now it has been in force for six months for the whole of it and longer for part of it—quite long enough to see exactly how it works, and to enable people to get the benefits, such as they are, which come from it. What is more, while the Act was going through, they constantly told us that only a few months would be needed after the Act came into operation to show what a blessing it was and that the moment that had happened all of us who had spoken disrespectfully of the Act would be anxious 1195 to hide our diminished heads and conceal the action which we had taken in regard to it.
Hon. Members may flatter themselves, as the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) did, that time is all that is needed to recommend this Act to the people of the country. I do not believe it. From all the information I can gather—and I have tried to gather it, and I fancy that most hon. Gentlemen opposite who are in real touch with the constituencies will agree with me—the Act is not getting more popular the longer it is in operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my belief. The hostility towards it is just as strong as it was, and it is, quite unlike anything that has ever happened with regard to any measure, not becoming more possible to accept it as final. In my belief, the experience we have already had shows clearly that the defects of the Act are fundamental, and cannot be remedied by any such tinkering as is proposed to be adopted in this Bill. I think that the Government ought at last to recognise that fact, that they ought at last to realise that the joy days are always going to be in the distant future, and that the only way in which they can make the Act acceptable is by a thorough reconsideration of it, and by giving to it that consideration which ought to have been given to it before it became an Act at all. I said that with the main proposal of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House I agree. What was that proposal? He said there ought to be an inquiry into the whole Act. That is exactly what I say the Government ought to have now. It is easy enough for them to say that it has only been six months in operation, but surely it is evident to anybody that these six months is a long enough period to prove that there is something radically wrong, or the hostility would not be so continuous and so determined as it is now. I say what is wanted is a real inquiry by people who are not convinced in advance that everything is nearly as perfect as it can be made. Is there ground for such an inquiry even now? I think the main ground is that to which I have already referred, namely, the continued hostility to the measure in the country. There is no need for questioning that. Members of the Government, when discussing other subjects, such as the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill and the 1196 Home Rule Bill, always point to the Insurance Act as the cause of their unpopularity in the country. But without going into many details, I should like to point to two other considerations which were put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). The first is with reference to the number of people who pay the tax of the Insurance Act, and who from one cause or another do not, in fact, get any of the benefits.
We have not been able to find out from the Government how large that class is, but we have sufficient information to show that it is a large class. In the first place, we know from the Government that one-third of the deposit contributors in Ireland cannot be identified. Although they pay the taxes they can get no benefit from the Act. We know that 10 per cent, of the deposit contributors are in the same position in England. We know, also, that there must be a large number of members of friendly societies who, but for the special provision for the first year of the Act, would be in precisely the same position. We have asked for the number, and the Government have not been able to give it. We know that that also applies largely to out-workers. As pointed out this afternoon, the Government have made three different attempts to deal with it, and the difficulty remains almost as great as when they first began. The hon. Member for Colchester gave an instance which, he tells me, is not exceptional, of one factory where three-fifths of the women employed in it are taxed under this Bill and cannot by any possibility get any benefit. Everyone must agree that if there is any large class in the community which for whatever reason pays the tax under the Bill and does not get any benefit from it, that is a class which ought not to be compulsorily insured, and which by some means ought to be removed out of the hardships to which it is now subjected. I will not delay the right hon. Gentleman any longer. It is more serious for him than it is for me. The only other question to which I will refer is the position of the friendly societies. It is perfectly evident from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, though he tried to diminish the seriousness of the position, that he admitted that the whole financial basis of the great friendly societies is threatened by the Act as it is being worked. There is not the smallest doubt that the increased sickness represents a claim which, if it 1197 goes on at anything like the present rate, will break down and destroy the financial stability of these great societies.
