Sitting of 7 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Thursday.
Provisional Order Bills.—Ordered, that so much of Standing Order 73 as provides that notice of the day on which a Bill for confirming any Provisional Order will be examined shall not be given until after the Bill has been printed and circulated, be suspended for the remainder of the session.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords]; Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords]; Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction, and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [Lords]; Northern Assurance Company Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Barry Railway Bill—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment; Finchley Urban District Council Bill; Motherwell Burgh Extension, etc., Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to:—North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords].
Amendments to:—Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, to enable the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a certain Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the rural district of Rathdown (No, 1)." [Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

PETITIONS.
  LEASEHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Pembroke, in favour, to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Forest of Dean, against to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Bootle (three); Efailisaf; Glanadda; Ledbury; Islington; Knotty Ash; Mount Sorrel; Maiden Newton; Pontypridd; and Upper Clapton; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster against to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Auchterarder; and Thurso; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Heston and Isleworth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Miscellaneous Series, No. 668 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th March; Mr. Joseph Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th March; Mr. John O'Connor]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]
  PHARMACY ACTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 3rd July, 1908, approving of a Regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 3rd July, 1908, giving effect to Rules of Court [by Act] to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 563 (Gibraltar, Annual Report for 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Training of Teachers of Domestic Subjects (in force from 1st August, 1908) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the rate per pound of assessment levied for Roads and Bridges by County Councils in each county or district of a county in Scotland in each year from 1891–2 to 1907–8, inclusive."—(Mr. Erskine.)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (COLONIAL PENSIONS).
  Address for "Return of the number of Members of the present House of Lords and of the present House of Commons who are in receipt of Pensions for service in the Colonies from Colonial funds."(Mr. Cooper.)
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Paper [presented 23rd June] to be printed. [No. 214.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the City of Exeter, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Inefficient Crew of Steamer "Stowford."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that when a

    1443
    British steamer, the "Stowford," left the Tyne on 23rd May, the whole of the British crew on Board were helplessly drunk, and that the managing owner of the steamer, who happened to be on board, had to take the wheel himself and steer the ship over the bar; whether he is aware that the owners of the ship in question had refused to pay the recognised port rate of wages, and sought the assistance of the agents of the Shipping Federation and certain seamen's boarding-house keepers to procure a crew; whether he is aware that the crew were engaged on board ship instead of at the Mercantile Marine Office, and the crew complained of consisted entirely of foreigners, who at the time of engagement failed to produce certificates to prove they were seamen; and whether he will cause a full inquiry to be made in this matter with a view to taking proceedings against the owner and master under Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act for sending and taking the vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition in consequence of the helpless state of the crew through drink.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) My attention has been called to a newspaper report of this case. I am informed that the crew were sober when they signed articles, but that some of them appeared to be under the influence of drink when the vessel sailed. I am also informed that one of the owners was on board and sailed with the ship, and that the seamen and firemen were engaged at £4 per month, the current rate at the port being £4 10s., but the owners state that it is not the fact that they refused to pay the recognised port wages. I understand that the men were engaged through the Shipping Federation. Of twenty-three hands all told, twelve were engaged on board the ship, eight members of the crew were foreigners, and five did not produce discharge certificates; but seven of the crew have again sailed in the ship, which seems to show that the master was satisfied as to their qualifications. I will take legal advice and consider whether the case is, or is not one, for action under Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

    Construction of a Railway Station at Meenbanid.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received a petition from a number of inhabitants of the district urging the construction of a station at Meenbanid, on the Burtonport-Letterkenny Line; whether he is aware that the working company have agreed to maintain the station and furnish half the cost of construction, provided that the Treasury will agree to contribute the other half out of their portion of the receipts of the line; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Answer to the first two parts of the Question is in the affirmative. I have given this matter my careful consideration, but I regret that I do not see any sufficient reason for a contribution from public funds. No doubt the hon. Member recollects the reply which was given to a similar Question of his addressed to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury on the 16th March, 1906.

    Date of Indian Budget Debate.
    MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now state when the Indian Budget-will be taken.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) It is hoped that the Indian Budget will be taken about 22nd July, but I fear it is impossible at present definitely to fix a date.

    Irish Firms and Government Contracts.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the names of the Irish firms which secured the contracts for headdresses £1,000, mail bags £1,200, and cycle parts £1,500, spent in Ireland during 1907–8.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am sorry to find that I was in error in telling the hon. Member that £1,000 was spent in Ireland on head-dresses in 1907–8. The fact is that only one Irish firm responded to the invitation to tender and their tender was received too late.

    1445
    The head-dresses were supplied from England. The mail-bags were made by prison labour and the £1,200 paid to the Irish Prisons Board. The £1,500 for bicycle parts, etc., was spent locally in small sums by postmasters and engineers.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Irish manufacturers are practically precluded from tendering for Post Office stores by reason of the fact that they are obliged to send such stores to London for inspection, thus necessitating the employment of agents to look after there interests; and whether, in view of public opinion in Ireland, he will state what steps he proposes to take.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I stated on 9th August last, in reply to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, that, as regards certain stores, tenders were for delivery in Dublin. I am not aware of any necessity for the employment of agents even when Irish manufacturers deliver goods in London. The supply of linen linings for uniforms, for instance, is practically monopolised by firms in Ireland, but no difficulty rendering the employment of a London agent necessary has ever arisen.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to act on the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee that increased powers should be delegated to the Dublin Office; and, if so, whether he will include in such powers the right to arrange for contracts for Irish stores without the intervention of London officials, subject to the restriction that the cost must not be greater than that of the same articles in England.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question of delegation of powers to the local secretaries in Scotland and Ireland and to the surveyors and postmasters is under the consideration of a Departmental Committee. I should not, in any case, be willing to divest myself of the personal control which I exercise over the conditions and allocation of the more important store contracts.

    Tea Imports.
    MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the quantities of tea imported into the United Kingdom during the past financial year from British possessions and Foreign countries respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The quantities of tea imported into the United Kingdom during the past financial year from British Possessions and Foreign countries respectively were as follows:—

    Lbs.

    —

    British Possessions

    277,860,575

    Foreign countries

    39,204,745

    Total

    317,065,320

    Pensions of Naval Officers' Stewards and Cooks.
    MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that officers' stewards and cooks have been granted the substantive rank of chief and petty officers, their Lordships have now under consideration the granting to this class of similar pensions to those of other chief and petty officers.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) This matter was fully considered at the time when the substantive rank was granted, and the Board of Admiralty did not feel themselves justified in incurring the heavy cost the proposal would entail.

    Farmers' Co-operative Societies.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how much was spent in 1907 by the Government in Ireland in furthering the principle of co-operation among farmers; how many farmers' co-operative societies now exist there; and whether they are on the increase.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The expenditure of the Department in the calender year, 1907, in connection with the purpose referred to, was £4,313 7s. 7d. This sum was paid to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and included

    1447
    the special expenses of organising agricultural credit societies formed in the western districts of Ireland to borrow moneys for the purchase of seeds. The grants which the Department have made for some years past to the Organisation Society will cease at the close of the present year. The Irish Agricultural Organisation Society have informed the Department that the number of co-operative societies of all kinds in existence in Ireland on 1st January last was 925; that 28 new societies were formed during the first six months of this year as compared with 20 in the corresponding period of 1907; and that the movement is growing. The Department are not in a position to say what is the actual number of the co-operative societies above referred to at present in effective operation.

    Towns Adopting The Notification of Births Act.
    MR. SHERWELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number and names of the towns that have adopted the Notification of Births Act.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Act has been adopted by the councils of 107 boroughs and urban districts, by 16 Metropolitan borough councils, and by the Common Council of the City of London. A list of these councils is appende—

    Town and other Urban District Councils.

    Accrington.

    Burnley.

    Acton.

    Burslem.

    Ashton-in-Maker-field.

    Bushey.

    Bury.

    Aston Manor.

    Cambridge.

    Atherton.

    Cardiff.

    Baldock.

    Chepping

    Barry.

    Wycombe.

    Bath.

    Cheshunt.

    Batley.

    Chesterfield.

    Barking Town.

    Chiswick.

    Beckenham.

    Colne.

    Birmingham.

    Crompton.

    Bishop Auckland

    Croydon.

    Blackburn.

    Darwen.

    Blackpool.

    Derby.

    Bolton.

    Dewsbury.

    Bootle.

    Dudley.

    Bradford (Yorks).

    Eastbourne.

    Bromley.

    East Retford.

    City of London.

      Appointment of Pension Officers.
      MR. BROOKE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the appointment of pension officers is to be made solely and

      1449
      entirely out of the ranks of existing Excise officers.
      (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Yes, that is the intention.

      Old-Age Pensions and Exemption from Paying Rates.
      MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person who has been exempted from paying his rates by the local authority will be considered as having been in receipt of Poor Law relief; and whether a person under such circumstances would be disqualified from receiving an old-age pension as provided by the Pension Bill.
      (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It has been decided that an excusal from payment of the poor rate on the ground of poverty is not a disqualification for registration as Parliamentary elector by reason of amounting to the receipt of relief. The excusal from payment of rates on the ground of poverty would not disqualify the person excused for the receipt of an old-age pension.

      Arrest of Mr. J. Magner at Kildorrery.
      MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the arrest by Sergeant Shelley, Royal Irish Constabulary, of Mr. Jeremiah Magner at the fair of Kildorrery, County Cork, on the 29th ultimo, on the charge of interfering with the sale of ponies; whether he is aware that, on being taken to the police barracks, Mr. Magner was at once released, the charge against him being devoid of foundation; and whether Sergeant Shelley will be directed to exercise reasonable care and discretion in future before subjecting a respectable man to the indignity of being arrested and taken through a public thoroughfare upon a groundless accusation.
      (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On the occasion in question a complaint was made to Sergeant Shelley that a man was kicking ponies which were for sale in the fair. The sergeant went to the spot and saw a man still kicking the animals. On
      1450
      being remonstrated with the man again kicked one of the ponies, whereupon the sergeant demanded his name and address with the object of summoning him for cruelty. The man gave a name which the sergeant believed to be false, and he thereupon took him to the police station where his correct name was ascertained to be Jeremiah Magner. He has since been summoned for cruelty to animals, and the case is pending. Sergeant Shelley's action in the matter was quite regular.

      Distribution of the Gore Booth Estate.
      MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on the estate of Sir Joslyn Gore Booth, Ballintullie, County Sligo, purchased their holdings at the rate of twenty-four and-a-half years' purchase; and whether it was on the understanding, at the time of sale, that all waste and untenanted lands on the estate would be divided among the holders of uneconomic holdings, and that the landlord was to keep the river-bed cleaned to prevent the flooding of the lands.
      (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The advances applied for in the purchase agreements signed by the second-term and first-term tenants represented 24·2 and 22·4 years purchase, respectively of the judicial rents. No reference is made in the agreements to the other matters referred to in the Question, but the Estates Commissioners will have these matters inquired into when the estate is being dealt with.

      Evicted Tenants—Application of Peter Kelly.
      MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Peter Kelly, of Mullaghgarriff, Dromahair, an evicted tenant on the West estate, County Leitrim, for reinstatement; and whether the Commission will make inquiries into his claim with a view of having him reinstated.
      (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not received an application from Peter Kelly.

      Forestalling of Irish Fairs.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Privy Council have, on the advice of the Law Officers, disallowed a bye-law of the King's County, passed to prevent the destruction of the Banagher great fair by preventing the same being forestalled by street-selling antecedent to the fair; is he aware that the great horse fair of Cahirmee, County Cork, is being similarly destroyed by forestalling, and that the decrees of the Chancery Division are rendered worthless by the refusal of the police to prevent animals being exhibited and sold on the streets in anticipation of the fair; will he inquire whether horse-buyers from all parts of Europe are disappointed and the sellers of animals prejudiced by the uncertainty and irregularity created by this system of forestalling, which makes it impossible for horse-buyers to know where and when a fair begins; and whether, as the King's County Council was the first to attempt a practical remedy for the evil, the Government will either not disallow such byelaws or will order the police to prevent the forestalling of fairs by preventing the public streets and roads being used for days and nights anterior to the advertised fair day, whereby sellers of horses are often defrauded of the true market rates and buyers forced to resort to irregular dealings in anticipation of the true fair.
      (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The proposed bye-law in question prohibited the sale or exposure for sale of cattle and other live stock in any public place in King's County on any day except the duly appointed fair or market day. The proposed bye-law was disallowed by the Privy Council, on the advice of the Law Officers, as being beyond the powers of the county council under the Acts in pursuance of which the bye-law was proposed to be made. The police cannot interfere in the matter unless an obstruction of the thoroughfare takes place, and I am informed that no such obstruction has occurred calling for the interference of the police in the case of either Banagher or Cahirmee. It is open to the owners of the fairs to take legal proceedings for the protection of their interests, but such
      1452
      interests cannot properly be protected by means of bye-laws for good rule and Government.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      H.M.S. "Blake"—Labourers on Joiners' Work.
      MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that labourers in the Naval Store in Chatham Dockyard are being employed in making and fitting racks, bins, shelves, etc., for store-rooms on H.M.S. "Blake"; that this is joiners' work and is usually done by joiners, at joiners' rates of pay, under the constructive manager; that, when complaint was made of a similar character as regards work on H.M.S. "Blenheim," the Admiral Superintendent promised to stop any further joiners' work being done by labourers; and whether he will take action to put a stop to this practice.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA,): I am unable to trace any complaint such as the hon. Member speaks of, with regard to H.M.S. "Blenheim." The work of preparing the racks for stowage on board H.M.S. "Blake" was carried out by the storehouse staff, and they were afterwards taken on board in parts and fitted in place by the ship's staff under the supervision of the carpenter of the vessel. I am making further inquiries into the whole matter.

      Torpedo Boats in the Hamble River.
      MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided to moor twenty-five torpedo-boat destroyers in Hamble River; whether any destroyers have been sent up that river for experimental purposes; and how many of those destroyers ran aground.
      I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is possible for torpedo-boat destroyers to navigate the Hamble River at a speed of less than eight knots; whether vessels proceeding at that speed create a dangerous swell in

      1453
      such narrow waters; and whether any accidents have been caused thereby to vessels afloat or ashore in the Hamble River.
      I beg further to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the proposed mooring of twenty-five torpedo-boat destroyers in Hamble River will so narrow the navigable channel as to render it impossible for any sailing vessel to beat up or down the river, and that in consequence of that fact, and of the dangerous swell caused by torpedo-boat destroyers using the river at high speeds, a large number of yachts and other vessels are leaving the river; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction and distress thereby created among the waterside population, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
      MR. MCKENNA: Destroyers have been sent up the Hamble River on two or three occasions and none ran aground. They can navigate the river at a speed of less than eight knots, but eight knots is preferable; at the latter speed they do not create a dangerous swell and no accidents to vessels afloat or ashore have so far as is known been caused thereby. The destroyers, if moored in the Hamble River, would to a certain extent narrow the channel, but not render it impossible for sailing vessels to beat up or down the river. No destroyers have used the river at high speeds, and there has been no dangerous swell such as suggested. No report has been received that vessels are leaving the Hamble River. The general question of mooring destroyers in the Hamble River is still engaging attention.
      MR. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an accident was lately caused to a yacht which was on the stocks waiting to be floated off, and which was considerably damaged by the swell caused by one of the passing torpedo boats?
      MR. MCKENNA: The accident has not been reported to the Admiralty, but I will inquire.
      MR. ARTHUR LEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman
      1454
      received a memorial from inhabitants on both banks of the river with regard to the possible disturbance of the trade, and will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point in mind in considering the general question?
      MR. MCKENNA: Yes, it will be taken into full consideration.
      MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider a claim for compensation from the owner of the yacht I have referred to?
      MR. MCKENNA: Without some knowledge of the accident I cannot say.
      MR. GRETTON: Will the interests of the lobster fishery also be borne in mind?
      MR. MCKENNA: Yes, that will be taken into account.
      SIR ROBERT HOBART: Is there not ample accommodation in Southampton water outside the Hamble River for all classes of torpedo boats and destroyers without interfering with the navigation of the river?
      MR. MCKENNA: None of these facts will be overlooked by the Admiralty.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman compensate the poor fishermen for any damage done to their boats?
      MR. MCKENNA: No damage has occurred.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: If any does occur then?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Army Statistics.
      CAPTAIN KINCAID-SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the numerical strength of the Yeomanry, Volunteer Artillery, and Volunteer Infantry, respectively, on 1st, January, 1907, and 1st January

      1455
      1908, and the numerical strength of the Territorial Cavalry, Territorial Artillery and Territorial Infantry on 1st July, 1908, stating in each case what is the number of recruits who have joined since 1st January, 1908; and what is the number of Volunteers who have transferred to the Territorial Force.

      Non-Commissioned Officers and Men.

      Yeomanry and Volunteers including Hon. Artillery Company.

      Territorial Force. 1st July, 1908 Provisional Figures.

      Recruits 1st January, 1908 to 30th June, 1908, Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Territorial and Territorial Force (Provisional Figures.)

      Transfers from Yeomanry and Volunteers, 1st April, 1908, to 30th June, 1908 Provisional Figures.*

      1st Jan. 1907.

      1st Jan. 1908.

      Yeomanry

      24,115

      24,189

      20,622

      3,781

      19,727

      Artillery

      38,282

      37,314

      24,326

      6,562

      18,609

      Infantry

      178,128

      171,901

      111,704

      25,636

      93,375

      *These numbers are not quite complete as some men who have joined new units are not shown as "struck off to the Territorial Force" on the return of their old unit.

      Volunteer Long-Service Medal.
      MR. MOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Army Order, by which Volunteers of over sixteen years service who have transferred to the Territorial Force will not receive the Volunteer long-service medal, is causing dissatisfaction to many Volunteers who have transferred and is deterring others from transferring; and whether he can see his way to so modify the Order as to permit Volunteers of more than sixteen years service to obtain the Volunteer long service medal, to which they have been looking forward during many years.
      MR. HALDANE: As I informed the House yesterday, it has been decided that Volunteers of sixteen years service who have joined the Territorial Force may have the option of being considered either for the long service medal or the new efficiency medal.
      THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The figures, which are too many to read out, will be printed with the Votes and Proceedings.
      Appended to are the figures referred to—

      The West Riding and the Territorial Army.
      MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what percentage of men required have at present joined the Territorial Army in the West Riding Division.
      MR. HALDANE: 9542, have joined out of an establishment of 15,860, i.e., 60 per cent.

      Army Remounts.
      MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can yet make any announcement as to the proposals of the Government for meeting the deficiency in remounts for the Army.
      MR. HALDANE: I am not yet in a position to add anything to my previous Answers on this question.

      Depot Sergeant-Majors.
      MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that depot sergeant-majors are now done away with, and that in consequence extra work devolves upon the sergeant-majors of Special Reserve battalions, he will consider the advisability of placing them on the some footing as regards pay and pension as sergeant-majors in line battalions.
      MR. HALDANE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer which I gave on 24th March to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire. The matter has been fully considered, and it has been decided not to give sergeant-majors of Reserve battalions more than was given to Militia sergeant-majors, as their work will not be so onerous as that of sergeant-majors of Line battalions.

      Indian Postal Rates.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the present rates for the inland parcel post in India; and whether, in view of the surplus revenue derived from this source, it is proposed to make any reduction thereon.
      THEUNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): Up to October, 1907, the rate was 2d. for ¾ lb., 4d. for 1 lb., 6d. for 2 lbs., and so on up to 2s. for 11 lbs. with special rates for heavier parcels; but the rate for light parcels has now been reduced to 2d. for 1 lb., 4d. for 2 lbs., and so on up to 1s. 1Od. for 11 lbs. It is not at present proposed to make a further reduction.

      Thefts in the Indian Postal Service.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in order to improve the service of the Indian Post Office and put an end to the numerous petty thefts constantly taking place therein, it is proposed to increase the rates of pay now given to postal servants and thus induce a better class of workers to enter the service.
      MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware that petty thefts are constantly taking place. The information at my disposal points to the conclusion that the number of offences by postal servants is extremely small, and I have no reason to doubt that they discharge their duties satisfactorily. Increases of pay have recently been granted in many cases, but the ground has, as a rule, been heavier work, greater responsibility, and higher cost of living.

      Indian Post Office Registration Fee.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to reduce the registration fee from 2d. per article now charged by the Indian Post Office to 1d.
      MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has not received any proposal from the Government of India on the subject.

      South African Police.
      CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Member of the South African Police has been compelled to resign for not being qualified in the Dutch language; whether all Dutchmen in that force must be able to read and write; and what percentage of Dutch are included in the force up to and including 1st July of this year.
      THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I have no information which will enable me to give the hon. and gallant Member the detailed answer he requires and as regards the first paragraph of the Question I am not aware that any rule has been made. It may be expedient to expect policemen to have some knowledge of the language spoken by the people of the locality.
      CAPTAIN FABER: Would the police in different parts of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland be expected to have a knowledge of Gaelic or Celtic as the case may be?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Cairo Drainage Schemes.
      MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiry as to the different schemes of drainage for Cairo which the authorities had under consideration before deciding on the scheme now on foot, and as to whether any, and what, committee of sanitary officers inquired into the matter; and whether he will advise that opportunity be given for a preliminary public discussion of a scheme involving the expenditure of £2,000,000.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I am asking the British Representative at Cairo to send a Report on this question, as to the schemes considered and the decision arrived at; but I do not see that a public discussion of rival schemes is the best method of arriving at a sound conclusion on a subject which must in the main be one to be decided by expert advice.

      Egyptian Administrators on Leave.
      MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many, and which, ministers, under-secretaries, and advisers of the Egyptian Government are now absent from Egypt on leave.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject; the arrangement at any given moment as to the leave of Egyptian officials is not one in which His Majesty's Government could reasonably interfere.

      Cairo Newspaper Prosecutions.
      MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the exact steps which have been taken to bring to justice the editor of the Cairo newspaper which recently published the false statement that seventy Soudanese, on account of the murder of Mr. Scott-Moncrieff, had been placed in chains and murdered when in prison by the British authorities n the Soudan.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not yet received any Report of the exact
      1460
      steps to be taken, but I understand that the editor will be prosecuted before the native tribunal for having contravened the penal code.

      Persia.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish Papers on the affairs of Persia; and whether he will cause to be included in such Papers a Memorandum of the exchange of views which took place at the recent meeting at Reval and any communications addressed by the Shah of Persia to His Majesty the King in reference to recent events in Teheran. Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is true that the British Legation was again beset by Persian troops the day before yesterday?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: It is not intended to publish Papers if, as I hope, the question of the refugees in the British Legation is satisfactorily settled.
      MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot make any further announcement, except that we have protested against the proceedings of the troops concerning the Legation. I hope that the matter will be satisfactorily adjusted, but it is not yet concluded.
      MR. LYNCH: Are we to understand that no Papers on Persia are to be published before the Foreign Office Vote is debated?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot promise Papers, but when the discussion takes place, I shall be prepared to make a statement with regard to the position of the Government.

      Foreign Motor Speed Regulations.
      MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of future legislation with reference to motor traffic, he will obtain and circulate as a Parliamentary Paper Reports from America, France, Germany, Austria,

      1461
      and Italy, shortly summarising the laws as regards speed on town and country roads; and whether in any of the said countries there is any examination of drivers in mechanics or road knowledge.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: Full information on this subject will be found in Annex I. to the Report on the Law and Practice as to Motor Cars in the Principal Foreign Countries, issued by the Royal Commission on Motor Cars at the end of 1906, to which I must refer the hon. Member. If more recent information is required, I will endeavour to obtain it.

      Cattle Plague in Egypt.
      DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the latest Returns as to the recrudescence of cattle plague in Upper and Lower Egypt; and what remedial measures are being taken.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: According to the latest Return, cattle disease existed at Alexandria and at twelve other places in the Consular District of Cairo. The question of what remedial measures are being taken is one which concerns the internal administration of Egypt, and I have no information on the subject.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman any returns as to the recrudescence of cattle-driving in Ireland and what remedial measures it is proposed to apply?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Turkey and Egypt.
      DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish authorities are fortifying the town of Awga, between Bir Saba and the Egyptian frontier, as a counter-move to the fortification of Kassima and Rafakh by the Egyptian Government last year.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: The Turks are reported to be building quarters, not fortifications, at Awga. There are
      1462
      police posts at Kassima and Rafakh, but no fortifications.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are these quarters not fortified?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I have given all the information I have and can answer no further Question without notice.

      Closing of Egyptian Drinking Establishments.
      DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any compensation was paid to owners in the case of closing 113 establishments for the sale of intoxicating drink belonging to Egyptians, and fifty-four belonging to foreigners in Egypt during the year 1907; and whether any time limit was given.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the points raised by the hon. Member; but I will, if he desires it, address an inquiry on the subject to His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt.

      Egyptian National University.
      DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House, with regard to the proposed national University for Egypt, what sum of money has been subscribed; whether any Egyptian students have been sent to Europe to qualify as professors, and in what subjects; whether the Egyptian Government is giving any grant of money and exercising any authority; and whether the present schools of law, medicine, agriculture, and engineering, etc., will be included.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I returned on 4th June to a Question asked on the subject by the hon. Member for East Tyrone. I have no later information; as soon as any is forthcoming I shall be glad to make it known.

      Income-Tax Appeals.
      SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware

      1463
      that it is the practice of many boards of Income-Tax Commissioners, on the hearing of appeals, to require the withdrawal of the appellant after making his statement, and in his absence to hear statements and arguments from the surveyor which are not necessarily either impartial or true; whether this practice is of general adoption or not; whether it has the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the Inland Revenue Commissioners or any other controlling authority; and whether there is any intention of abolishing this practice, which is opposed to the invariable policy of British judicial tribunals.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am aware that it is the practice of many district boards of Tax Commissioners, after eliciting all the facts of the case and hearing all the arguments on any points of law on the part of the Crown and of the appellant to deliberate among themselves before arriving at a decision. Even though it were the practice of any Commissioners to invite, in the appellant's absence, statements and arguments from the surveyor, this does not afford any ground for the reflection contained in the Question upon the fairness or veracity of an honourable body of servants of the Crown.

      Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any allowance or abatement will be made to those people in Ireland who may desire to try the experiment of growing tobacco under the Irish Tobacco Act of last year.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: After consulting my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, etc., I have arranged that, instead of the rebate which is allowed at present, a sum of £6,000 shall be placed at the disposal of the Department in the next financial year and subsequently up to 1913 for the encouragement of the tobacco industry in Ireland.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would not mete out the same treatment to Scotland.
      MR. CARLILEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would likewise take steps to promote the cultivation of tobacco in England also.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDinquired whether it was not the fact that the present position of the tobacco industry in Ireland was the result of six or seven years laborious experiment which showed that Ireland was especially suitable for the cultivation of tobacco.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so. If similar representations are made to me in regard to Scotland, England, or Wales, I shall be glad to consider them.

      Betting Men and In come-Tax.
      MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice for the Commissioners of income-tax to charge income-tax upon the profits of bookmakers and other betting men; and, if so, whether, having regard to the declared policy of His Majesty's Government not to raise any revenue from such sources, he will take the necessary steps, by regulation or otherwise, to exclude such incomes from the purview of the Commissioners in future.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was decided by the Courts in the case of Partridge v. Mallandaine (L.R. 18, Q.B.D., 276) that "a person who attends races and systematically bets" is liable to assessment to income-tax in respect of the profits he derives there from; and this decision is acted upon in practice by District Commissioners of Taxes. I do not propose to introduce legislation with the object of withdrawing these profits from assessment to income-tax.
      MR. CLYNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman information which shows that bookmakers and other betting men accurately divulge the extent of their profits?
      Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not sure whether they would not be the exception.
      CAPTAIN FABER: Are there any other betting men who make profits besides bookmakers?

      Insurance Agents and Suicide.
      MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of insurance agents that have committed suicide during the past five years.
      THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL): The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, and regrets that it would be impracticable to attempt to obtain it.

      Public Rights on the Upper Thames.
      MR. MORRELLI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ho is aware that as the law now stands with regard to the Upper Thames there is no express duty laid upon the Conservators to preserve the river and its banks as a place of public recreation, and that with the decay of the river as a means of commercial traffic many ancient rights of the public have been lost; that within recent years public access to the river from places on its banks has not been maintained; that rights of way along portions of the towpath have been disputed; that public crossings of the river have been closed, and that in every case the Conservators, when appealed to, have stated that they are unable to intervene; that great loss has been caused to the inhabitants of many riverside parishes through excessive floods, and that the Conservators in their recent Reports, while recording their attempts to deal with this evil, state that they are not a flood authority or charged with the duties of carrying out measures of flood relief; that the Conservators hold their meetings in private; that they are not responsible to any Government department and that there is no appeal from their decision; and whether, in view of these facts, the Government will again consider the advisability of themselves introducing legislation to extend the duties of the new Conservancy Board, and, where necessary, to increase their powers, so
      1466
      that the interests of the public in the Upper Thames, and of the population along its banks, may be adequately protected.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): As I have already informed my hon. Friend I am taking steps to ensure that the new authority for the Upper Thames shall include representatives of those who use the river, and who will be interested in preserving and extending public rights. I have no doubt that the authority will consider whether they have sufficient powers for the preservation of the amenities of the river and for the prevention of floods. I fully recognise the importance of maintaining the rights of the public, and the interests of the riparian population, but as I have already stated, I am advised that these matters so far as they involve increasing the powers and duties of the Conservators cannot be dealt with in the Bill now before Parliament. Before considering the question of introducing any further legislation on behalf of the Government, it is necessary to await the constitution of the new authority and to give them an opportunity to consider what further powers, if any, they desire to obtain.
      MR. MYER: Will the action of the Government be retrospective?
      [No Answer was returned.]
      MR. MORRELL: Is it the intention of the Government to extend the duties of the Conservancy as well as its powers? And is there any precedent for a new authority applying to Parliament itself to have more extended duties placed on it?
      MR. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that Question.

      Motor Traffic and Highway Maintenances.
      SIR F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the increased expenditure in respect of highways which local authorities find necessary to meet the ever-increasing volume of heavy motor traffic;

      1467
      whether the Government intend to introduce legislation for the regulation of such traffic, and for some adequate contribution of local authorities in aid of the maintenance of the highway.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,: There has been a growth in respect of highway expenditure in recent years, but I cannot say how far this is due to heavy motor ear traffic. No promise can be given to introduce legislation with regard to such traffic during the present session. As respects a contribution towards the cost of highway maintenance I would refer to the Answer given on 1st April last by the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Wexford. My right hon. friend then stated that the matter could not properly be dealt with except in connection with the relations between the Exchequer and local taxation generally, a subject which was receiving the consideration of the Government.

      Audit of Public Accounts.
      MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether public auditors have been instructed to call for the production of all tenders when auditing the accounts of public bodies, and if it is found that the lowest tender has not been accepted to make a surcharge; if so, will he consider the advisability of withdrawing or modifying such instruction so that fair contract clauses may not be rendered inoperative.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: The Local Government Board have not issued any instructions to the district auditors to the effect referred to in the Question.

      Motor Traffic in London.
      MR. MARKHAM: On behalf of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any application has been received by the Local Government Board from any local authority in London to
      1468
      reduce the speed of motor cars in the public streets.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: Representations have recently reached me from seven Metropolitan borough councils in favour of a reduced speed limit for motor vehicles in London. An application to the Local Government Board under Section 9 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, for a reduction of speed-limits must in London be made by the Common Council as regard the City, and by the County Council as regards the rest of London. The only formal application under the section for a reduced speed-limit in London was made by the Common Council in 1904. The proposal was, at the suggestion of the Board, allowed to stand over for twelve months, and it has not been renewed. No application has been made by the County Council.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any of the seven applications were sent in consequence of the speed of the hon. Member's own motor car for which he was fined?
      MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot say; and it would not have influenced me in the least.
      MR. H. C. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speed of motor omnibuses in some of the poorer and more crowded parts of London is a source of very great terror to the people, and especially to the children? Can he promise to bring in some legislation to allay that terror?
      MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the matter, and am glad to think that the Home Secretary and myself have done our best to render the condition of the London streets more safe than they were. I am happy to be able to say that a considerable improvement has taken place. While it is reported that in the first quarter of 1907 proceedings were taken against 418 motor vehicles, in the first quarter of the present year the number of prosecutions and convictions was 1,133.

      Erith Unemployed Grants.
      MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local

      1469
      Government Board whether he is aware that the Erith Urban Council, which received sanction from his Department to raise a loan of £3,000 in order that work might be found for the unemployed in the widening of the Lower Abbey Road, has stopped the work, although the local distress committee has a balance in hand of £600 remaining from the grant of £1,252 received from the Local Government Board; and whether, in view of the distress prevailing in the district through lack of employment, he proposes to take any, and what, action in the matter.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has already been drawn to the circumstances of the case referred to in the Question, and I am in communication with the distress committee and the urban district council on the subject.
      MR. ROWLANDSasked as to the exact legal position of the urban council in suspending the works.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: I have been in communication with the local authority. So far as I am concerned, my power is very limited, but I sincerely trust the local authority will get out of the difficulty as soon as possible.
      MR. ROWLANDS: But is there no power to insist on their spending the balance of the grant?
      MR. JOHN BURNS: The grant to the distress committee was conditional on the authority adding to it. That authority without consulting the Local Government Board have suspended the work. If I can see my way out of the difficulty to secure that the money is spent I shall adopt the course.

      Post Office Savings Bank.
      MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the average sum per annum deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank per head of depositors for the last five years, and also the number of depositors each year for the last five years.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: The number of accounts open at the
      1470
      end of each year is given in Appendix J. to the Postmaster-General's Report. It is not possible, without great labour and expense, to say in how many of these accounts deposits were actually made in each year. The average sum deposited per open account was as follows in each of the last five years—

      £

      s.

      d.

      1903

      4

      6

      10

      1904

      4

      3

      11

      1905

      4

      4

      10

      1906

      4

      5

      1

      1907

      4

      2

      8

      Half-Timers.
      MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the terms of reference for the proposed Committee of inquiry respecting the question of half-timers, and announce the object of the Committee and the extent to which organisations of workers would be represented thereon; whether he is aware of the increase of voluntary effort designed to give children of the poorer classes a few days' summer rest in the country or at the seaside; and whether he can consider the necessity of extending Government help to private effort, and make it more adequate for the children's needs.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: I hope to be in a position to announce the terms of reference and the personnel of the Committee in the course of a few days. At present I can only say that representatives of the operatives will be included. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am aware that efforts in the direction indicated are being made by individuals and societies; but while sympathising entirely with such enterprises I regret I can hold out no hope of financial assistance from the Government, in view of the numerous calls upon the Exchequer. I may say, however, that experiments are being made by certain local authorities, with the approval and under the supervision of the Board, in the direction of establishing open-air schools.
      MR. CLYNES: Is it intended to place on the Committee a representative of the Half-Timers' Council?
      MR. RUNCIMAN: I am now considering the constitution of the Committee and if the hon. Member has any representations to make to me I will consider them.
      AN HON. MEMBER: And will he also consider the desirability of having schools erected on sites in healthy districts?
      MR. RUNCIMAN: That hardly arises out of the question but it is a very good thing to aim at.

      Small Holdings and Market Gardeners' Compensation Act.
      MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether a county council in letting land for small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, can introduce a proviso that the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act shall not apply.
      THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. STRACHEY,: Yes, but there is an appeal to the Board of Agriculture.

      Fruit Trees for Small Holdings.
      MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether a county council can, under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, supply fruit trees as part of the equipment for small holdings.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, Sir.

      Small Holdings Act.
      MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, will apply to any small holdings provided by a county council under the operation of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, Sir.

      Dividing Societies.
      VISCOUNT MORPETH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the reasons that have caused the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies to insist on a valuation in the case of dividing societies, thus reversing what has been the practice in the past.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,: The noble Lord is mistaken in thinking that valuation in the case of dividing societies is insisted upon. He no doubt has in mind the fee of £2 covering a quinquennial period amounting to 8s. per annum, which is now charged to these societies for exemption from quinquennial valuation and which is intended to cover the time and trouble involved in examining the claims of societies to such exemption.
      VISCOUNT MORPETH: Is it not the case that in the past dividing societies have been exempted from valuation merely on application, and that the fee of £2 now imposed is found by them to be very onerous and a source of great difficulty in applying for exemption?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: I do not think so. The sum of 8s. cannot be considered a very onerous charge.
      VISCOUNT MORPETH: Has it not been represented to the hon. Gentleman by persons who are interested that it is in fact a very heavy burden upon them?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. The only information I have was contained in a letter written to the Treasury a year ago.