It may be said as the right hon. Gentleman said, that six months is not long enough to prove that. As a rule that would be true, but unless the right hon. Gentleman gives some reason for the belief that the six months do not correspond to what we may expect in the future, these six months are alarming enough to make us feel that the whole financial stability is in danger. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon by some quotation, partly from a Blue Book and partly from some other sources, tried to minimise the effect of these figures but did not succeed. What is more that Report ought to have contained information on the subject. Since it does not contain it I think it is in itself the best proof of how unsatisfactory the position is in this respect. There is no use tinkering with the Act when the whole fabric not only of the Act but of the friendly societies is in danger, and that reason alone would be sufficient to make it absolutely necessary that there should be now an inquiry into the working of this Act. As I said, all that I wanted to say has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who sat down last. It is my belief, however unpleasant it may be to the Government, that it is absolutely necessary that there should be now an inquiry, an examination by a competent body and by an impartial body, not only into the working of the Act but into the whole system of the Act and the principles on which the Act is based. I am convinced of this that sooner or later such an. inquiry will be necessary, and that until such an examination has been made it will be impossible for anyone properly to attempt to make the radical Amendments which are necessary if this Act is to be workable, and if—and that is a contingency which the House must never overlook—it is to be acceptable to the people of this country. Such an inquiry must be made and will be made sooner or later, and in my belief it would be in the interest of the Government themselves to make it now, and I am sure that it would be in the interests of the people of this country.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
The speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, taken in conjunction with the speech delivered from the Front Bench earlier in the course of the evening, con- 1198 stitute a very fair indication of the attitude of the Opposition towards the Insurance Act. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) for some time occupied his speech by pointing out that all the things which are in this Bill are things that he and his Friends had pressed for two years ago. It is true they cost money, but they were pressed for notwithstanding that fact. He quoted what the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had done in that respect. That was his attitude towards the Insurance Act, and all those boons which were pressed for. Now comes the Leader of the Opposition, and what does he say? "Those boons will cost £800,000, and the thing is growing." That is his attitude towards the taxpayer; and that his the attitude of the Opposition throughout the whole of the criticism of the Insurance Act. It is one attitude towards the worker, it is a different attitude towards the employer, and it is another attitude towards the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Look at the Insurance Act, and the burden on the State that is constantly growing, and which is the result of the action of the Government." But that is not the attitude in the country. Here I have a document which was circulated in support of a Parliamentary candidate on the other side at Newmarket. This is the party which has been complaining that the burdens on the State are constantly growing. The first complaint in this document is that those who were under twenty-one could not receive full benefit; the second complaint is that there are no death benefits; the third, that there is no sickness benefit the first three days; the fourth, that there is no medical benefit for the wives and children of the workers; the fifth, that they do not get disablement benefit at once; the next, that they do not get compensation as well as sick pay; and the last, that those over seventy ought to get full benefit. I had it worked out. Full benefit under twenty-one would be an increased burden on the State of £270,000 a year; the next is three days' sick pay, which would add to the burden on the State by £750,000; death benefits would add £1,500,000, at the most moderate computation, per annum; sick pay, in addition to compensation, would amount to £1,250,000; the provision for benefits over seventy would cost £2,000,000 a year; and the medical benefit for families as well as insured persons, at least £6,000,000.The extra cost of the administration would 1199 be another £1,500,000 a year, and the bill from Newmarket for the State is thirteen millions a year.
Yet they go to the taxpayer, who does not happen to be an insured person, and they say to him, "Look at this Bill; it is constantly increasing the burdens." I think they really ought to make up their minds which of those two attitudes they adopt. It is thoroughly characteristic of the whole of their attitude. First of all, they pressed for the whole of these things. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said the whole of these things are things they asked for two years ago. Seeing that they supported every single Amendment involving the expenditure of money, and that there was no Amendment which at one time or another they did not support, therefore they always say, "It is something we supported two years ago." The right hon. Gentleman says that we should hold a new inquiry. Where is he now on this subject? Months ago he was for abolition, and a few months later his position was rather obscure and undefinable, and he very frankly stated it:—I feel also in regard to the Insurance Act that the action our party should take must depend on the time the election lakes place. It would be impossibly to formulate clearly now what our action would be later on. I shall be very glad to receive a deputation.