      Irish Law Court Funds.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can say what proportion of the funds under the control of the different Irish Courts have been invested by the authorities of the Courts; whether the accruing dividends on investments are re-invested or are allowed to accumulate; and what proportion is allowed to accumulate.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,: I am informed that it is not practicable to differentiate between the funds in the hands of the Accountant-General which were already invested at at the time of their transfer into Court, and those which were invested under Orders of the Court subsequent to their transfer into Court. Unless otherwise directed, cash lodgments of £50 and upwards in the Chancery Division are, after the expiration of six months from the date of lodgment, invested in New Consols without order or request. Dividends are re-invested as follows: (1) In the case of funds lodged under any of the Trustee Acts, when the amount of the dividends available reaches the sum of £10; (2) in cases in which there is an order to invest, when the amount of such dividends reaches £20; and (3) in all other cases when the amount reaches £50.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state the total value of cash and securities held, or banked by, or in the names of the Chancery and Common Law Divisions, land judges, and suitors' cash; how much of this total represents capital and how much represents dividends; how much of this total has been dormant for fifteen years or more; and whether the dormant total is regarded as the unclaimed total.
      MR. CHERRY: The totals of the liabilities and of the assets in respect of the cash and securities constituting the funds of suitors in the Supreme Court in Ireland, as they stood on 30th September last, are set out in the account of the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court which has been published in a Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated 30th January last. (Parliamentary Paper No. 22 of the present session). It would be impossible in most cases to state how much of these funds represents dividends and how much principal, as the dividends become merged in the principal, on investment, and when each subsequent sale or transfer of any portion of the fund has taken place such sale or transfer has been made out of the accumulated fund as it stood at the time being. The amount of the funds standing
      1474
      to the credit of the dormant accounts on 30th September last, as undealt with during the previous fifteen years, was; Cash, £174,694 11s. 9d.; New Consols, £204,790 17s. 11d. Other than these there are no unclaimed totals; and in respect of these totals claims for principal and interest are being frequently made and sustained, and when sustained such portion of the funds as may be required to meet each claim is paid out.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can say if the Court of Chancery in Ireland holds any boxes of plate or valuables; and, if so, how many, and how long they have been in the possession of the Court.
      MR. CHERRY: I am informed that there are thirty-eight boxes of plate or other valuables which have been lodged in Court, and stand to the credit of the accounts to which they belong. They have been for the most part lodged in minor and lunacy cases, and the accounts to which they stand are current and according to the circumstances of each case will be dealt with, together with the funds to the same credit, when the proper time arrives.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if some of these boxes were lodged as far back as the time of James II.?
      MR. CHERRY: If so, the accounts would, I should think, be dormant by this time.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Are they not all unclaimed?
      MR. CHERRY: No, the owners are known.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: But they have not claimed?
      MR. CHERRY: I gather not.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: And they have been there over 100 years.

      Irish Congested Districts Board.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

      1475
      of Ireland whether he can now make a full statement as to what has been done by the Congested Districts Board in the matter of stopping works; whether their action has been due to want of funds; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,: In the year ending 31st March last the Congested Districts Board expended about £97,000 upon the improvement of estates purchased by them. I indicated, in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 4th March last, that, owing to want of funds the operations of the Board in this direction would necessarily have to be restricted in the present financial year, the main reason for the lack of funds being that the Board's income from the resale of estates had fallen considerably short of their anticipations. For the current year the Congested Districts Board could provide for improvement works the sum of £33,000 only, and this after borrowing from the Board of Works to the full extent of their powers. Of this £33,000, the sum of £18,000 has been expended up to 30th June, and the remaining £15,000 will not, in the ordinary course, be available for some months. The Board have been gradually reducing the number of men employed on improvement works, and in the last two or three weeks upwards of 1,000 men have been disemployed, leaving about 150 men still at work. I fully recognise that the complete suspension of the Board's improvement works, from whatever cause it may have arisen, is undesirable, and I have been in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and the Treasury have agreed to make a loan to the Board within reasonable limits, in order that the Board may proceed with the works until they are again in funds. I am in communication with the Board as to the works which it is possible and desirable to carry on, and the amount of the loan which will be required for the purpose. It will, as I indicated on 4th March, be impossible to introduce legislation providing for an increase of the Board's statutory income apart from the legislation which must be adopted as a result of the Report of
      1476
      the Royal Commission on Congestion. The question of the legislation on that subject to be introduced in the coming autumn is at present engaging the consideration of the Government.
      MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a singularly favourable season for carrying on these works in Ireland—a season such as only occurs at intervals of two or three years?
      MR. BIRRELL: Yes, I will point that out in my report to the Treasury.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will any of the money go to Ulster?
      MR. BIRRELL: I do not know what the state of congestion is there.

      Canada and Irish Trade.
      MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to carry out the recommendations of the special trade commissioner to Canada and Newfoundland, and, in the event of a permanent appointment being made, will he secure that the officer is fully acquainted with Irish trade conditions, with a view to having the interests of Irish exporters properly attended to in these two countries; and whether, in particular, the co-operation of the Irish Industrial Development Associations and of the Department of Agriculture will be sought.
      MR. CHURCHILL: In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I may inform him that Mr. Richard Grigg has been appointed as His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in Canada. Mr. Grigg, as the hon. Member is aware, recently completed a commercial mission in Canada and Newfoundland for the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade on Commercial Intelligence. I have also appointed the following Gentlemen as local trade correspondents in Canada: Mr. W. J. Davidson, Vancouver; Mr. J. J. Shallcross, Victoria; Mr. J. Appleton, Winnipeg; Mr. W. E. Anderson, St. John, New Brunswick; Mr. G. B. Ramsey, Quebec; Mr. A. T. Weldon Halifax, Nova Scotia. It is possible

      1477
      that I shall make some further appointments of local correspondents in Canada. The local trade correspondent in Newfoundland is Mr. H. W. le Messurier. I shall be happy to consider any suggestions which the Department of Agriculture or the Irish Development Association may make with the object of rendering the services of the Trade Commissioner as useful as possible to Irish trade.

      Irish Butter in Scotland.
      MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that Section 1, subsection (3), of the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907, is not being carried into effect in Scotland; whether steps are being taken by the Local Government Board to carry out Section 2, subsection (1), of the same Act; and what action, if any, is being taken by the local authorities in Scotland to put subsection (2) of Section 1, in regard to powers of inspection, entry and sampling, into force.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To the first part of the hon. Member's Question the Answer is "Yes," and steps have and are being taken to give effect to the Act in Scotland. To the second, the Board of Agriculture are carrying out the subsection. To the third, the Board is inquiring what action is being taken.

      Irish Land Purchase Sinking Fund.
      MR. KAVANAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present amount of the Sinking Fund of the Irish Land Purchase Act, l903.
      MR. HOBHOUSE: The total accumulated Sinking Fund under the Irish Land Act, 1903, amounted on 31st May, 1908 (the latest date for which the figures are available), to £221,337, viz.—

      £

      In respect of advances

      155,835

      In respect of Excess Stock

      32,385

      In respect of Land Purchase Aid Fund

      33,117

      The Sinking Fund receipts in respect of the June Gale will increase the above
      1478
      total figure by £53,500, of which £46,000 will be for Advances, and £7,500 for Excess Stock.

      Licensing Leases and the Licensing Bill.
      MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to an example of a long lease of on-licensed premises granted by an educational institution with the sanction of the Board of Charity Commissioners; whether he is aware that under this lease, granted in 1897 for ninety-nine years, the lessee will remain liable for the remainder of the term of the lease to pay a rental of £600 a year, agreed to because the premises possessed a licence, although the licence will, under the provisions of the Licensing Bill, be terminated at the end of fourteen years; whether, if a re-grant of the licence be obtained at the end of the time-limit, monopoly value will have to be paid for the licence, despite that the lessee is already paying the full rental value of the premises as licensed premises under the lease; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any provision in the Licensing Bill to meet cases of this kind.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): My attention has been drawn to the lease in question. No doubt at the end of the time-limit monopoly value will have to be paid for the re-grant of the licence of the licensed premises which are included with certain other trade premises in the lease; but I am by no means satisfied that any special hardship will actually arise. A person who ten years ago took a lease which included licensed premises for a long term, such as ninety-nine years, obviously ought to have taken, and, in all probability did take, into consideration the possibility of changes being made during that time by further legislation in the conditions affecting the renewal of the licence.
      MR. YOUNGER: Would not the existing holder at the end of the time limit be in a more difficult position than any outsider who wanted a grant? Would he not be handicapped?
      MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that follows; nor is it the intention of the Government. It is a particular bargain in each particular case.
      MR. YOUNGER: But if the bargain is made and cannot be undone?
      MR. ASQUITH: If a man has made an improvident bargain, I do not think it is the business of the State to remedy that.

      Autumn Recess.
      MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to say on what date in the autumn this House will resume business after the summer recess.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of those Members of this House whose homes are at a distance, he can state on what day he proposes the House should rise for the autumn recess and on what day it should meet for the winter session.
      MR. ASQUITH: I hope to make a statement on Friday.

      Tobacco Growing in England and Wales.
      MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to promise for next year legislation permitting the cultivation of tobacco in England and Wales.
      MR. ASQUITH: I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter.

      The Wholesale Wine Trade.
      SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disturbing effect upon the wholesale wine trade of Clause 21 of the Licensing Bill, he can see his way to distinguish between the wholesale and retail sale, which are now equally authorised by a wine-dealer's licence, so that the holder of a wine-dealer's licence, who would exclude himself and could be excluded from retail sale, could be excluded from the operation of Clause 21.
      MR. ASQUITH: I have given very careful consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion, but its adoption would necessitate a complete revision of the present wine-dealers' and wine retailers' licences, and this would be outside the scope of the Licensing Bill now before Parliament. As it is the clear intention of the clause to confine the Justices' control to sale by retail, it is not, in my opinion, to be anticipated that they would decline to give a certificate in any case in which it is established that the trade to be carried on is to be of an exclusively wholesale character.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked on what day the Indian Budget would be taken.
    MR. ASQUITH: I think probably on the 22nd, but I cannot say definitely.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what was the business for Friday.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have already stated that we propose to take on Friday the usual annual Motion for suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule for the remainder of this part of the session. This will afford me an opportunity of making a more general statement as to the further course of business. After that is over, we intend, if necessary—but I hope some agreement may be arrived at in the interval which will make it unnecessary—to propose a Procedure Resolution for dealing with the remaining stages of the Irish Universities Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Should that happy augury prove to be well founded, what will be the second Order?
    MR. ASQUITH: Some of the smaller Bills. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When is it proposed to take the Finance Bill?
    MR. ASQUITH: I would rather not say at present when the remaining stages of the Finance Bill will be taken. I will answer on Thursday or the beginning of next week.

    SELECTION
    Ordered, That Mr. Munro Ferguson be discharged from the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That Mr. Pirie be added to the Committee.—(Sir William Brampton Gurdon.)

    COMMONS (REGULATION OF TOWYN TREWAN COMMON, ANGLESEY).
    Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence relative thereto, brought up, and read.
    Special Report brought up, and read.
    Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]

    NEW BILLS.
      LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADVERTISING) BILL.
      "To enable Local Authorities to advertise the attractions and advantages of their districts," presented by Sir Thomas Roe; supported by Mr. Godfrey Baring, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. William Lever, Mr. Nield, Sir Herbert Roberts, Mr. Luke White, Mr. Harmood-Banner, and Mr. Alfred Scott; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]
      PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWERS AND DRAINS) (No. 2) BILL.
      "To amend the Public Health Acts with respect to the combined drainage of two or more houses belonging to the same owner," presented by Mr. Vivian; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Walters, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Bowles, Sir William Collins, Mr. Waterlow, Sir William Bull, and Viscount Morpeth; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]

      NATIONAL MILITARY TRAINING (No. 2) BILL.
      CAPTAIN KINCAID-SMITH*CAPTAIN KINCAID-SMITH (Warwickshire, Stratford-on-Avon) moved for eave to bring in a Bill to amend the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and to establish national military training the Territorial Force. He said the
      1482
      measure was a sequel to the very valuable framework and structure created by the Secretary of State for War in his great Territorial Army organisation scheme, a scheme for which the right hon. Gentleman had not, in his opinion, received sufficient credit, although it would always remain connected with his name in the same way as the name of Mr. Cardwell was associated with the linked battalion system. In fact he believed that the scheme of the Secretary of State for War would survive and be a monument of his administration. The right hon. Gentle man was not to blame for failure to secure the full complement of men, nor must he be blamed if the units composing the Territorial Army were not really effective units. No one could make bricks with straw and no one could make the units of this Army real effective combatant units with the material at present available. The right hon. Gentleman had laid the foundation and built the framework of a great scheme. It was now for the country, by consenting to the system outlined in this Bill, to make the Territorial Army a really effective military machine, instead of a dangerous sham. He had tried to follow the many newspaper criticisms on this scheme. They all tended in one direction—the question asked was, would sufficient men be forthcoming? Never by any chance was the criticism directed to the point whether the units would be effective and competent. He had also asked many hon. Members of the House whether they supported the Bill. Some of them complained that it was an inappropriate and inopportune time for bringing it in, as they wished to give the scheme a chance and see what happened. He desired to be perfectly logical and consistent. They had a framework for the Territorial Army; let the country make it a really effective military machine, let them see that the units were effective and competent. That was the object of the Bill which he was asking leave to introduce. The first three clauses laid it down that any British subject domiciled in Great Britain—the Bill did not include Ireland— [Cries of "Why not?"]—should be liable at the age of eighteen to not more than forty-eight days military training, at the age of nineteen to not more than thirty days, and

      1483
      between the ages of twenty and thirty to not more than fourteen days every alternate year. They would not necessarily be called out for that period. The fifth clause laid it down that the period of training should be carried out in such manner as might be prescribed by Orders in Council; the sixth clause dealt with the preparation of the lists of persons liable to serve, and directed the County Associations to carry out the rules made by Order in Council. It also enabled any person to appeal against being included in the list. Clause 7 described who were to be exempted, the exemptions including persons who had served in the Army or Navy for a period of five years, those who had served in the police for ten years, those who followed the sea as a profession, sons of widows, persons who were habitual drunkards, criminals, or otherwise undesirable, Members of both Houses of Parliament, and persons medically unfit. Persons who were exempt, who also included aliens, would be required to pay a tax of one per cent. on all incomes over £40 a year. Clause 8 described others who might be exempted, such as schoolmasters and ministers of all denominations, members of the judicial bodies, doctors and attendants in hospitals, officers and non-coms. of the Army, Navy and Reserve forces, and prison officials. Clause 9 provided that persons unfit at eighteen years of age, but subsequently found to be fit, should be liable to serve. Clause 11 prescribed the penalties for failing to appear at the training. Clause 12 gave certain privileges to those who had served the full recruit stage and who could pass certain physical and educational tests. Clause 13 enabled those who had passed through the recruit stage to form a special Army reserve with the obligation to serve over seas in case of war; Clause 14 gave power to do a continuous training for one year and thus be acquitted of further liability, except in case of war, and Clause 16 provided for handing over the necessary funds to the County Associations in order to carry out the objects of the Bill. The period of training was not one which was necessarily approved of by the military authorities as likely to make a man an efficient soldier. They held that an essential
      1484
      condition was that the period should not be such as necessarily to interfere with a man's civil occupation; it should not be of such a length as to create a necessity for engaging other men to do the work of the young man while absent for his recruit's training. Employers after six weeks absence of a man would contemplate the necessity of engaging somebody else to do the work of the youth absent on training, and he did not think that either the youth or his parents should be subjected to the haunting fear of losing the civil employment. Again, it was not proposed that youths of eighteen should be called out simultaneously with those of nineteen years of age. He thought people were apt to pay too much attention to the question of the period of training and not enough to the question of the knowledge and efficiency of the permanent training staff. This Bill was brought forward in the belief that it would secure the training of those who would not join the auxiliary forces, and that it would also do something to solve the difficult question of the supply of officers.
      MR. SPEAKER,interposing, reminded the hon. and gallant Member that he had exceeded the usual allotted span.
      CAPTAIN KINCAID-SMITH,with an apology, concluded with an appeal to the House to give a First Reading to the Bill, which he believed embodied the only safe principle to follow for home defence. They must abandon a system which penalised the courageous and patriotic, and which put on the shoulders of the few a duty which should be borne by every citizen of the State.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and to establish National Military Training in the Territorial Force."—(Captain Kincaid-Smith.)
      MR. HAROLD COXsaid the hon. and gallant Member had proposed a scheme for compulsory training for all men between the ages of eighteen and thirty, but he had not told them how many it would affect nor what would be the probable cost. Probably 5,000,000

      1485
      or 6,000,000 men would come under the operation of the Bill, though that number might possibly be reduced, for the hon. Gentleman had led them to infer that it could be possible to evade this training by becoming either a Member of Parliament or an habitual drunkard. The school to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman belonged was anxious not long ago for compulsory service on the Swiss model, and the cost of that scheme worked out at £19,500,000 annually for an enormous force of 4,000,000. What use had we for such a force?
      MR. MULDOON: Turn them on to the suffragettes.
      MR. HAROLD COXsaid he did not think the suffragettes would want much compulsion in regard to military training. But he could not conceive circumstances in which a force of 6,000,000 or even of 4,000,000 men would be required for home defence. An invasion of these islands in force would only be possible if our Navy were driven from the sea. Was the House going to contemplate the possibility of our Navy being virtually destroyed? They would be traitors to their country if they spent a single penny on the military forces if they thought that there was the least danger of the Navy being destroyed. Their first duty was to see
      that the Navy was strong enough to repel any possible invasion by force. The only other contingency to be considered was the possibility of a raiding force escaping the observation of the Navy. Again, suppose this country was invaded. Would they seriously contemplate meeting such a raid with the Territorial Force? The raiding force would, of course, be the pick of the enemy's troops, and we should have to send the pick of our Regular soldiers against them, not partially trained conscripts. The same consideration applied to the Territorial Army. The scheme of the Secretary of State for War might serve as a useful means for recruiting the Regular forces; but it was on the Regulars that we must rely for repelling any raids that might escape the vigilance of the Fleet. He imagined that this was also the view of the Secretary of State for War, for the right hon. Gentleman had complained that his Territorial Army was being discouraged by incessant Questions. His right hon. friend could not seriously propose to commit the defence of this country to a force which could be discouraged out of existence by the Questions of hon. Members opposite.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 250. (Div. List, No. 173.)

      AYES.

      Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

      Cross, Alexander

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Fell, Arthur

      Percy, Earl

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Gardner, Ernest

      Rees, J. D.

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Rutherford, W.W.(Liverpool)

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hills, J. W.

      Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA.(Wore.

      Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Lynch, H. B.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Captain Kincaid-Smith and

      Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

      M'Iver, Sir Lewis

      Mr. Beaumont.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Boland, John

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Beale, W. P.

      Bottomley, Horatio

      Agnew, George William

      Beauchamp, E.

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Brigg, John

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Bright, J. A.

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Bennett, E. N.

      Brooke, Stopford

      Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T. (Cheshire

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Henry, Charles S.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Higham, John Sharp

      Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Pullar, Sir Robert

      Byles, William Pollard

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

      Hogan, Michael

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

      Chance, Frederick William

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Reddy, M.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Hudson, Walter

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Clough, William

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Clynes, J. R.

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Richardson, A.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Collins, Sir Wm. J(S. Pancras, W.

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

      Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

      Cooper, G. J.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Joyce, Michael

      Robinson, S.

      Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Cullinan, J.

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Curran, Peter Francis

      Kilbride, Denis

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

      Lamont, Norman

      Rowlands, J.

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Sears, J. E.

      Dewar, Sir J.A.(Inverness-sh.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Seaverns, J. H.

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

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Seely, Colonel

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

      Shackleton, David James

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Lundon, W.

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

      Lupton, Arnold

      Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

      Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

      Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Silcock, Thomas Bail

      Erskine, David C.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Dowl, S.)

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Essex, R. W.

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      M'Callum, John M.

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Everett, R. Lacey

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

      Faber, G. H. (Boston)

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Fenwick, Charles

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Stanley, Hn. A.(Lyulph(Chesh.)

      Ferens, T. R.

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Marnham, F. J.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Ffrench, Peter

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Strups, B. S. (Mile End)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Mengher, Michael

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Menzies, Walter

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Mond, A.

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Gill, A. H.

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew, W.) j

      Mooney, J. J.

      Thorne, G.R.(Wolverhampton)

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Morgan, C. Hay (Cornwall)

      Tomkinson, James

      Glover, Thomas

      Morrell, Philip

      Toulmin, George

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford.

      Murnaghan, George

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Gooch, George Peabody(Bath)

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Verney, F. W.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Vivian, Henry

      Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton

      Myer, Horatio

      Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      Hall, Frederick

      Nicholls, George

      Waring, Walter

      Harcourt, Rt Hn.. L.(Rossendale

      Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

      Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

      Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Watt, Henry A.

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Weir, James Galloway

      Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Hart-Davies, T.

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      White, J.D.(Dumbartonshire)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      White, Luke (York, E.R.)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Wiles Thomas

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Partington, Oswald

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Hazleton, Richard

      Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      Wilkie Alexander

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

      1488

      1489

      Williamson, A.

      Winfrey, R.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Wilson, Henry J.(York,W.R.)

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Harold Cox and Mr. Maddison.

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
      As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.
      New clause—
      "The trade or business of pension agent who offers to obtain or to, try and obtain pensions for other persons for payment or reward shall be illegal, and such agents shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not exceeding £50, or to imprisonment for not exceeding six months."—(Mr. Fell.)
      Brought up, and read a first time.
      MR. FELLin moving the Second Reading of the clause said the Bill contained no provision whatever in regard to pension agents. It had been found in practice in other countries that an undesirable class of persons had sprung up who followed a kind of profession or business as pension agents. They offered their services in helping people to obtain pensions in consideration of receiving reward or payment of some kind, or a share of the pensions obtained, or it might be the first year's pension. He did not wish to suggest that Clause 6 (old-age pensions to be inalienable) would not provide a certain amount of remedy against cases of that kind. But the provisions of that clause would not prevent the friends of people who might be likely to get pensions from offering to an agent £5, or some other sum, to get a pension for this or that person. He would suppose a case which would happen very frequently. In the case of an old woman, not strong-minded, an agent might go to her and ask her age. She might say, perfectly honestly, that she did not know her age. In reply to further questions by the agent the old woman might state that she was nearly seventy, and that she was born say, in London. The agent would then proceed to obtain a certificate of the woman's birth at Somerset House. He would produce it to the old woman as a certificate of her birth, and upon that he would take steps for obtaining a pension for her. He believed that that was the kind of case which arose in other countries where pensions were given. It was notorious that in the United States the business of pension agents had assumed large dimen-
      1490
      sions. It was really a scandal there, and in numerous cases the agents were paid the first year's pension for their services in obtaning the pension. That was a class of business which he was sure the Treasury would not wish to encourage in this country, but if it was once established, it would be very difficult indeed to stop it. Unless they passed some such clause as that which he proposed, it would not be possible for the Treasury to make regulations to prevent the evil which was certain to grow up.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYseconded the Motion.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not so apprehensive of the danger referred to as the hon. Member seemed to be. The conditions in America were different. There an applicant had to put in some form of declaration that he was a veteran who had passed through the Civil War. It was a difficult and a complicated business which required a good deal of ingenuity, and he could quite understand that a business had grown up. But he did not think the business of pension agent had been set up in Germany, Denmark, the Colonies, or in any other country where there were old-age pension schemes. If the hon. Member had been able to quote cases from these countries, they would have been much more germane to the particular clause which he had proposed. If these pension agents were established in this country with a view, not of helping the population, but rather of circumventing the law, he thought it would be the duty of the Government to consider at an early stage whether something like what the hon. Member proposed should not be done, but he did not think that they should anticipate results such as those which had occurred in America. He thought the new clause they were now considering would affect people who were perfectly innocent. It would prevent applicants from getting the assistance of members of friendly societies with

      1491
      which they were connected. If they accepted this clause there was just a little danger of that kind of help being withheld. With all submission he did not think it would be wise to introduce such a clause into the Bill. There would be the very severe punishment for a crime which he did not think the hon. Member would find would really be committed in this country. And he did not think it was well to invent a new crime. For that and other reasons he thought that on the whole it was not desirable to accept the Amendment.
      MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he opposed the principle of this Amendment altogether. To accept it would be going back to ancient times. There were laws on the Statute-book which were obsolete, and much mischief might be done by their being brought into operation. He would point out. as an analogy, that Parliament passed a Workmen's Compensation Act in 1906 which was a continuation of the Act of 1897. They might as well not have passed that law so far as several hundred thousands of workmen were concerned, because they had not the assistance of trade unions or friendly societies to give them an opportunity of using the laws which Parliament had put on the Statute-book, and which had, therefore, become utterly inoperative to those who had not a society behind them. There had grown up a number of legal-aid societies, legitimately established for the purpose of assisting the vast number of men who were not members of trade unions or other friendly societies. What mischief had been done by those legal-aid societies? None. The societies were paid by results; the County Court Judges knew of their existence and saw no harm in them. If a poor widow, so graphically pictured by the hon. Member, did get a pension by the aid of a pension agent, what harm would be done? She would not get the pension if she had not some right to it, and if she was aided in getting the pension by a pension agent that pension agent was doing good work both for her and the country, for she would not have been able to establish her title to the pension by her own unaided resources. The Amendment
      1492
      would revert to an obsolete principle, and he opposed its incorporation into the Bill.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the clause which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth proposed would in no way prevent a trade union or friendly society from rendering legal assistance in establishing a claim to a pension. The clause was only directed against offers to obtain a pension for reward or pecuniary recompense. The hon. Member for Kildare had drawn attention to the fact that under the Workmen's Compensation Acts a large number of people came forward to urge the claims of workmen who had been injured which they thought ought to come under those Acts. He had had some experience of the working of those Acts and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him when he said that there were a certain number of solicitors who made it a business to go to men who were injured and prevent them accepting legitimate compensation from their employers because they said that if they took the case up and went into Court they would get higher compensation. The result was that these injured men frequently lost what they might have gained but for the intervention of the solicitor, while in other cases men got compensation to which they were not entitled. There were solicitors who induced people to make exaggerated claims under the Acts, and those who suffered were the great employers. In the case of pensions, however, it would be the Treasury and hence the taxpayers who would suffer, because there would be more chance of sympathy being shown to a person who was anxious to obtain a pension illegally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a most extraordinary reason for opposing the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in other countries, and he instanced Germany, there were no such regulation as that proposed in the Amendment. But in Germany there was a contributory pension system, and the man had a right to his pension. Here they had no right to a pension, and it was, therefore, necessary that something of the sort embodied in the Amendment should be passed. The

      1493
      Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the case of America where people obtained pensions to which they had no right. There was not the slightest doubt that the same thing would occur here unless they had a clause of this sort in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Preston had said, under this Bill the biggest liar would get the biggest pension; and it was to prevent that that his hon. friend had brought forward this clause He was inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on further consideration, would withdraw his objection to the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had not brought forward a single fact to show that the clause would not be operative. Indeed, he had admitted that in his opinion it might be necessary to introduce such a clause, but that it would not be desirable to do so now because it might give what he called a statutory hint to people to start this business. That would not be necessary, because in these bad times when it was very difficult to get a livelihood of any description at all, there would be any number of people on the look out for such business. Besides, the hint would already have been given through the Press describing the clause moved by his hon. friend. He believed that in the interests of economy it would be necessary to have some clause in the Bill to this effect; and at any rate it could not do any harm to anybody. It had been said that it would prevent any friendly society or any person actuated by benevolent motives or any person having an interest in the claim for a pension acting legitimately for reward; but all that his hon. friend wanted was to prevent a business being set up by persons who would enter into a stipulation with a claimant that he could get him a pension of £13 if he would give him so much a year out of it for doing so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that in America a claimant for a pension had to prove that he was descended from one who had been in the war; but here the case was that the claimant had to prove his or her age. In Ireland there was no compulsory registration, until 1860, so that there was at once an immense opportunity for fraud. Then a man had to prove that he had worked according to his
      1494
      opportunities and needs. There was nothing to prevent a man coming forward and saying that he would prove it if the claimant shared with him his old-age pension. Of course, that man could not legally recover the money promised by the recipient of the pension, but there might be any number of occasions whereby an extremely clever man might throw dust in the eyes of the Imperial officer who was to be the sole arbitrator in the case for the President of the Local Government Board. For it must be remembered that the President of the Local Government Board had a large amount of business to transact, his mind was occupied in other directions, and, therefore, he could not give the necessary attention to circumvent applications of that sort. He earnestly hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a little more consideration to this clause and allow it at any rate to have a Second Reading so that, if necessary, they might amend the clause in Committee and make it palatable to the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. WALTER LONGhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider his decision. This was a practical difficulty that had to be met, not an imaginary one. The right hon. Gentleman did not speak very definitely when rejecting the clause; he put his reasons upon grounds that could not be influenced by the phraseology. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the clause would interfere with the operations of friendly societies, who would be unable to get pensions for their clients. But the case met by the new clause was where a fee or reward was given for the express services rendered. That would not be the case with friendly societies, who would offer to do the work or their members gratuitously. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said hat the penalties sought to be imposed were very heavy, but he might point out that the fine was not to exceed £50 and that the imprisonment was not to be for more than six months. That left it open to impose a small fine or imprisonment for a short time. The reasons given by the

      1495
      Chancellor of the Exchequer for rejecting the clause were not conclusive. He did not know what information had reached the right hon. Gentleman; but he had heard of many cases where people were going about to friends in their locality urging that they should engage those who had better education and better means of interpreting Acts of Parliament to help them in getting over the difficulties in obtaining a pension. The hon. Member for Kildare had opposed the Amendment on grounds quite different from those put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He apparently wanted people to take up these questions and get the pension for people who would not otherwise get it because of the difficulties of stating their case. But they would take up bad cases in order to obtain a fee or reward. These pensions were to be the solatium of the aged deserving poor, and it was not intended that the fees for obtaining the pension should be paid out of the pension grant. There was no need for any such business under the German system. There it was only necessary for the applicants to prove that they had lived a certain time under certain conditions; the pension being a contributory one they simply produced the papers on which were records of their lives. The moment an Act of Parliament like this, which required a great deal of interpretation, was passed, an Act which exposed many applicants to a great deal of difficulty in making their application good, they were bound to have a certain class of persons rising into existence who would say to them: "If you will entrust your case to me, for a certain sum I will get you a pension which you would not otherwise obtain." That was not the purpose for which the pensions were to be granted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that that state of things might arise, but said let them wait until it did arise and then deal with it. That seemed to him rather like waiting until the steed was stolen before locking the stable. They believed rather that prevention was better than cure and that if this evil was likely to grow up provision should be made against it.
      MR. ELLIS DAVIESquite agreed that difficulties might
      1496
      arise if gentlemen were allowed to make exorbitant charges for the services they rendered to persons applying for pensions. But there was the other side of the question to be looked at; applicants might meet with great difficulty in making their applications. There was the difficulty of tracing the place and entry of birth and the greater difficulty of identifying a person over sixty-five years of age. In the practice of his profession he had often found the greatest difficulty in proving that the person referred to in a certificate of birth was the person who was making a claim. Under those circumstances it was of ten necessary to get a declaration of identity—to prove the identity of the applicant with the person mentioned in the certificate, and this assistance could not be obtained save on payment. If, however, the operations of pension agents were not going to be prohibited they ought in his opinion to be carefully limited. To make the trade of pension agents a criminal offence was going too far; on the other hand it would be unwise to allow pension agents to make exorbitant charges, and the purpose which the mover of the Amendment had in view would be met if the costs were made irrecoverable, as they were under the Workmen's Compensation Act, unless certified as reasonable by the registrar of the County Court.
      MR. VERNEYpointed out that there would also be extraordinary difficulty in many cases in calculating the means of applicants for pensions as required by Clause 4, and unless other people were allowed to do it for them he was afraid many poor persons would find the difficulties of Clause 4 insuperable. Many of them knew how difficult it was to do this for the purposes of the income-tax. If those calculations were not done carefully that might be the cause of pensions being refused which in other cases would be granted. The person, therefore, who carried through the application for a pension surely deserved something. It would be most difficult if the claim was successful to find out whether the assistance was given for a fee or reward, because if the payment was delayed for some months after the

      1497
      application was made and the pension was given it would be impossible to prove it. Personally he thought there was a very strong objection to the Amendment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept it.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that undoubtedly there were very difficult and complicated questions which would have to be determined before a pension could be secured. The questions were in some cases not only intrinsically difficult in themselves, but would be also difficult owing to the difficulty of tracing the relevant facts—where, for instance, persons were uncertain as to the place of their birth. It would be quite impossible for many of the poor people who ought to receive the benefits of the Bill to prepare unhelped whatever papers would be necessary. They would probably not understand the questions addressed to them on the Government form. They must have assistance, and the question was, how was that assistance to be given with the greatest advantage to the pensioner. There would always be a great deal of voluntary assistance where people went to seek it. He wished the Government would instruct the pension officer that it was part of his business to facilitate as much as he could the making of claims by bona fide applicants. The claim would be tested by him, but it should also be part of his duty to assist the applicant to set down the relevant facts. What he, was afraid of was the people who might make it their business to tout for this work, because, although they might only make good claims, it was very questionable whether a great many bad claims would not be dressed up to pass muster. He was afraid that these touts, in the case of a good claim which, with a little voluntary assistance and a little application, would carry the pension, would tell the applicant: "You will not get your pension unless you put your claim in legal language." These persons were prone to believe these things when told by such people, and that would be unfortunate. If that were so, and if the clause went further than was intended, still there were very many interesting suggestions, a valuable one being that of the hon. Member below the gangway opposite.
      1498
      They had not heard the Government on that subject, but he thought it was well worthy of their attention, and he would like to know what their views were. He understood that the hon. Member would leave it to the Committee; he did not quite know what the hon. Member's suggestion was.
      MR. ELLIS DAVIESsaid his suggestion was that no payment for work done in assisting an old person to obtain a pension was to be made, unless the registrar of the County Court certified the amount as reasonable.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in this case there was no reference to the County Court. The Government had done their best to eliminate recourse to the law under the Bill, and had deliberately refused to grant any appeal to a Court of law for reasons which they had themselves set forth. Whether the registrar of the County Court would be the best authority to whom to go, he did not know; he did not profess to have knowledge enough to speak definitely on that subject. At any rate, if people were to be allowed to make a business of procuring pensions for old people, he suggested that their charges should be subject to disallowance, or, indeed, not recoverable unless allowed by some independent authority, whether the pension officer or the registrar of the County Court. He thought the point was worthy of consideration, and it might get them out of a difficulty which otherwise might lead to a great deal of hardship among poor people.
      MR. CATHCART WASONthought hon. Gentlemen opposite were splitting straws on this question. This clause was entirely unnecessary, and might afford an opportunity for blackmailing if it were adopted. A poor person, who wanted his claim made out, might go to a recognised solicitor to get it prepared for him. After the solicitor had done the work, the poor person might repudiate his claim for payment, saying that the solicitor had touted for the business, and the unfortunate solicitor who had done the work might very likely be heavily fined, or possibly even sent to gaol.