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I do not remember that particular letter. Of course, I have had many letters of the same kind. What I always said is that we cannot say what our position will be in the future until we have had the experience which will come to us before a General Election—that is all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is very odd that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make out the case which I am making out that you must wait for experience. What is his attitude now? This is the third stage. He says now "We will not abolish, we will inquire, we will have a Commission." I think it is very reasonable to say they will inquire and wait for experience and there I am absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman that you must have experience before you can make up your mind with regard to this Act. Therefore, I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at a decision—I will not say a stable one, but, at any rate, for the moment it is one, which is capable of some sort of rational defence and explanation. But, the right hon. Gentleman says, let us have an inquiry. I agree, but you 1200 are not to have an inquiry into an Act of Parliament which has only been in operation partially for six months, and there is fully one-half of the Act which has not come into operation yet, and that is the invalidity benefit. The right hon. Gentleman said he had made inquiries, and that the Act was just as unpopular as it was a year or two ago. That is not the case. If you propose any Act in this country which involves a contribution from every workman of so much per week that is not certainly a way at once to win absolute popularity, and no man in his senses ever dreamt that it would immediately be popular. The hon. Baronet opposite is a very shrewd electioneerer, and I know something about electioneering too, and I can assure him I am not so simple as to believe that the way to immediately win the working classes of this country is to propose something which puts a compulsory levy of fourpence per week upon them—[HON. MEMBERS: "For ninepence."]—allow me to finish, which puts a compulsory levy of fourpence per week—[HON MEMBERS: "For ninepence."] We listened with perfect civility to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think I am entitled to the same civility in reply—which puts a compulsory levy of fourpence per week when the benefits—I was corning to the ninepence, must necessarily be postponed. Of course no man who knows anything about electioneering thinks it would be popular. At the same time it would be a bad thing for this country if the Government were not prepared to face even temporary unpopularity to establish a principle which they think is a sound one—I say more than that, a principle which hon. Gentlemen opposite know in their own hearts is a sound one. They themselves, when the Old Age Pensions Act was passing through the House of Commons, never ceased to say, "This, is not the way to deal with it. You ought to have a contributory measure." The moment we adopted the contributory principle, they accepted it at first, but when they saw there was a certain measure of unpopularity attached to an imposition of this character they swung round and made the best they could of it from an electioneering point of view. I say that that is teaching a dangerous lesson to the democracy. That unpopularity, such as it was, is rapidly disappearing. The Act has been only six months in operation. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to find out what happened in Germany. I 1201 had the privilege of talking with the late German Ambassador on the question of insurance in Germany. He was engaged in the work of insurance during the first year of the German Act; I am not sure that he was not at the head of the office. He told me that during the first few years it was quite unpopular in Germany. But now you will not get a political party of any complexion or any group of men of any class to get up and say even what the right hon. Gentleman says, that perhaps when an election arrives they may oppose it. No one would suggest opposing it at the present moment. The same thing will apply here. I have not the faintest doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman wants an inquiry. An inquiry into the whole subject now would be an inquiry at a time when experience is being built up, when you have not got over even the whole of your preliminary difficulties. He says that excessive sickness is a peril. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) has already stated on behalf of the Government that he is quite prepared to have an examination into the question of excessive sickness. That is, the only subject which is pressing as far as inquiry is concerned. The time will arrive when you ought to have an inquiry into the whole subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have treated the Act as if it were a counsel of perfection. Never. I could quote several passages from speeches which I have delivered at this box when dealing with the measure, in which I have repeatedly said that there was not the faintest doubt it would require some amendment from time to time. What I said was that it was almost impossible to predict at that moment on what point amendment would be required. Only experience will teach us—and these are the words of the Leader of the Opposition—at what point amendment is urgently necessary. In Germany they have already had a dozen Amending Acts, and I have no doubt we shall have Amending Acts here. This will not be the last. I have never pretended that it would be. You are dealing with one of the most complex problems that any Ministry, or any Parliament, could be confronted with. To say that anybody in the House of Commons, any Ministry, or friendly society could turn out a Bill that would be perfect in every detail would be a piece of arrogance that I do not believe anybody in the House of Commons would be capable of. Of course, you will. 1202 require Amendments from time to time. I cannot in the time at my disposal deal with all the points raised, but there are one or two I should like to refer to. There was that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. Well, Ireland has exactly the same interest in the Act as has any other part of the United Kingdom. She has got the same share except the small contribution towards medical benefit. So far as the rest is concerned she has got exactly the same as anybody else. As to the point of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the powers of the Commissioners are limited. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the history of the Clause. It was taken bodily from a Conservative Act of Parliament. Yet he spoke of it as a piece of Radical despotism, and rascality, invented for the first time by this Government. We took it from an Unionist Act of Parliament, a remedial measure, applicable to Ireland.