      1499
      Such a clause as that now proposed would really tend to blackmailing, and he was sure would have a very bad effect in the country at large. Hon. Members seemed to forget that it was a part of the Government scheme that there should be a pension committee and a pension officer, and he was sure that they might rest satisfied to leave the matter in their hands, and not endeavour to pass a clause of this sort which could only lead to complications and troubles in the future.
      MR. GEORGE D. FABERsaid he could not but feel that a great difficulty surrounded this question when one put oneself into the position of a poor person who applied for the pension. The House must not forget that in regard to these pensions they were dealing largely with an uneducated class. That class would find itself surrounded at the very beginning by what an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House had pictorially described as "wire-entanglements." At every point, practically, there was a difficulty under the Bill. The first step was the production of the birth certificate. As had been pointed out, that was by no means an easy matter. It was no easy matter for an applicant in a low condition of life to prove where he was born. He was not referring to the case of an applicant in a country village, where people of position knew him. He was thinking, rather, of the applicant who lived in a slum of one of our great towns. Such an applicant often had not the remotest idea where he was born. He did not know what steps to take, not being a highly-educated man, and he could not make the application on his own initiative. On the point as to the birth certificate alone, he was content to rest his argument. The applicant, unable to take steps himself, must call in skilled advice, and unless he was careful he would fall into the pit. Suppose a professional tout took up his case. He would go to the poor man in the slums, and say, "You are over seventy years of age; I will prove it for you and get you a pension of 5s. a week, but you must give me some of it." The applicant would be at the mercy of the tout. If he did not employ him he would get nothing at all, and he was not
      1500
      able to protect himself. Therefore, they wanted to guard against his being at the mercy of the tout, and he understood that was the object of his hon. friend's clause. At the same time, he must frankly say that he did not think the clause as it stood met the case, because, although it sought to discountenance the professional tout, yet they all desired that the applicant should have the benefit of the Act. He would like to hear that a solicitor could be called in. But solicitors were only human, and they would require to be paid for their work. The solicitor might be the most honourable man in the world—as solicitors were in the great majority of cases—but he would expect to be paid for his work, and would of course be entitled to his remuneration. But there, again, they must be careful of the risk of overburdening the pension with legal expenses. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway opposite, a Member from one of the Welsh constituencies, had made a suggestion following on the lines of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that no costs for work done in assisting an applicant should be recoverable unless the registrar or Judge of the County Court certified that they were proper costs to be recovered. But under this Bill they were not concerned with the County Court. It was one of the anomalies of this measure that they had a dual authority, but neither part of it really judicial. First of all they had an officer who was called on the one hand a high Imperial officer, and on the other hand an Excise officer. As he had pointed out the other day when the Bill was in Committee, his function ceased when he had collected information about the applicant, and the pension committee were the judges, subject to the Local Government Board. Although he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member an admirable one, he did not see how it was going to be put in a Bill of this sort, unless they left the pension committee to decide whether the costs incurred were properly recoverable. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the clause to be read a second time, and then they could remedy its imperfections. He agreed that it would not do as it stood. But if they went forward and turned the Bill

      1501
      into an Act without doing anything at all to protect these poor applicants against the rapacity of a class that was certain to arise to take advantage of their weakness, he thought before long that they would find they had made a very grievous mistake.
      MR. BARNESsaid that, having heard the arguments in support of this clause, he had come to the conclusion that he should be justified in opposing it and voting against it. He did not think that it had any real bearing on the question. As he understood it the reference was to services rendered for payment or reward. But they knew that these people would be assisted by trade union and other officials to get the pension, and there would be no question of payment or reward at all. As under the Workmen's Compensation Act, where they assisted applicants to get their claims put through without any thought of reward, so it would be under this Act. The Act might be left to be tried, and if it needed something of this sort, it might be drafted later on. As a matter of fact, most of the poor persons who applied for the pension would be on the Poor Law; probably 50 per cent. Of those of seventy years of age would be on the Poor Law. The Poor Law guardians would in their own interest seek to keep old people off the Poor Law and get them on to the pension list. Then these pensions would very soon become known amongst the people, and he assumed the Treasury or someone else would make the necessary simple arrangements whereby the poor people might get assisted in making their claim. They would get a form at the Post Office which would be of the simplest possible description and instructions as to where the pension officer was located so that he would be available and probably readily accessible, and would instruct them how to get their pensions. There might, however, be some cases in which it would be necessary to get outside advice, and he would like to ask hon. Members above the gangway why not. He was not in favour of touting agents. He remembered when on the Departmental Committee inquiry into the Compensation Act a good deal of abuse was revealed, especially in the large industrial centres, where a certain
      1502
      kind of lawyer went about touting for cases. He wanted to avoid that and not encourage it, but why should they prevent trade unions or friendly societies of these old people if they thought proper from paying a man whose professional advice might be necessary and who might get them £13 per year? At all events it did not seem to be such a great danger, even if it were the case that in a few instances £3 might be exacted for the £13 per year. He was not disposed at that juncture to burden the Act and make it more complicated than it was by inserting the proposed clause. He would rather leave it to take its chance in the meantime, and then if these dangers were revealed he would be prepared to vote for such a clause.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that all the difficulties on this matter really arose because the Government had not told them what machinery they intended to provide for getting pensions for these old people. The hon. Member who had just sat down had imagined a series of regulations which he thought the Government were going to put into force. The hon. Member might have seen those regulations which had been kept from the rest of the House, and in the absence of which it was quite impossible to estimate the machinery of the Bill. It might be a workable or an unworkable Bill. It entirely depended on the machinery. He found it very difficult to know how these people were going to succeed if they had no means of going to the supposed place of their birth, not accurately known to them. He was left in absolute perplexity as to whether they were doing the best thing for these old pensioners in having this clause or not. They were clearly doing the best for them in having such a clause in if some machinery was provided by the Government which would enable the investigation to be carried out. But they had not suggested that they were going to provide any machinery at all. He was not sure that his hon. friend's plan, however it might stop an acknowledged and admitted abuse, might not cause in some cases gross hardship and injustice to persons who could not prove their age without assistance, which they were not told as yet was going to be provided.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 82 Noes, 320. (Division List No.174.)

      AYES.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Gardner, Ernest

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

      Gordon, J.

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      Ashley, W. W.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Percy, Earl

      Balcarres, Lord

      Haddock, George B.

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Sheffield, SirBerkeley George D.

      Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hills, J. W.

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hunt, Rowland

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Valentia, Viscount

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

      Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Cecil, R. Lord (Marylebone, E.)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

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

      Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.

      Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Lockwood, Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R

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

      Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

      Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

      Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

      Younger, George

      Cross, Alexander

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      M'Arthur, Charles

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Doughty, Sir George

      Marks, H. H. (Kent)

      Mr. Fell and Mr. George

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Faber.

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

      Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Brunner, RtHn SirJ. T(Cheshire

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Agnew, George William

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

      Alden, Percy

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Erskine, David C.

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Essex, R. W.

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Faber, G. H. (Boston)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Fenwick, Charles

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Clough, William

      Ffrench, Peter

      Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Beale, W. P.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Findlay, Alexander

      Beauchamp, E.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

      Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo)

      Cooper, G. J.

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Bennett, E. N.

      Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Bethell, Sir JH.(Essex, Romf'rd

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Cox, Harold

      Gill, A. H.

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew,W.)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Crean, Eugene

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Boland, John

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Glover, Thomas

      Bottomley, Horatio

      Crossley, William J.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Cullinan, J.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Curran, Peter Francis

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Branch, James

      Davies, Ellis Willam (Eifion)

      Gulland, John W.

      Brigg, John

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W.Brampton

      Bright, J. A.

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

      Hall, Frederick

      Brodie, H. C.

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Halpin, J.

      Brooke, Stopford

      Dillon, John

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      Massie, J.

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Shackleton, David James

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Meagher, Michael

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Menzies, Walter

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Harwood, George

      Mond, A.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Hazleton, Richard

      Morrell, Philip

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Murnaghan, George

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Snowden, P.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Myer, Horatio

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Henry, Charles S.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)

      Nicholls, George

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Nolan, Joseph

      Steadman, W. C.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Hodge, John

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Hogan, Michael

      Nuttall, Harry

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Summerbell, T.

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

      O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

      Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

      Horniman, Emslie John

      O'Dowd, John

      Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Idris, T. H. W.

      O'Malley, William

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Partington, Oswald

      Tomkinson, James

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Toulmin, George

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Philips, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Ure, Alexander

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Verney, F. W.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Vivian, Henry

      Jowett, F. W.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Wadsworth, J.

      Joyce, Michael

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

      Walters, John Tudor

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Pullar, Sir Robert

      Waring, Walter

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Radford, G. H.

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

      Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Watt, Henry A.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Reddy, M.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Whitbread, Howard

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Rees, J. D.

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Richardson, A.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Lupton, Arnold

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir ThomasP

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Lynch, H. B.

      Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Maclean, Donald

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Williamson, A.

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Robinson, S.

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      M'Callum, John M.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras. S.)

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Rowlands, J.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

      M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Winfrey, R.

      Maddison, Frederick

      Russell, T. W.

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

      Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Marnham, F. J.

      Sears, J. E.

      Elibank.

      MR. HAROLD COXmoved to amend Clause 1 (right to receive old-age pension) by substituting 5s. a week as the amount of the pension in place of the sums set forth in the schedule. This Amendment, he said, was to form the basis of a subsequent Amendment he had on the Paper, and it would have the effect of introducing what he thought was a better test for the assignment of pensions than that contained in the Bill. At the top of page 18 of the Amendment Paper he had put down another Amendment which contained a true industrial test, on the lines of the German industrial test, but a little more humane. It required that a person should prove that during the three years preceding the day on which he completed the age of seventy, he was engaged in useful work for not less than 126 weeks, and that his earnings had not exceeded 20s. a week. He had placed the earnings as low as possible because he desired to keep well within the amount of money involved in this Bill, but he had no objection to a higher figure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that nobody would help him to reduce the expenditure, but this Amendment would save him at least £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, a year. At the same time the Amendment would establish a definite logical reason for giving pensions, and also clear away all the absurdities and anomalies in the schedule, which made the scheme difficult and would make it very unpopular. When the Government first introduced their scheme they put in it a fixed sum of 5s. a week. At that time the Prime Minister told them that after careful consideration the Government had come to the conclusion that a fixed sum of 5s. a week was the best. No reason had been given by the Government for abandoning that position. Under the proposed Amendment a man would receive a pension for the work he did, and not as a matter of charity. If that were done they would have no need to make inquiries as to character or income. If they proceeded not on the industry but on the charity test they must have all the anomalies in the schedule. In assessing the income the pension committee would have to take into account not only the actual cash but also hypothetical sources of income. Furniture
      1508
      was personal property, and under this scheme it would be necessary for the Excise man to visit the applicant's house to find out what furniture he possessed, and then make an estimate of the annual value of it. All that would be got rid of by fixing the sum at 5s. Take the case of the old man who helped his daughter to do the washing in return for a meal. That would have to be taken into account under this Bill and an estimate taken of its value. These were questions which would involve frightful heartburning. One man might say he had not been treated by the committee quite fairly, and another might say that the Exciseman had been bribed by his neighbour, and would not give him a pension because he had refused to bribe him. Clause 3 which dealt with character was unlimited as to time, whereas the Amendment was limited to three years. There was an enormous difference between going back upon the whole of a man's past history, and going back for only three years. According to the words of the Bill, before a man became entitled to a pension he must prove that he had not failed to work according to his opportunity or ability, during the whole of his life. All these absurdities and cruelties resulted from starting on a false basis and mixing up two distinct things. The advocates of the Bill talked about giving pensions to the veterans of industry, but the Bill itself said: "Give people pensions because they are poor," and the result was that they had to introduce all kinds of artificial stipulations. He proposed to limit the inquiries to three years. He might inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his Amendment would exclude a considerable number of people who did not deserve pensions but who would get them under the Bill. His proposal also had the advantage that it would not involve any inquiry into past character. The House had got to make up its mind whether it was going to give pensions as a reward for industry or as a subsidy to poverty. They did not at present reward poverty or misfortune. Poverty was not a crime; it was an inconvenience, an inability to satisfy one's wants, and that was itself its own punishment. If they treated poverty as a merit, as used to be done in the Middle Ages, they

      1509
      should not reward it, because if they set up a reward for poverty they deprived the poor man of his merit by giving him a reward. Honest poverty could only be dealt with by charity or the Poor Law. The Government professed that their whole object was to separate their scheme from the Poor Law. If so, why not adopt a pure industrial test, and give pensions as a reward for industry? The test he was proposing to apply would deal with the great difficulty raised by hon. Members opposite, namely, the refusal of a pension to a man because he happened to be in receipt of Poor Law relief after 1st January this year. Under his proposal nobody would be asked if they had received Poor Law relief. They would simply be asked if they had worked the requisite number of weeks. A man who had been working hard up to 1st January was, through temporary misfortune, obliged to accept Poor Law relief, and he was, therefore, to become disqualified for a pension. That was a very great hardship which would be got rid of entirely by the scheme he proposed. They should bear in mind that there was a distinction between Poor Law relief and pensions. They rewarded industry, they relieved poverty, the motives being different. They knew that without industry the world would come to an end, and in selfish interest they rewarded industry. They relieved poverty out of humanitarian feeling, but to relieve was not to reward. The Government Bill showed a hopeless confusion of ideas, and it actually contained a provision for rewarding idleness. [Cries of "No."] Yes, according to subsection (b), of Clause 3, a man was to work "according to his ability, opportunity, and need." What did the last word mean? If a man was in possession of an income that relieved him from the necessity to work, and that possession came to an end, he was to receive a pension. Why? If he had not done any work he was not entitled to a pension at the expense of his fellow citizens. Hon. Members might say that that did not often happen, but they forgot there were a number of people who, inheriting a small income, were content to fritter away their lives doing no work at all. Such a man he knew, who, instead of following the profession to which he had been
      1510
      trained, lived in a small room in a workmen's dwelling and did no work of any kind. That man invited himself and a friend to dine with him. He did his own cooking, cleaning, and everything. During the repast he told them the cost of every single article. He said he bought butter at 10d. per lb. He himself and his fellow guest said they wanted no butter. He contended that it was not the duty of the House to encourage such a man in leading an idle life. It was the duty of every man to work. But the Labour Party had voted in a mass for this clause which would give a man a pension simply because his income came to an end. A man who received from the community and made no return was a parasite on the community. It was curious that the Socialist Party while declaring their anxiety to get pensions for the veterans of industry, voted for pensions for parasites. Hon. Members opposite must painfully feel the contrast in their attitudes inside and outside the House. Outside on a hundred platforms they spent their energies in denouncing the Liberal Party and all its works, proclaiming that they alone possessed the key to social salvation. But in the House they sat cooing like doves in spring time, sitting in patient expectancy ready to eat out of the hand of the Government and to take all that was in it.
      SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He was not sure that he agreed with the first part of it, because, if it were adopted, he thought it would be necessary to abolish the sliding scale. But the hon. Member's argument in regard to the rest of the Amendment was so good that the House could not allow it to go by without some attention. It was exceedingly unfortunate when they were discussing these questions that they had not the advantage of the attendance of the Members of the Labour Party. He understood that they were attending a garden party yesterday when the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill was being discussed. It was a pity that they could not give attendance when serious business was being transacted in the House. The test of work to which his hon. friend had alluded was the best test which could possibly be

      1511
      imposed. It would be difficult in many cases, especially in towns, to find out whether the statements of a person applying for a pension were true, but it would be comparatively easy to find out whether a person had been working for a certain number of years. He would like to know why the Government had not brought forward some provision of that sort. They must not forget that the original idea of the Government was that the pension should be 5s. a week, irrespective of the pension scale, and he did not know that the House had heard any very serious or satisfactory reason from the Government for abandoning that idea. He hoped his hon. friend would not press the first part of the Amendment to a division.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'set forth in Part I. of the schedule to this Act,' and to insert the words 'of 5s. a week.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
      (Question proposed, "That the words 'set forth in' stand part of the Bill."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Baronet had seconded an Amendment of which he had repeatedly told the House he disapproved. The only point now before the House was the abolition of the sliding scale and a return to a fixed limit. The Amendment asked the House to set up an alternative scheme totally distinct from that of the Government, and he questioned whether it was in order.
      MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment now on the Paper is clearly in order because it proposes to give a pension of 5s. a week. It would not, therefore, impose any extra charge, but it would diminish the charge. When we get to the Amendments to other parts of the clause, I shall have some further statement to make.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his difficulty was this. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Preston was devoted to an Amendment which clearly seemed to be out of order. If he had argued in favour of the restoration of
      1512
      the rigid limit of 5s. a week and the elimination of the sliding scale, he could have understood him, but he had not done that. He had set up an alternative scheme which was certainly out of order at that stage.
      MR. SPEAKER: I really do not know whether the alternative scheme would mean an increased charge or not, and I have no figures at my disposal, and I have no means of arriving at any figures which would indicate to me whether that would be so or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only man in this House who really has the figures at his disposal, and if the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Preston will, in his judgment, increase the charge, I should be bound to accept that statement. If he makes that statement, I shall then be prepared to rule out the alternative suggestion.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not prepared to say it would increase the charge; he thought that, on the whole, it would diminish the cost. He assumed, therefore, the Amendment was in order. The hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to follow him at the present moment into the various criticisms which he had placed before the House. As to the scheme on its merits, the hon. Gentleman wanted to confine the benefits of the Bill to persons who earned 20s. a week for three years immediately preceding the day on which he completed the age of seventy—that was preceding his application for a pension. He took issue on that; it would practically exclude all labourers in towns. On the previous night the scheme had boon severely condemned because it was a purely country scheme, and that the town labourer would not benefit by it. Of course, it was said that a very small proportion of town labourers attained the age of seventy. The rate of wages of a town labourer at that age would not reach the rate fixed by his hon. friend's Amendment, and therefore the town labourer would be swept away. But there was another reason why he could not accept his hon. friend's scheme. The hon. Member had said that the workman before applying for a pension must have worked for forty-two

      1513
      weeks in each of the preceding three years. There was no allowance for sickness, no allowance for the effects of old age, no allowance for accidents. The applicant must prove that he had worked 126 weeks between the age of sixty-seven and seventy; that he had worked regularly for forty-two weeks in each year and had earned 20s. a week. Was that a reasonable demand to make upon an old man? He was surprised that his hon. friend had put forward such a scheme. He could understand the hon. Gentleman opposing the whole scheme, but he could not understand his saying that he wished to provide for a certain number of old people getting a pension, while submitting a scheme which ruled out the town labourer and if applied to the country labourer would be harsh and cruel. For that reason alone he would rule the Amendment out of court. His hon. friend had talked a great deal about thrift, and in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill he proposed an Amendment based on thrift. But what was to happen to a thrifty person in a case of this kind? Let them suppose he had not saved enough to carry him on till he was seventy years of age, but that by doing a little work during harvest, or by planting his potatoes, or by looking after his own little allotment, he kept off the Poor Law: his hon. friend said that not a 1d. of a pension was that old man to get. And why? Because he had not worked forty-two weeks in each of the preceding years before he was seventy, and had not earned 20s. a week. And then in the case of a thrifty town labourer, if he broke down at the age of sixty-eight, he was to be ruled out also. He really could not accept the Amendment.
      LORD R. CECILsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had devoted the same talent to his own tests that he had devoted to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, he would have torn them to pieces. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and could not support the test proposed by the hon. Member for Preston; but when they came to examine every test proposed in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman they were exposed to the
      1514
      same style of criticism. Those who had given attention to the Bill agreed with the hon. Member for Preston while he was explaining to the House how utterly unjust were the proposals of the Government; but when the hon. Member set up a scheme of his own, he confessed that the hon. Member failed to convince him. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman had said that the claimant for a pension must prove that he had been "engaged in useful work." That meant that they were to entrust the Imperial officer or the pension committee with the task of deciding whether the claimant's work had been useful or not. They would decide the matter in precisely the same way as the board of guardians decided whether Poor Law relief was to be given. That was the reason why he was opposed to all those tests. There was no alternative between a contributory scheme and a universal scheme; and he was sure that all who supported the scheme of the Bill would suffer for it very severely in the estimation of their fellow-countrymen.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'Part I. of.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Question, "That the words 'Part I. of' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
      LORD R. CECIL,on Clause 2, moved to insert words requiring the claimant to "prove that he has" attained the pensionable age. His object was to learn from the Government by what machinery they proposed to secure that only those who had actually attained the age of seventy should receive a pension. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they were all reckless and irresponsible persons and that their Amendments would throw additional cost on the Exchquer. He ventured to say that no one of them was as reckless and irresponsible as the Government, who had made their calculations as to cost on the theory that only those who were seventy years of age would receive pensions. It must be obvious that it would be exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether a man was

      1515
      seventy years of age or not. He did not know how it was to be done. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Bill would only affect the country, but that was not the case. And how would it affect the towns? It was the commonest thing for an old labourer not to live for a considerable time in the neighbourhood in which he was born, and how was he going to prove his age? The English Registration Act only came into force in 1836, and if they looked into the figures of registration of births it would be found that in the early years an exceedingly small proportion of births were registered. Even now quite a considerable number of the population—something like 20 or 30 per cent—were never registered; and the percentage registered must have been much smaller seventy years ago. How were they going to prove a claimant's age? Were they going to take the old man's word for it? Even supposing the men were perfectly honest a large number of them had an exceedingly vague notion of how old they really were. Was it all to be left to regulations? He thought the House was entitled to know the nature of the evidence which the Government contemplated requiring before admitting a claim. Was the Imperial officer to prove negatively as well as positively whether a man was seventy? If so, he would have all his work cut out. He would have to ascertain the date of birth, and send for the register, and if the man's name was not in it he would have to get up evidence the same as in a pedigree case. Everybody must see the difficulty. The result would be that anybody who looked about seventy years of age would get his pension, although he might be only sixty or sixty-five. He thought they were in for a very much larger expenditure under this scheme than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had allowed for. He begged to move.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYseconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 21, to leave out the word 'have,' and insert the words 'prove that he has.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'have' stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that the noble Lord had answered his own case for his own Amendment. He had pointed out with great force and justice that there were many cases in which it was impossible for a claimant to prove his birth. No doubt there were many people in the United Kingdom whose birth was not registered. The Registration Act of 1836 did not come into force all at once, but at different times. He believed that it came into force in Scotland and Ireland at a later date. He had not the exact figures in his mind as to when the registration of births began, but there must be many cases in which it would be impossible to produce a' certificate of birth. The noble Lord would surely not wish to make it a statutory enactment that no man, however old he might be, was to be unable to receive a pension unless he could produce a certificate of birth. Yet under this Amendment the applicant would either have to produce a certificate or call his parents, who ex hypothesi would not be available for the purpose. In truth when the Bill came into operation there would be many cases in which no sort of proof would be required, because the pension committee in the neighbourhood would know that the applicant was very old. It was left entirely to them, but not without some guidance from the central authority, because the noble Lord would observe that Section 10 provided that rules might be made as to the evidence that would be required. It would be undesirable to indicate in the Bill what the regulations should be, but the rules would no doubt require to be very carefully considered as to the kind of evidence the pension committee should be required to accept in the absence of a birth certificate. It would be undesirable that he should indicate now what line those rules would take, but obviously it would be most undesirable to put every applicant to the strict proof. It was much better to leave the matter somewhat wide. No doubt the absence of proof would necessitate the giving of pensions to men who were not

      1517
      seventy, but in such cases it would be given to persons who looked and appeared to be seventy, and the injustice done in those cases would be very rare.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINquite agreed with the Attorney-General that all applicants could not be expected to give such proof as would be required in a Court of law as to their age. The Amendment of the noble Lord, however, was directed to ascertaining from the Government what they had in their mind as to the character of the proof the pension officer and the pension committee might properly exact. He agreed that it would be undesirable to give in a clause of the Bill the exact regulations which these different authorities should follow, but he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said it was not desirable to indicate to the House what those regulations would be. It was most desirable that somebody on behalf of the Government should indicate what evidence should be received. The effect of leaving the matter to the pension committee and the pension officer would be that anybody who did not clearly appear on evidence not to be seventy would be treated as seventy. That would be the result if there were no special regulations. He did not believe the Government had considered any one of the regulations they had to frame under the Bill, and the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was not expedient to give the regulations was because he did not know—because he had not the slightest idea of what they were. There had never been such a Bill in which greater power had been given to departmental authorities to use regulations under it or which gave them so much authority as this. They could exclude or include whoever they liked. This was one of many discussions which illustrated the difficulties of the scheme the Government were laying before the House. Anybody would have thought that in a non-contributory scheme as in a contributory one, they would have arrived at some simple plan by which it could be ascertained whether a man was entitled to a pension or not, but that idea was dispelled by the debates that had taken place. The clauses of the Bill
      1518
      were full of ambiguities and doubt. In this case the test was one most difficult and in many cases impossible of proof as proof was regarded in a Court of law. They had to trust to the local authority, and for that reason the Government had to issue regulations which, when they came to draw them up, they would find would have to be loose and vague. That meant that practically the pension committee would have an absolute discretion in individual cases as to whom they would admit and whom not. That being the case the public interest in the discussion, from his point of view, centred in its bearing on the expense to which the country would be put under the scheme. The estimates the Government had made were mere guess-work by Government officials instructed to look at a particular proposal and say what would be its cost. How were those officials set to work; what data had they before them? Surely those were matters the House ought to know something about. As he understood, they had found out from certain data that there were so many people of a certain age in this country. They had taken a census of particular places in order to ascertain how many of these old people would come within the scope of the scheme, and they assumed for the purposes of their calculations that the number of people of seventy would remain about the same and that the incomes of those people would continue the same. If he were right and those were the underlying assumptions of all the estimates put forward, the estimates were not worth having. Until the Bill came into operation it was not worth anybody's while to make himself out to be other than he really was. It had been to the man's interest to make himself out to be younger. It was now to the interest of these people in a doubtful case to make out that they were seventy. There was no desire to deprive these old people of the income they received, but there would be no incentive now to those who had contributed towards it to continue to do so. The financial basis on which the Bill was built would be destroyed, for the right hon. Gentleman, who had admitted in the City that he had a

      1519
      thumping deficit, would find that that deficit was far larger than he had anticipated.
      MR. FLYNNsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had not carried them any further along the road of meeting this Amendment. One would assume that the amount of the cost had been calculated from the Census returns of the people of the age of seventy. He did not know how long the census papers were kept, but it certainly occurred to him that the knowledge that the census papers were in existence would deter people from making false statements as to their age. It was obvious that when the last census was compiled no man had any interest in making himself out to be older than he was. No man could foresee that the Government in a few years were going to bring in a scheme whereby he would get a pension, so that he had not that inducement to put forward his age a few years. Surely the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down betrayed an almost childish innocence in connection with Acts of Parliament if he imagined that they could put into a Bill a series of cleverly drafted regulations and elaborate tests by which to get proof of a man's age. The details must be left to the local committee and to the pension officer. According to the Amendment of the noble Lord the onus probandi was put upon the old man, who was to prove that he was seventy years of age. That was surely taking the matter very far indeed. The Attorney-General had referred to the fact that compulsory registration of births had not commenced in England until 1836, and in Ireland not until 1860; so that an old man of eighty or ninety in Ireland would not be able to prove from that source that he had reached the age of seventy. It would mean that in Ireland they practically excluded from the operation of the Act every old man or woman in the country, because they could bring forward no proof. The noble Lord's Amendment, if adopted, would practically exclude from this beneficial scheme people in Ireland of seventy, seventy-five, eighty, ninety years of age, and even centenarians, who could bring forward no legal proof
      1520
      of the kind required. But it was reasonable to suppose that the local committee, with such evidence as they would be able to get from other old people, from Ted, or Jack, or other aged persons, would be able to obtain fairly satisfactory proof if the applicant had reached the age of seventy. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
      MR. BOWLESsaid that if it had been the object of the hon. Member who had just sat down to make clear the point of his noble friend, he had singularly failed in his object. He had said in the first place that it would be an intolerable hardship to all old persons who applied for the pension that they should have to prove they were of the age of seventy. The Attorney General had also complained of the Amendment as imposing a hardship. It was a hardship imposed by the Bill.
      SIR W. ROBSON: I said by the Amendment.
      MR. BOWLESsaid that the Amendment had been moved with the desire of eliciting from the Government what they themselves understood to be the meaning and effect of their own Bill, and it was because they had no conception, at any rate which they could express to the House, of what was the effect of the first and main provision of their own Bill, that, for his part, he regarded the Amendment as serving a very useful purpose. The Attorney-General had said they might leave this matter to the regulations. Were those regulations under Clause 10 to prescribe the evidence to be required in order to fulfil the statutory conditions? But what evidence could there be of the age of a person except either the birth certificate or such overwhelming proof as would satisfy any reasonable person? Unless the Government had considered the point the Bill as it stood merely amounted to this, that any person who alleged he was seventy was to be entitled to the pension. It appeared to him that that was a matter which the Government was bound to have considered, and if they had not considered it they were sadly lacking in their duty to the House. The hon. Member below the gangway

      1521
      had made the suggestion, he imagined humourously, that it should be sufficient evidence if each applicant referred to the Census paper which he had filled up with regard to his age. But the hon. Member must know that such a declaration could not be held binding as to the applicant's age. The man might say: "It is quite true that it states I was sixty-two or sixty-three, but it was a clerical error; it was a mistake; I was under sixty, and the statement was filled up at a time when I had no contemplation of such a scheme as this." No man could be held to such a declaration under the present scheme. The House was confronted with a proposal by which vast sums of public money were to be given to a particular class of persons. The main condition on which a pension was to be given was that the recipient should have reached the age of seventy. The Government were asked what assurance there was that pensions would not be given outside that age, and to people who were merely lying in order to obtain the grant. The Government had not the slightest notion; they did not know in the least. They had not even considered how old age was to be proved; all they said was that at some time or other they would make regulations—regulations which must be nugatory and ridiculous unless they insisted upon getting evidence which would satisfy all reasonable men. If the regulations would do that the Government ought to tell them what they were. This matter was of essential and vital importance, and if the Government had not really a considered opinion upon it, then it was a striking comment on the condition of mind in which they had thrown this gigantic scheme on the Table of the House, and was a complete justification of the Amendment.
      MR. BARNESsaid it appeared to him that the whole thing was in a nutshell as regarded the Amendment. He was going to vote against it, for the very simple reason that it seemed to him to increase the difficulty of an old person's getting a pension. He had tried to realise what would be the thoughts of an intending applicant. He could conceive of an old person making a claim for a pension, and the flow of his thoughts
      1522
      would be in the direction of getting his age adequately ascertained. In the trade unions the members names and ages were registered. He was secretary to a body of men numbering 112,000, and the age of every one was recorded. Perhaps 1,000,000 men in the last twenty years had been registered in this way, and he had only to look back over the books to ascertain the name and age of a man. That was one means which might be open to a person for proving his age. He did not say that it would be considered satisfactory evidence by the committee or pension officer; it might be or might not be. Then there were friendly societies, who also registered the ages of their members, and they had the data which covered hundreds of thousands, he supposed millions, of the population of the country, among them men and women who would be making applications for pensions. The Bill was sufficiently open, it appeared to him, to admit of that being done. But if this Amendment were carried, the first statutory condition imposed by the Bill would be that a person applying for the pension must prove that he was of the age of seventy. The pension officer might say that was not a duty devolving upon him, or the committee, or anybody else, but upon the applicant, and until he proved he was seventy years of age, no other step could betaken in the way of getting the pension. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had himself answered his own case, because he had piled up difficulty upon difficulty, pointing out that there was no registration in this country until 1836, and none in Ireland until 1860. These were all proofs that the matter of proving whether a person was seventy years of age was one of some complication. From his own point of view, that seemed to destroy the Amendment. He wanted that difficulty to be got over, not by the poor person of seventy, eighty, or ninety years of age, but by the Government, who had all the means at their disposal, and who were, as he understood, by Clause 10, making provision for it. That clause provided that regulations should be drawn up with a view to providing what should be taken as proper evidence, and that would get over the point. For his part he would rather have seen the

      1523
      regulations. It might be that the Government were culpable, but he was not going to enter into that at all. They would all be very much better informed, of course, if they knew what those regulations were. But he was not going to make their not having them a reason for setting up another barrier to persons getting the pension. As it was, poor old men and women would get some help under the Bill in making their claims somehow or other, and he believed they would be provided for.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have inadvertently misinterpreted the speech of his noble friend in introducing the Amendment. His noble friend had explicitly stated that his object in moving the Amendment was to obtain from the Government some clear exposition of what their policy was in respect of the evidence on which they were to arrive at the conclusion that the applicants for pensions had reached the age of seventy years. That was a perfectly legitimate and proper Parliamentary procedure, and the only criticism he had to make upon it was that his noble friend had formed a far too sanguine estimate of the knowledge which the Government possessed of their own policy and their own Bill. When he put down his Amendment in order to obtain a clear exposition from the Government of what was intended, his noble friend, with all the experience which he should have obtained of their discussions in these days, must have known that he was undertaking what was pre-doomed to failure. That was the absolute and clear outcome of the attempt which his noble friend had made. He wanted to ask the House to compare the Attorney-General's estimate of the kind of evidence which would be taken from the man of seventy with the kind of statistics on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his calculation of what would be the cost of the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that the age ought to be below seventy, but said he could not afford it. But he was going to be obliged to afford it after the statement of the Attorney-General. It clearly appeared that there was no possible mechanism provided which would
      1524
      prevent people under the age of seventy asking for pensions. Therefore all the financial calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been upset by his own Attorney-General. He did not know that it could be avoided. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said the Government were going by regulation to say what the evidence was to be—those mysterious regulations which were to solve all the difficulties of the future which the Government were incapable of dealing with. But even Treasury regulations would not manufacture evidence if evidence did not exist. Let them make their regulations with all the care they pleased, when there was no evidence no evidence would be forthcoming, and it was therefore perfectly obvious that with regard to the age of seventy all their precautions were utterly illusory. There was also a great inequality in the way in which this would act. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them there would be clear prima facie evidence with regard to the age of every member of a trade union or a friendly society, Because persons joining them had to make some declaration in respect to their age. He supposed in the main the people who made these declarations made them quite honestly, but he took it that if they had a preference it was to make themselves out younger than they were. If that was so, evidently the members of friendly societies and trade unions would suffer if that was the only evidence forthcoming. They would really have reached the age of seventy in certain cases earlier than the declaration which they had made to the friendly society would seem to indicate. But let them take other classes of society—for instance the Irish population, where there was absolutely no evidence as to whether they were seventy or not, and no means of ascertaining except by a general estimate, such as whether they looked it or not. They would get the benefit of the doubt. A quite disproportionate stream of the national benevolence would flow into their pockets, compared with that which would flow into the pockets of members of trade unions and friendly societies. That was a very great injustice. The injustice would also be against the country and in favour of those classes in the towns which did not belong to

      1525
      trade unions and friendly societies, because in the country there was very likely evidence easily ascertainable as to what a person's age really was, and these persons would not be able to claim to be seventy before they were seventy. But take a person in town. It had been stated and never contradicted by the Government that in the case, not of the superior workman who belonged to a trade union or benefit society, but of the unorganised labourer and the poorer members of the working classes, evidence would not be forth-coming and, of course, the benefit of the doubt would always be given in favour of the claimant. If the country could afford it, he agreed entirely in favour of its being given, but they had been told all through that the country could not afford it, and that the age of seventy was the lowest possible limit which the resources of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit. They had great reason to complain that on this, which was the first opportunity which they had really had of trying to find out what the Government method was of dealing with this most complicated and difficult question, they found these two statements put forward and uncontradicted by the Government, he believed, incapable of contradiction, first that this want of principle would act greatly in favour of certain classes of the community as against others, and secondly that it would act against the Exchequer and throw upon those who were responsible for the finances of the country a burden which the present holder of that office said the country could not bear. In these circumstances the result of his noble friend's inquiry into the policy and motives of the Government had been singularly unsuccessful. But what he had succeeded in showing, and what was worth showing again, was that the Government had not thought out their Bill or the method in which it was going to work with regard to different classes of the community, and had not the smallest conception of what its operation was to be on the future of the national finances.
      MR. FELLsaid he wished to add a word on behalf of a class who were rarely mentioned in these debates. The bulk of the
      1526
      pensioners under the Bill would be old women. He believed the whole Bill had been founded on New Zealand precedent and practice. The magistrates in New Zealand had to ascertain the age of these would-be pensioners after hearing evidence—no doubt legal evidence, either birth certificates or secondary evidence by other parties who could prove the age of these people. There was no machinery for arriving at the age of applicants in this Bill in any way analogous to that which obtained in New Zealand, and which he believed was found to give satisfaction. If there was to be any machinery set up by the regulations, he hoped it would define a way of arriving at the ages of these old women who would find the greatest difficulty in proving their ages under the Bill.
      LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to withdraw the Amendment, and in doing so he hoped they would hear no more about irresponsibility from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. McARTHUR, in moving, said the object of the Amendment, to add at the end of Clause 2, "Provided that in the case of a British sailor residence in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to include service on board a vessel registered in the United Kingdom," was to adapt the concluding words of sub-clause (2) to the case of sailors. The subsection said that a person in order to have a pension must have been for twenty years a British subject living in the United Kingdom. That was all very well so far as workers on land were concerned; but how were they to deal with the case of a sailor? Residence for twenty years in the United Kingdom was clearly not applicable, to his case. The object of the Amendment was to provide that service on a ship registered in the United Kingdom should be considered as residence in the United Kingdom. That seemed a reasonable way out of the matter. If a sailor was a British subject, and worked on a British ship for twenty years, he was as much entitled to a pension as a miner or any other

      1527
      labourer. It would be a great hardship if he were cut out, because no man was more useful to the State than the British sailor, and no man was less able to provide for his old age, for often he found his only refuge, when too old to go to sea, in the workhouse. In the New Zealand Act this point was specially provided for by words similar to these, which provided that a sailor employed on a ship belonging to the Colony should be entitled to a pension. He would perhaps be told that this could be met by regulation under the Act, but that was not the case. Regulations under the Act could not go beyond the terms of the Act. They could not vary the terms of an Act by regulation. They might make exceptions as to residence, but they could not provide that a foreign country or foreign waters should be deemed to be the United Kingdom, or say that when a sailor was at sea he was in the United Kingdom. He could quite believe that the Government did not wish to exclude sailors, but he submitted that they could not draw regulations which would bring in sailors. Trinity House granted certain pensions, and there was an association in Liverpool which granted small pensions to sailors, but, of course, under the Bill those would be taken as income. He hoped the Government would deal with this point satisfactorily by making it perfectly clear that the case of the sailor was not to be excluded. He begged to move.
      MR. HARMOOD-BANNERseconded. He said that knowing the sympathetic action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill, he was sure that it would not be his intention to exclude seamen from the benefits of a Pensions Bill. They were all agreed that the British sailor was one of our most valuable national assets, and they Ought not to do anything which would make him feel that he was placed at any disadvantage compared with any other inhabitants in reference to the advantages he was entitled to derive from the finances of the country. If they differentiated with regard to services abroad, they would at once place a disadvantage upon the manning of ships, and place the sailor in an invidious
      1528
      position, and just at the end of his life he would be placed at a decided disadvantage.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, 'provided that in the case of a British sailor residence in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to include service on board a vessel registered in the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. McArthur).
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      SIR W. ROBSONsaid he scarcely needed to assure hon. Members that the Government had every intention of including seamen within the scope of the Bill. Seamen, however, were only one of many classes who pursued their avocation abroad. There were soldiers as well as sailors, and workmen who were sent abroad to execute large contracts for docks and railways who occasionally had to remain abroad for seven years. Those cases would be sure to come up to be dealt with, and the most convenient course to adopt would be to give to the word "residence" a meaning which would include them all. It was quite within the power of those who formed the rules to provide that service on board a British ship on the part of a British subject should be brought within the Act under the term "residence." The Government would certainly take care that all those great classes should be included within the scope of the Bill.
      COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he had an Amendment to include soldiers. He understood from the Attorney-General that soldiers would be included.
      SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. For the Government to select one particular class for specific treatment would throw doubt upon their power to deal with these classes by regulation.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he understood that this Amendment would be accepted. He was glad of that, because it was about the only common sense Amendment the Opposition had proposed. The hon. Gentleman