§ Mr. GWYNNE
The Irish Act does not refer to friendly societies at all? It was a local government Act and did not give unlimited powers over private interests.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
For the simple reason that the Clause was in an Act dealing with local government. Our Act deals with friendly societies. That is the difference. The other point I should like to refer to is that of the four Commissioners. The House will remember perfectly well that as the Act was originally drafted, there was only one Commissioner. Pressure came—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
From various parts of the United Kingdom to set up separate Commissions. I resisted that pressure for some time. But my recollection is that that pressure was very great.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The pressure inside this House and outside was very considerable. Although at that time I had considerable misgiving about splitting up the Commission, I came to the conclusion that Scotsmen knew their business better than I did. Speaking now after the 1203 experience we have had, it has been an enormous help and assistance to the administration of the Act to have had these four separate Commissions dealing with their respective countries. It would have been almost impossible to have managed the whole of the affairs of the four countries from Whitehall.
§ Mr. J. WARD
Does the right hon. Gentleman state that on the authority or statement of any single official that has conducted an approved society?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, certainly. The hon. Gentleman does not know what the influence of the Scottish societies has been. I should be very much surprised if the hon. Gentleman got any Scottish approved society to share his view. I fully realise the difficulty of English trade unions with branches in Scotland, but, after all, the vast majority of members of approved societies in Scotland and Ireland are members of approved societies which are Scottish or Irish in their origin and management. But I think he will find that the great majority of these societies are in favour of the continuance of the present system. Up to the present we only heard criticisms of those against it, but I am certain of this, that if any one proposed to abolish these four separate Commissions, he would find resistance in these countries he could hardly conceive. The system of separate Commissioners has worked uncommonly well, and I say that frankly as one who was afraid it would not work well, and I do not think it would be possible to run the Insurance Act in these countries from Whitehall, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friends will reconsider their view with regard to that. I think the difficulties they experience are difficulties that ought to be met. They are very largely bookkeeping difficulties, and having gone into the matter, I do not believe they are insuperable by any means. They are purely book-keeping difficulties of a character which I think can be removed. It would not be necessary to have legislation, but if it is necessary to have an Amendment in order to facilitate the working of English societies with branches in England, Scotland, and Wales, we shall accept any Amendment of that character, but we cannot go the length of assenting to the proposition that we should do away with the separate Commissions, because I think it would be resented very strongly.
§ Mr. STANIER
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I raised about the farmers and the agricultural labourers?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am afraid I could not be expected to deal with that without having a little more time to acquaint myself with the facts. I promise to look into the matter. It deals with a Clause which was inserted, I think, very largely at the instance of the hon. Member for Wiltshire. I do not say it met with his views, but it was very largely owing to the agitation he engineered. If the Clause is defective it should be set right, but I cannot say more now than that I will look into the matter. I could not give an answer straight away, and I am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to say more now. On the face of it it looks to be a matter that requires some amendment, but, as I say, I must look into it before I answer. Let me say this, in conclusion. We have had a good many taunts levelled at us in reference to this Act at every stage. It is undoubtedly an Act of enormous difficulty. You are dealing with 14,000,000 of workpeople of every class and grade that you can conceive, because the complexity of our industry is inexhaustible. Whenever we have had a difficulty we always had a sort of taunt from the other side. "Look at the trouble you are causing," they said. They asked, "Where are the doctors?" months before the time came for medical benefits. They asked, "How are you going to provide the doctors?" We have 15,000 now.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Eighteen thousand doctors. They said, "Where are your sanatoriums?" We have 10,000 insured persons in sanatoriums now. Before the Act you had only 2,000 beds in the whole country for every class of consumptives. Now you have 10,000 persons in sanatoriums. In Germany fifteen years after the Act came into operation they had only about 4,000 people in sanatoria, and it was I think the fourth year after they began building sanatoria that they had anything like 10,000. Here, within a year, we have 10,000 consumptives in institutions. It was said people would not pay and that hundreds of thousands would resist, but there are very few resisters in the country at the present moment. The hon. Member for Colchester said there would be 3,000,000 Post Office 1205 contributors, and he asserted that with the same dramatic emphasis as he does everything else. He was wrong. The hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) also said that there would be 3,000,000 Post Office contributors, but the actual figure is 500,000. And, finally, we had the statement on high authority that the Act would never come into operation. Now 14,000,000 people are paying readily their contributions, 500,000 are receiving medical benefit every week, 270,000 are receiving sick pay every week, and all this under the Act that was never going to come into operation because there were so many difficulties in the way. I never believed that the Act would be popular in six months, but after we have had another year's experience of this Act the right hon. Gentleman, who is now only in the inquiry stage, will then be one of those who, when he faces the electors, will not then be for abolishing the Act, or so much for inquiring, but he will take it to be an Act for further extending, improving, and working.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he fully expected this Act would be unpopular and that he would be a martyr in the cause of progress. If that were the case, why was it he brought in a Bill without any mandate from the people? Nobody had asked for the Bill. It was, entirely off his own bat as an electioneering move. He says that he thought it would not be popular. Why did he offer the electorate 9d. for 4d.? Did not he think that would be popular? Did he not on 15th July last offer them first-class hotels for sanatoria? Did not he think that would be popular?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 160.1209
|Division No. 202.]||AYES.||[11.0 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Clough, William||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Clynes, John R.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Adamson, William||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hackett, John|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hancock, John George|