      1529
      above the gangway said in his Amendment that "residence" should be taken to mean service on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom. There were a great many British subjects who served on ships not registered under the British flag at all, who did good service to this country. A good deal of British trade was done on ships which did not fly the British flag, although very often the crews were largely British subjects resident in this country. According to this Amendment those men in their deserving old age would be deprived of their pension simply because the ships they served on were not registered in this country. British sailors who served in ships registered abroad ought to be treated in the same way as other British sailors, and should not be debarred from receiving old-age pensions.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that this was one of those Amendments which produced agreement on all sides. He wanted to ask a further question. He had in his mind the case of men serving in the British mercantile marine. The Attorney-General said it would be possible to define "residence in the United Kingdom" so as to cover the case of a man who was domiciled here, but who was serving on a British ship or serving in the Army on a foreign station. But that did not cover all the cases. There were a number of sailors who were not domiciled here, and they would have to add an entirely novel definition of domicile to cover their case. When he was at the Admiralty there were many more Colonial dockyards than now and from time to time it was the practice to call for volunteers in the Home yards to proceed to a Colonial station, take up residence there, and work in His Majesty's dockyard abroad. In those cases the men closed their homes here altogether, and moved abroad. He thought those were cases which certainly ought to be covered, and there would be a number of them in the military service. He would like to know whether it would be within the power of the Government by means of regulations not only to define "residence" in the United Kingdom as including a man who was domiciled here, but also to include a man who had been
      1530
      forced to change his domicile in pursuance of public or private service.
      MR. SUMMERBELLasked whether Members of the House would have an opportunity of seeing the regulations which were to be drawn up under the Act, and, if so, when they were likely to see them.
      MR. H. C. LEAsaid he wished to ask the Solicitor-General one question affecting soldiers. If a man who had been discharged as a time-expired soldier in India, and who had gone to work on the railways, or in some other occupation, returned home at the age of sixty or sixty-five, having been absent for forty years, would he come within the scope of the rules and regulations proposed to be drawn up?
      MR. BOWLESsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that this matter would be dealt with by regulations. He agreed with the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that it would be more convenient for all of them, although less for the Government, if the regulations were put before the House in order that they might find out what they were discussing. All they could do was to ask such questions as they thought important in order to find out on what principle the regulations would be framed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the case of the sailor could be met by regulations made under the Bill. He himself had some doubt about it. Regulations could not be made which would conflict with the directions of the Act. Suppose that a man over fifty who was serving as a merchant seaman gave up his home in this country, and had nothing which could be regarded as a home or domicile here, and that he went off for three or four years on a long cruise, under the Bill as it stood it would be perfectly impossible to make regulations, or, if made, to enforce them, which would enable such a man to get a pension at all. Whatever might be the sailor's qualifications in other respects he could not say, and no regulation could make it possible for him to say, that he had for twenty years had a residence in this

      1531
      country prior to the date when, in other circumstances, he would be entitled to a pension. That was a person the House would not desire to exclude, and they were entitled to some better assurance than had been given that the Government would do their best to deal with the case by regulations.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH): was understood to say that in the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire no change was contemplated.
      MR. CARLILEurged the Government to make some alteration in the wording of the Bill. It was perfectly clear in the Bill as it stood that persons must have their residence in the country in order to be entitled to pensions. Local committees would have no power to go outside of the actual wording of the Bill. This was a matter which affected a large number of people who had peculiar claims on the country.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sure the House would feel that they must ask the Government questions in regard to the meaning of these words, because they had not the regulations before them, and there appeared to be no prospect of obtaining them, or that the pious wishes of the hon. Member for Sunderland would receive early fulfilment. The representative of the Government nodded approval when the hon. Member for East Clare suggested that British sailors serving on foreign ships should have pensions just as if they were serving on British ships. He did not know whether that approving nod was intended to commit the Government to that proposition, and he would like an explicit answer. They must have a strong case, and he wished to know whether the Government did say so. Even more strong than the case of the man serving on a foreign ship was the case of the engine driver on an Indian railway. He was, after all, on British territory. He was not serving abroad. An English sailor on a foreign ship was really in foreign territory and earning his livelihood in foreign territory, and
      1532
      his case was really extremely doubtful, but they could not exclude such a case as he put, namely, the British engine driver serving on an Indian railway. The Government must have thought out all these matters, although they had not been able to give the House the regulations in which they had embodied the results of their reflections. He thought they should answer these questions.
      MR. HAVELOCK WILSONthought that a British sailor serving on a British ship was in British territory.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the case put by the hon. Member for East Clare was that of a British sailor serving on a British ship.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid his point was that it was to the interest very often of this State that certain ships which were not registered in this country as British ships should be largely manned by British sailors. There were many cases where that was so. He submitted that in cases of that kind a British sailor should not, on returning home in his old age, be debarred from receiving a pension simply because he had not served on a British ship.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was entirely a question of domicile. There were cases where a sailor was serving on board a foreign ship—and as a rule it was a foreign ship in the ownership of which there was a large British interest—and for all practical purposes it was a British-owned ship. In that case it was entirely a question of domicile—whether the sailor really had his home in this country or whether he had settled down altogether in another country, say, in the United States of America. If a British sailor serving on board an American ship had settled down in America and become an American citizen, he should not receive a pension in this country. But supposing he was serving on a Brazilian ship, a vessel which was really a British-owned ship, but which in order to conform to certain regulations flew the Brazilian flag. The real question was whether the sailor was still a British subject with a British

      1533
      domicile. That was largely a question of law. He wished the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, had seen the New Zealand regulations. They were very vague, because they were intended to leave a good deal of latitude for the many cases which must arise. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the Government had not thought out, not the two or three cases which he had suggested, but the thousand and one cases which might arise.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Classes of cases.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there were not so many classes of cases. The big classes must be thought out. Besides the cases of the soldier and the sailor, there was the case of the man who went out to serve under a British contract. It might be for three or four years. It might be in South America, India, China, or Mexico. There were many cases of that kind where British subjects could be serving abroad. There were hundreds of decisions of the Courts dealing with matters of that kind. The Act of Parliament only provided for the making of regulations.
      MR. GRETTONsaid that the only answer the right hon. Gentleman had given was similar to that given by the Attorney-General in regard to one particular section of the Bill. In his view, power should only be taken to make regulations for cases which had not been foreseen. He thought it was unfortunate that the Government had not placed the New Zealand Act and regulations on the Table; that would have been a great convenience, as they had been so often referred to. He submitted that it would be wise to pass the Amendment, and he would support it if his hon. friend went to a division. There was a very common case which, it appeared to him, had not yet been considered by the Government. He referred to the case of the seaman, a single man, who spent practically the whole of his life at sea. His home had passed away; he had no family connections with whom he could usually stay when ashore. How could they define a domicile for a man of that description? And it
      1534
      would be very hard to deprive him of a pension when he reached the age which would entitle him to it, and when he might have much more need of it than many other men who received pensions.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had referred them again to the New Zealand regulations. He did not want to see the New Zealand regulations. He was not going to get a pension under the New Zealand Act, nor was he going to pay towards pensions under that Act. What he did want to see were the regulations which were going to affect him as a taxpayer and his fellow countrymen as recipients of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman had told them about a ship owned by an English company but which sailed under the Brazilian flag. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the regulations could alter the law of the land? That ship was a Brazilian vessel, no matter who owned it. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the difficulty of a seaman on board such a ship, and said that the regulations would meet it. In his opinion the only way to meet the difficulty was to put something in the Bill. They should really know what they were doing before they passed the Bill. At the present moment they did not know in the least who was to frame the regulations based on some other regulations passed by another country. This was the great object lesson in passing legislation in an abortive manner, and he sincerely hoped they would never again have such a measure.
      MR. CAVEpointed out that domicile was one thing and residence another. There were thousands of people domiciled in England who were resident abroad, and there were thousands who were resident in England but who were domiciled abroad. An hon. Member who spoke on the part of seamen seemed to think that a seaman who spent all his life abroad on a foreign ship could yet be resident in England. He was quite mistaken. All the regulations could do was to define residence; nobody could define residence so as to be synonymous with domicile. An Amendment of this kind was required in order to bring British seamen into the Bill.
      MR. STANLEY WILSONthought the Amendment was of the utmost importance, and he pressed the Government to reconsider the decision arrived at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was perfectly confident that unless the Amendment was accepted great hardship would be inflicted on a vast number of English sailors. The Government did not seem to realise what the effect of their own Bill was going to be. Everyone who was connected with the shipping trade and had the interest of the English sailors at heart, should press the Government to say more clearly than they had done why it was that they would not accept the Amendment. The regulations of other countries had nothing to
      do with the House; what they wanted to know was what the Government's regulations were going to be. He made a final appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the decision to which the Government had come in order to obviate what would be a great hardship to many seamen.
      MR. ASQUITHsaid, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, that in his opinion if this Amendment were carried, it would greatly restrict the scope of the Bill and exclude a large number of persons from its operation.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 316. (Division List, No. 175.)

      AYES.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Gordon, J.

      Percy, Earl

      Ashley, W. W.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gretton, John

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Balcarres, Lord

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Renton, Leslie

      Balfour Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond)

      Haddock, George B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George.

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Harris, Frederick Leverton

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Stanier, Beville

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Starkey, John R.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Talbot, 'Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

      Cave, George

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Lanark)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Cochrane, Hon Thos. H. A. E.

      Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

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

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Winterton, Earl

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Faber George Denison (York)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Morpeth, Viscount

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Fell, Arthur

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      M'Arthur and Mr. Harmood-Banner.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Brigg, John

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Brodie, H. C.

      Adkins, W. Ryland D.

      Beale, W. P.

      Brooke, Stopford

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Beauchamp, E.

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Astbury, John Meir

      Bertram, Julius

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Bethell, Sir JH.(Essex, Romf'rd

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

      Black, Arthur W.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Cameron, Robert

      Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Chance, Frederick William

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Morse, L. L.

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Hodge, John

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Hogan, Michael

      Murnaghan, George

      Cleland, J. W.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Clough, William

      Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

      Myer, Horatio

      Clynes, J. R,

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Nicholls, George

      Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

      Hudson, Walter

      Nicholson, Charles N, (Doncast'r

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Nolan, Joseph

      Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Crean, Eugene

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Crooks, William

      Johnson, John (Nuneaton)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Crossley, William J.

      Jowett, F. W.

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Cullinan, J.

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

      Dalmeny, Lord

      Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

      O'Dowd, John

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Kekewich, Sir George

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

      Devlin, Joseph

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Parker, James (Halifax)

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

      Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

      Partington, Oswald

      Dillon, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Perks, Sir Robert William

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Pollard, Dr.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central

      Erskine, David C.

      Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Essex, R, W.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Radford, G. H.

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Fenwick, Charles

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Ferens, T. R.

      Lundon, W.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lupton, Arnold

      Reddy, M.

      Findlay, Alexander

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Richards, Thomas(W Monm'th

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

      Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Maclean, Donald

      Richardson, A.

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Gill, A. H.

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs

      Glendinning, R. G.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

      Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

      Glover, Thomas

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      M'Callum, John M.

      Robinson, S.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      M'Kean, John

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Grey Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Gulland, John W.

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Maddison, Frederick

      Russell, T. W.

      Hall, Frederick

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Halpin, J.

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Ceveland)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

      Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Harcourt, Robert. V. (Montrose)

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester).

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Marnham, F. J.

      Sears, J. E.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Massie, J.

      Seddon, J.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Seely, Colonel

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Meagher, Michael

      Shackleton, David James

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Menzies, Walter

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.).

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Sherwell, Arthur James

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

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Henry, Charles S.

      Mond, A.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Higham, John Sharp

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      1538

      1539

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Toulmin, George

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Snowden, P.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Verney, F. W.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Vivian, Henry

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Steadman, W. C.

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      Walsh, Stephen

      Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Walters, John Tudor

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Waring, Walter

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

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

      Summerbell, T.

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Sutherland J. E.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Winfrey, R.

      Tayor, John W. (Durham)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Weir, James Galloway

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Whitbread, Howard

      Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Tillett, Louis John

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill,"—put, and agreed to.

      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he moved the Second Amendment standing in his name. He had put down two because he was not quite certain as to what would happen last night. The Committee having approved the schedule, he begged to move the Second Amendment.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 26, at end, to insert the words '(3) The means of the person as calculated under this Act must not exceed £31 10s.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      MR. SOARES MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple) moved an Amendment providing that a person shall be disqualified for receiving an old-age pension while he is in receipt of any poor relief (other than relief excepted under this provision) until "the 31st day of December, 1910, unless" Parliament otherwise determines if he has at any time since Januray 1st, 1908, received any such relief. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to accept the Amendment. The result of accepting the Amendment was that they would be giving a statutory undertaking which would appear in the Bill itself that no pauper should be excluded from the benefit of the Old-Age Pensions Act later than 31st December, 1910. They also had the further Parliamentary undertaking which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage. The Amendment was really only the fulfilment of the
      1540
      distinct pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Committee stage. Personally, and he believed he spoke for many others, they were sincerely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting them in the way in which he had. They recognised that under the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not yet received the Report of the Poor Law Commission, he had done everything that he possibly could. He would detain the House no longer but formally move.
      SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGformally seconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 5, after the word 'until' to insert the words 'the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and ten, unless.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the Amendment.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid before the Amendment was accepted by the House he would like to ask whether an Amendment which would admit all these paupers and greatly increase the cost of the measure was in order. His second point was that he did not approve of the date being put in in this way, because it might make it necessary to deal with the matter under the Expiring Laws

      1541
      Continuance Bill. He would have preferred that the old phrase should have been allowed to remain. The only reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have to accept this Amendment was his desire to put off the evil day. If the Amendment was carried a large increase in the pensions must occur at a considerable cost to the Exchequer. He did not think that was good legislation. No one knew how they were going to meet the liabilities which would fall due after next March, and if there was to be a large increase of liability accruing in 1911 the Parliament of that day should be left to deal with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who only the other day preached the necessity of economy, had now accepted an Amendment which would increase the cost enormously. The expenditure the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for he desired to restrict, but expenditure which would occur three years hence he cared nothing about. They were now legislating for 1911, two and a half years hence, and they did not know what might happen then. They did not know in the least how great the deficit, owing to falling revenue, would be. Under these circumstances, it was extremely rash of the Government to accept the Amendment. If it was passed, and the Government said in 1911 that they had not the money to do it, they would have to have a new amending Act. The House ought to pause, therefore, before accepting the Amendment.
      MR. WALTER LONGthought this Amendment certainly deserved more consideration than it had received. It was the first occasion on which such an Amendment in this form had ever been accepted. The Government had often, for the purpose of achieving the object they had in view, limited an Act for a certain time, with the result that when the time came the difficulty could always be got out of by putting the Act into the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It seemed to him that if the Amendment were inserted the hon. Member would be able to claim that he was the only private Member who had succeeded in getting an Amendment inserted which
      1542
      added materially to the expenses of the Bill; whereas with all others they had been told that they could not add to the cost of the Bill, and that it could only be done by the Government, and not left to a private Member. Further than that, they had been told that they could not deal with anything that added to the cost of the Bill, unless it were dealt with in Committee. What was to be the proposal of the Government? If this was to be their procedure it would form a precedent. What was it that the Government were doing? They, had been thanked by hon. Gentlemen for their generosity; but it seemed to those on his side of the House that they were being generous with other people's time as well as other people's money. Here were the Government entering into an obligation to do a certain thing at the distant period of eighteen months from now. Many things might happen in eighteen months; but suppose when the time came that the business of the country was in the same condition as it was in to-day, and when they had got through a portion of their work they were obliged to sit in the autumn, what were the Government going to do? Were they going to bring in an amending Bill simply altering this, or were they going to postpone it to another year? Were they going, when 1910 came, again to legislate and make it 1911, for which purpose they must have a separate Bill, to go through all its stages, to postpone the date? The proper course for the Government, if the proposals in the Bill were of an experimental kind and not permanent, was to give Parliament an opportunity of reconsidering whether the proper course would not be to follow precedent and have a fixed limit—say one or two years, or whatever they liked. The present course was entirely against precedent, and had nothing to recommend it except for the purpose of the Government's shunting its responsibility probably on to the shoulders of their successors. The year 1910 for the purposes of legislation practically meant two and a half years from the present year. It meant that the House was pledging Parliament to legislate in two and a half years from now. That was

      1543
      an extraordinary step for any Government to take, and he could not under stand why the Government had not adopted the simpler procedure, for which there were many precedents, of passing legislation limiting the time to two years for the operation of the Act Then at the end of two years they would have the right to introduce fresh legislation, or they would have the right to put the Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That would impose no liability on the Government's successors, would expose Parliament to no inconvenience, and was the orthodox and recognised practice. He protested against this new procedure, adopted as it was at the instance of a private Member, whose very few remarks were devoted entirely to showing that he thanked the Government for the great favour that they were giving to their followers.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURon the point of order asked whether an Amendment which seemed definitely to increase the cost of the Bill could be moved on the Report stage.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had risen to make some observations. The Amendment had been moved to carry out a pledge given by the Government in Committee. The point which he wished particularly to put was this: It was simply an Amendment which specifically pledged this Parliament to deal with the problem of the Poor Law disqualification before 31st December, 1910, the words being "until Parliament otherwise determines." He submitted that these were simply words of interpretation. The words "31st of December, 1910," were simply the interpretation given by the House to the words, "until Parliament otherwise determines." It was a specific mandate to the House to deal with the matter before 31st December, 1910. That was the sense in which the Government had accepted it; that was the sense in which the Government had interpreted it in Committee, and not as adding anything to the cost of the scheme. On the contrary, they thought that it should be considered by Parliament when the problem came to be dealt with later
      1544
      on. It had not been suggested in the course of the discussion in Committee, nor was it suggested now, that the whole cost should fall on the Exchequer. It was the Poor Law matter merely that was now under consideration, and it was suggested that Parliament should deal with it before 31st December, 1910, as the interpretation of the words "until Parliament otherwise determines."
      MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it was competent for the House to bind either itself or any future House of Commons, to legislate before a given date, and, if the House did not legislate before 1910, would not the result inevitably be a great increase of the public charge?
      MR. SPEAKER: By the words "until Parliament otherwise determines" it may be said that the House has already committed itself to the expenditure, and his Amendment will only make certain what was previously left indefinite.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, as he understood Mr. Speaker's ruling, it was that if Parliament was going to deal with the matter before the end of that fear it might not increase the charge. If Parliament did not do that, the charge would be increased. Until that was done, it might go on for an indefinite period but for those words. The Bill was framed on an economic basis which, under this Amendment, would stop sharp at the end of 1910, and then thereafter, unless Parliament legislated—it had not anything to compel it to legislate—the charge would be very much increased. That seemed to him to be very near the line.
      MR. SPEAKER: I have nothing further to add to what I have said. Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to address the House on the Amendment?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, if the right hon. Gentleman would permit him, there were one or two questions which he would first desire to answer. He thought the complaint was made that this was not the usual form; that they were not following precedent in inserting this provisional clause merely