|Alden, Percy||Cotton, William Francis||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Crooks, William||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Armitage, Robert||Crumley, Patrick||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Cullinan, John||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Dawes, James Arthur||Hayward, Evan|
|Barnes, George N.||Delany, William||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Devlin, Joseph||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Barton, William||Dickinson, W. H.||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Donelan, Captain A.||Hewart, Gordon|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Doris, William||Higham, John Sharp|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Duffy, William J.||Hinds, John|
|Benn. W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hodge, John|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Hogge, James Myles|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Boland, John Pius||Elverston, Sir Harold||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Hudson, Walter|
|Brace, William||Esslemont, George Birnie||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Falconer, James||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||John, Edward Thomas|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Ffrench, Peter||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Field, William||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fitzgibbon, John||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Joyce, Michael|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Keating, Matthew|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Glanville, Harold James||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Kelly, Edward|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Goldstone, Frank||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Kilbride, Denis|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Greig, Colonel J. W.||King, Joseph|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||O'Grady, James||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||O'Malley, William||Sheehy, David|
|Lardner, James C. R.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||O'Shee, James John||Snowden, Philip|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Outhwaite, R. L.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Parker, James (Halifax)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Lundon, Thomas||Parry, Thomas H.||Sutherland, John E.|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Sutton, John E.|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|McGhee, Richard||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radciiffe)|
|Maclean, Donald||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Tennant, Harold John|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Pirie, Duncan V.||Thomas, J. H.|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Pollard, Sir George H.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Toulmin, Sir George|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Manfield, Harry||Pringle, William M. R.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Radford, George Heynes||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Meagher, Michael||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Wardle, George J.|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Reddy, Michael||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Middlebrook, William||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Millar, James Duncan||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Webb, H.|
|Molloy, Michael||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Rendall, Athelstan||White, Sir Luke (Yorks. E.R.)|
|Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Mooney, John J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Morgan, George Hay||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Morison, Hector||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Muldoon, John||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Munro, Robert||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Robinson, Sidney||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Winfrey, Richard|
|Nolan, Joseph||Rowlands, James||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Rowntree, Arnold||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow}|
|Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare)||Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Scanlan, Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|O'Dowd, John||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Haddock, George Bahr|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)|
|Baker, Sir Randelf L. (Dorset, N.)||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Harris, Henry Percy|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Barnston, Harry||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Craik, Sir Henry||Hewins, William Albert Samuel|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Crean, Eugene||Hibbert, Sir Henry F.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Dairymple, Viscount||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Denison-Pender, J. C.||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Duke, Henry Edward||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bird, Alfred||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Hume-Williams, W. E.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)||Hunt, Rowland|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Fell, Arthur||Ingleby, Holcombe|
|Boyton, James||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Jessel, Captain H. M.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr|
|Bull, Sir William James||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Kerry, Earl of|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Forster, Henry William||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Butcher, John George||Gibbs, George Abraham||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford|
|Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Campion, W. R.||Goldsmith, Frank||Larmor, Sir J.|
|Cassel, Felix||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)|
|Cator, John||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Grant, J. A.||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Cave, George||Greene, Walter Raymond||Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gretton, John||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Mackinder, Halford J.||Randies, Sir John S.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rawson, Colonel R. H.||Tu[...]lbardine, Marquess of|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Royds, Edmund||Valentia, Viscount|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)|
|Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Mount, William Arthur||Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Newdegate, F. A.||Sanders, Robert Arthur||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Newman, John R. P.||Sanderson, Lancelot||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Newton, Harry Kottingham||Sandys, G. J.||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Nield, Herbert||Spear, Sir John Ward||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|O'Brien, William (Cork)||Stanier, Beville||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Paget, Almeric Hugh||Steel-Maitland, A. D.||Younger, Sir George|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Stewart, Gershom|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Denniss and Mr. Hoare.|
|Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Peto, Basil Edward|
Bill read a second time.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 284.1213
|Division No. 203.]||AYES.||[11.11 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Duke, Henry Edward||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Fell, Arthur||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fletcher, John Samuel||Mackinder, Halford J.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Forster, Henry William||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Barnston, Harry||Gibbs, George Abraham||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Goldsmith, Frank||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Grant, J. A.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Greene, Walter Raymond||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bigland, Alfred||Gretton, John||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Bird, Alfred||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Newman, John R. P.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Boyton, James||Haddock, George Bahr||Nield, Herbert|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Butcher, John George||Harris, Henry Percy||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Campion, W. R.||Helmsley, Viscount||Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.|
|Cator, John||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hibbert, Sir Henry F.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Cave, George||Hoare, S. J. G.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Houston, Robert Paterson||Royds, Edmund|
|Clynes, John R.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Hunt, Rowland||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)|
|Crean, Eugene||Kerry, Earl of||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Sandys, G. J.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Larmor, Sir J.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Denison-Pander, J. C.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Stanler, Beville|
|Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Valentia, Viscount||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Steel-Maitland, A. D.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)||Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)||Weston, Colonel J. W.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Talbot, Lord Edmund||Wheler, Granville C. H.||Younger, Sir George|
|Thynne, Lord Alexander||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Touche, George Alexander||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Cassel and Mr. G. Stewart.|
|Tryon, Captain George Clement||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Elverston, Sir Harold||Lardner, James C. R.|
|Adamson, William||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Falconer, James||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert|
|Alden, Percy||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Lundon, Thomas|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Ffrench, Peter||Lynch, A. A.|
|Armitage, Robert||Field, William||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||McGhee, Richard|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Fitzgibbon, John||Maclean, Donald|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Baring, sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South):|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Barnes, George N.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Glanville, H. J.||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)|
|Barton, William||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Manfield, Harry|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Goldstone, Frank||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Meagher, Michael|
|Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Griffith, Ellis Jones||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Middlebrook, William|
|Boland, John Pius||Hackett, John||Millar, James Duncan|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hancock, J. G.||Molloy, Michael|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Brace, William||Hardie, J. Keir||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Mooney, John J.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Morison, Hector|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Muldoon, John|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hayden, John Patrick||Munro, Robert|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hayward, Evan||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hemmerde, Edward George||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Henry, Sir Charles||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hewart, Gordon||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Higham, John Sharp||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Hinds, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Hodge, John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hogge, J. M.||O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Clough, William||Holt, Richard Dunning||O'Dowd, John,|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Grady, James|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Malley, William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hudson, Walter||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cotton, William Francis||Isaacs. Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Shee, James John|
|Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Outhwaite. R. L.|
|Crooks, William||John, Edward Thomas||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cullinan, John||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Parry, Thomas H.|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Delany, William||Jowett, Frederick William||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Joyce, Michael||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Devlin, Joseph||Keating, Matthew||Pointer, Joseph|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kelly, Edward||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Doris, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Duffy, William J.||Kilbride, Denis||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||King, Joseph||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Radford, G. H.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Raffan, Peter Wilton|
|Raphael, Sir Herbert H.||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.||Ward, John (Stoke upon-Trent)|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Wardle, George J.|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Reddy, Michael||Sheehy, David||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook||Webb, H.|
|Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Snowden, Philip||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Randall, Athelstan||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Sutherland, John E.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Sutton, John E.||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Robinson, Sidney||Tennant, Harold John||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Thomas, J. H.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Toulmin, Sir George||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Rowlands, James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Rowntree, Arnold||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Scanlan, Thomas||Walton, Sir Joseph|
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
§ The remaining Orders were read and postponed.