      1545
      as a sub-clause of one clause of the Bill, and that what they really ought to do was to follow precedent by making the Bill provisional in its character as to time. The reason of the Government was that they did not desire to make the Bill provisional in its character. They wanted the Bill as a whole to be a permanent charge on the revenue of the country. But with regard to this provision as to the Poor Law, they intended that it should be temporary; they intended that it should be limited to the two years which they now sought to put into the Bill. That was the real reason why they were dealing with the temporary character of the Bill—the only part of it which was provisional.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inform the House what would be the cost, according to the actuarial experts, in which they would be involved. They had heard last night from the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to a large number of propositions, some sort of explanation as to how much money each might involve. The question now under discussion was obviously a most important one, and would have the effect of bringing into the purview of old-age pensions an immense body of people, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or some other member of the Government could tell them what this would mean in figures. He had no doubt after what the right hon. Gentleman had told them last night that he had had a special study made of the different Amendments in order to ascertain from the best actuarial expert opinion that could be brought to bear upon the subject what the proposal would mean to the Exchequer at the present moment; and he for one would very much like to know what would be the cost of an Amendment of this character and to what the country would really be committed. It was a very important point, and they were entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for those figures, because, although on every one of the Amendments they had been told that they could do nothing to increase the
      1546
      cost of the Bill, yet when, this important matter came under discussion they were told that the Amendment would be accepted.
      LORD R. CECILsaid he wanted to put the problem, as he understood it, in a precise form. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that if this disqualification were struck out of the Bill it would mean an addition of £3,500,000 to the annual cost of the scheme. But it had been pointed out that if it were left permanent it would go on diminishing; the difference between the cost of the scheme without it, and the cost of the scheme with it, would go on diminishing, because the guardians would gradually cease to give outdoor relief, and all the people who would otherwise receive outdoor relief would gradually become pensioners. The point raised by his hon. friend was this: How many outdoor relief people would have become pensioners in the estimation of the Government before 31st December, 1910? That, of course, must be taken from the £3,500,000. But supposing that something or other happened and nothing further was done, that the Bill was left to work itself out as it stood, and that this disqualification came to an end altogether on 31st December, 1910, what would be the net addition to the cost of the scheme to the country? He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell them that, but it was information which they would like to have.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool was what, in fact, would be the additional charge. As a matter of fact, in his judgment this would diminish the charge for the very reason pointed out by the noble Lord, because Parliament would be face to face with the problem of the Poor Law with a view to discrimination, and also with a view to allocating the charge between local and imperial finance. He was afraid he could not answer the noble Lord off-hand, but he would look into the matter and give him the answer. It involved very careful inquiry into figures.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the whole procedure on which the Government had embarked in this connection was very astounding. Just let them consider how they stood in connection with the allied problems of reform of the Poor Law and of the old-age pension scheme. The Government did not in the least know what suggestions were going to be made by the Royal Commission nor where they were going to find the money for old-age pensions. With these two ignorances oppressing them, they mortgaged their future assets in point of money without in the least knowing what they were, and they were mortgaging the time of the House without in the least knowing what the time of the House was. Had the Government shown themselves, either in the matter of money or time, such excellent managers of their resources, so provident, so far-seenig, so capable of forecasting the real obligations which would fall on them as they gradually matured, that they should trust them in this matter? They were asking the House to sit about nine or ten months this year. They had all these enormous financial problems to deal with next year, and in the year after they had to consider the Report of the
      Commission, which had not yet been presented, which certainly would not be unanimous, and which would deal with one of the most complicated social problems ever considered by any Commission. This Government, who certainly did not give themselves much leisure for thought or reflection, actually told them that under the penalty of having the taxpayer charged with £3,500,000 more than the existing charge of their pension scheme, they or their successors were to find the solution of the great problem of Poor Law reform before 31st December, 1910. He thought it was the most flagitious way of dealing with future obligations, whether of time or money of which they had any record in Parliamentary experience. In his opinion the precise date which the right hon. Gentleman had substituted for the vague Parliamentary phrase which occurred in the original Bill aggravated rather than diminished the evil which they had to fear, and he should certainly vote against him.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 292; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 76.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Devlin, Joseph

      Adkins, W. Ryland D.

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Alden, Percy

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Cameron, Robert

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Beale, W. P.

      Cleland, J. W.

      Essex, R. W.

      Beauchamp, E.

      Clough, William

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Bennett, E. N.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Fenwick, Charles

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

      Ferens, T. R.

      Bertram, Julius

      Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Black, Arthur W.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Crean, Eugene

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Brigg, John

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Bright, J. A.

      Crooks, William

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Brooke, Stopford

      Crossley, William J.

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Gill, A. H.

      Glendinning, R. G.

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Glover, Thomas

      M'Callum, John M.

      Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyn

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      M'Kean, John

      Sears, J. E.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

      Seddon, J.

      Gulland, John W.

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Seely, Colonel

      Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

      Maddison, Frederick

      Shackleton, David James

      Hall, Frederick

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Halpin, J.

      Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      Marnham, F. J.

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Meagher, Michael

      Simon, John Allsebroo

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Menzies, Walter

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Snowden, P.

      Harwood, George

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Mond, A.

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Morse, L. L.

      Steadman, W. C.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

      Murnaghan, George

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Henry, Charles S.

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

      Myer, Horatio

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Nicholls, George

      Summerbell, T.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Hodge, John

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Hogan, Michael

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Nuttall, Harry

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

      Horniman, Emslie John

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Tillett, Louis John

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Donnel, John (Mayo, S.)

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      O'Dowd, John

      Toulmin, George

      Hyde, Clarendon

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Idris, T. H. W.

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

      Verney, F. W.

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Vivian, Henry

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Partington, Oswald

      Walsh, Stephen

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Walters, John Tudor

      Jowett, F. W.

      Perks, Sir Robert William

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      Joyce, Michael

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Pollard, Dr.

      Watt, Henry A.

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Lamont, Norman

      Radford, G. H.

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

      Reddy, M.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wiles, Thomas

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

      Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

      Richardson, A.

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

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

      Lundon, W.

      Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

      Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Robinson, S.

      Winfrey, R.

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Maclean, Donald

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Russell, T. W.

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Elibank.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      1550

      1551

      NOES.

      Ashley, W. W.

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Fell, Arthur

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

      Gooch. Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gordon, J.

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Banner. John S. Harmood-

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

      Gretton, John

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive.

      Hills, J. W.

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Cave, George

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Starkey, John R.

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S

      Viscount Valentin and Mr.

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Forster,

      Other Amendments made—
      'In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word such."
      "In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'as,' and insert the words '(other than medical or surgical assistance or relief herein-before specifically excepted) which."
      'In page 2, line 18, after the word 'is,' to insert the words 'expressly declared.'"
      "In page 2, line 18, after the word 'not,' to insert the words 'to be.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words 'or a reason for depriving any person of any franchise, right, or privilege.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not quite certain as to the effect of this Amendment. His attention had been called to a case in which certain people who occupied almshouses had been disqualified from voting, and he presumed the reason was that they did not get the proper latchkey control.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that these words were necessary because some of the Vaccination Acts did not expressly refer to this disqualification.
      LORD R. CECILsaid that according to his reading of the subsection its effect was to make anything that was now a disqualification a bar to a pension. Would that also apply to future legislation? Supposing a Bill was brought in which removed some disqualification for some particular form of Poor Law relief, for example, by providing that
      1552
      henceforth the treatment of a patient in an infirmary should not disqualify him for voting. Would that, ipso facto, give that man a right to a pension? If so, it would be a Bill imposing a charge upon the taxpayer and no such Bill could be introduced without a preliminary Resolution in Committee. That would put it out of the power of any private Member to deal with the question. He would like to know from the Attorney-General what was the object of this subsection.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the point raised by the noble Lord depended entirely upon the wording to which he had referred, and the form in which it was passed. As to his point of order he was not able to express an opinion upon it. Ipso facto if a Bill of the sort indicated were passed the disqualifications dealt with would cease.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement the effect of some future law removing Poor Law disqualifications might be at one blow to alter the class of people who were entitled to receive a pension. He thought they were entitled to know there and then what those disqualifications were going to be. If it was made clear that what was meant was the present disqualifications attaching to pauperism there would be an end of the question; but if the question was left open as the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, and could be altered by any subsequent Registration Law, it was likely to be in a muddle, and very serious difficulties

      1553
      and complications with regard to other subjects would arise. That was a most objectionable way of dealing with the subject.
      VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid there was a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Somerset which took away the disqualification for some forms of Poor Law relief such as medical relief. In future any party dealing with disqualifications for the franchise would at the same time be altering legislation in a different field of life, and they would be fundamentally altering the foundation upon which this Bill was based. That seemed a very undesirable way of proceeding; it was very unscientific and cumbersome, and it might be the means of permitting by a side wind a very large number of new pensioners to come under the scheme, which would vastly increase the cost. All through the debates the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been adamant as regarded any proposals to increase the cost of the scheme, and he had begged the House not to press him as he had no money with which to deal with the suggestions made. Notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman was quite reckless in accepting obligations which would mature in three years time, and he had made no attempt to maintain that strict guardianship of the finances of the country in future years which he so steadfastly maintained for the present year. He thought the subsection ought to be recast in order that all the bars to pensions might be clearly understood by all citizens.
      MR. BOWLESthought everybody would agree that there was some force in the remarks made by his hon. friends on this point. The object they had in view was to make the disqualification clear and final, and that could be achieved if the Government would put in some words confining their measure to those matters which were at the present moment a disqualification. Surely they could not allow the Bill when it became an Act to shift about automatically with every change in the franchise.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London were not in order.
      SIR F. BANBURY,on a point' of order, said his Amendment added the words "by reason of gambling, drunkenness, or idleness." He respectfully submitted that those words were in order.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it would considerably narrow the area of disqualification, and, therefore, decrease the charge on the revenue.
      LORD R. CECIL,speaking on the point of order, said it was a great surprise to many Members of the House to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his test would exclude more people than would be excluded by the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. That was a matter of very grave doubt, and he submitted with the greatest respect that it was not one which it was possible for any occupant of the Chair to pronounce upon. The words which provided that it was to be a disqualification for a pension if an applicant "has habitually failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need hellip." were so vague that it was difficult to say what they meant. He submitted that they would be construed to exclude only those who were, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wastrels and drunkards. If the Amendment were accepted, not only would wastrels and drunkards be excluded, but also those whose failure could be shown to be due to gambling or idleness.
      MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have conferred with Mr. Speaker particularly on this point. On the question of substance, I do think that the hon. Baronet's Amendment would narrow the exceptions.
      SIR F. BANBURYasked if he might move the Amendment in another way. He would move to insert after the second "he" in line 21 the words "shall have brought himself into a position to apply for a pension by reason of gambling, drunkenness, idleness, or."
      MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that would extend the exceptions, and, therefore, it would be in order.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would move the Amendment in that form. It would pass the wit of man to define the words in the Bill "ability, opportunity, and need," and, therefore, some words should be introduced which the ordinary pension committee or pension officer would be able to understand. The words of the Amendment were extremely clear. There were a large number of people who worked for some hours of the day at crossing sweeping and other casual occupations and earned enough to keep themselves in a very comfortable way. He was told by the chairman of a London board of guardians that there were many people who earned their living by doing odd jobs for small payments, and who never had what might be called regular work. These people did not dislike hard work, but they disliked regular work, prefering to take the chance of earning 1s. or 2s. casually now and again. So far as he could make out that class would under this clause be qualified for pensions, because all they would have to say was that they had worked so far as was necessary for their need. Who was going to define what was meant by working according to opportunity? He had come across a great many people who always attributed their misfortune to want of opportunity; it was never caused by stupidity, laziness, or anything inherent in themselves. [Cries of "Oh."] He was not speaking specially of the working classes. That applied to all classes. The people he had in his mind were more or less the professional classes. Hon. Members misjudged him if they thought he was in the least prejudiced. He had gained some experience of the world, and he would devote himself to the best of his ability to see that Acts of Parliament were framed in accordance with human nature as it was, and not in accordance with human nature as it appeared to be in the generous hearts of hon. Members. The word "ability" would be equally difficult to define, for there were some who, though they had the ability, preferred the easier part of not exerting themselves
      1556
      according to their ability. The clause as it stood was almost incapable of interpretation, and it would be interpreted in all sorts of different ways by pension committees and pension officers. The words he proposed to introduce were simple and would have the effect of governing the loose phraseology of the Bill. He begged to move.
      MR. LANE-FOXseconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 21, after the second word 'he.' to insert the words 'shall have brought himself into a position to apply for a pension by reason of gambling, drunkenness, idleness, or.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR.CROOKSsaid the hon. Baronet made a useful observation which would be very helpful to the House. He said that to find a proper form of words would pass the wit of man.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what he stated was that, to interpret the form of words in the clause as proposed by the Government would pass the wit of man.
      MR. CROOKSsaid that was exactly what he was going to apply to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It would pass the wit of any ordinary man to give a definition of those three words— "gambling, drunkenness, and idleness." It would be possible to argue for a week, or, for that part, for any length of time as to what was gambling. He had heard it described as a man putting a shilling on the wrong horse and losing his money. There were people who declared that such a man was a supporter of the glorious national sport of horse-racing. That was one form of gambling. Then, he had heard in that House discussions on company promoters, and those who watered stock and the capital of companies. He had also heard talk of South African mines, and the necessity of putting Chinese labour into them in

      1557
      order to get the shareholders' money back. He did not know whether that was gambling or not; it might be open to discussion. It might be regarded as the spirit of initiative for which the Britisher was so notable, and, in that event, the man was an investor; but if he was "blued" in his investment he would lose his pension, and if he backed the wrong horse he was bowled out at once. Next as to drunkenness; was there any living soul who could define drunkenness? He had seen a barometer marking degrees of drunkenness—half-slewed, half-drunk, steadily drunk, talkatively drunk, quarrelsome drunk, maudlin drunk, dead drunk, besides other sorts of drunkenness. What particular degree of drunkenness was to disqualify for a pension? He had even been in another place, and had seen a noble Lord trying to balance a glass of water. He did not think it was the water that over-balanced his legs. What about the noble Lords who had gambled away the whole of their estates? He had seen men walk into this House and it was difficult to say that they were drunk, but still more difficult to say that they were perfectly sober. Were they going to put the poor pension committee in the position of inquiring how a man had lost his money if he ever had any? But when he came to idleness, that capped the whole lot. Would they define the British House of Commons listening to the hon. Baronet hour after hour as indulging in idleness? No one could define idleness. It all depended upon the class one belonged to. The ordinary intelligent legislator "cultivated leisure"; the poor unfortunate members below the gangway "wasted time" in discussing questions they had not properly devoted attention to! The House might go on debating these three words, "gambling, drunkenness and idleness" until hon. Members were seventy, and then, though qualified by age for pensions, they would be disqualified on account of so many years waste of time and idleness. Who then would be qualified? It was useless to discuss what the scheme would cost, because everyone would be disqualified, and so the scheme would cost nothing at all. The hon. Baronet had said something about the man who did odd jobs.
      1558
      He thought the hon. Baronet said "messing about"; that was language up to his standard! He was reminded of the man who, on being asked by his employer what he had been doing, presented a bill:—"To whitewashing, stopping up rat holes, and humbugging about, 4s. 6d. "Under the hon. Baronet's scheme that man would be ruled out. He had no two opinions about the Amendment; and he would vote against it at once.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr, SYDNEY BUXTON,)said that the hon. Member who had just spoken had demonstrated how impossible it would be to carry out the hon. Baronet's Amendment. The only definition of drunkenness that he had ever heard was made by a man who was asked if he had ever seen anybody drunk; and his reply was "Oh, he did not think he had; but he had seen a commercial traveller wheeled along a railway platform in a wheelbarrow, and he really thought that he was a little overcome." As to a question of character as a test, that had been abandoned in deference to the general opinion expressed on both sides of the House that the test ought to be rather that of industry. That was the Amendment which the Government had now introduced into the Bill. The hon. Baronet proposed to revert to the character test, which discussion had shown would be not only impossible but inexpedient. The words of the Bill as they now stood would cover the cases referred to by the hon. Baronet, viz., the cases of those who were habitual gamblers, drunkards, and idlers.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he wished the opponents of the Amendment would come to some agreement among themselves as to what the effect of it would really be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been upheld by the Deputy Speaker in the view, when the Amendment was proposed in another form, that it would lead to an increase of charge, and now it was held that it would diminish pensions. He had listened with some regret to the references made by the hon. Member for

      1559
      Woolwich to this House and to another place, and he still further regretted that these charges should have been received as a matter of laughter. The hon. Member for Woolwich, in opposing the Amendment, had asked if they set up a test, and said that a man should be disqualified for receiving a pension who had brought himself into a position of need by gambling, drunkenness, and idleness, who was to get a pension? But who was to get a pension under the Government scheme? He admitted the difficulty of determining who had brought himself into a position of need by gambling, drunkenness, or idleness. The Government believed that by their Amendment they would exclude any man who had wasted his life by gambling, drunkenness, and idleness. They also believed that they had done something more; but he did not think that the Government had found a definition which was easier of interpretation than that of the hon. Baronet. That was the question he wanted answered by the Postmaster-General, and he thought the House was entitled to an answer before the vote was taken.
      MR. KEIR HAEDIEsaid the objection to the Amendment was obvious. The Postmaster-General had stated quite clearly that the Government had agreed to delete the character test, and the Amendment proposed to reinsert it. The Government proposed only an industry test, the Amendment suggested there should be also a moral one. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment and pass to the discussion of other Amendments of importance.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDexpressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. The object of it was not to cast any slur on the words proposed by the Government but to add certain other disqualifications. It was only right to make it quite clear that as these pensions were to be a reward for elderly people of a deserving character, the drunkard the gambler, and the idle person should be excluded. Although it might be difficult to define the words gambler and drunkard, it would not be difficult
      1560
      if a man had been convicted three or four times in three or four consecutive years for drunkenness to say that the man was a drunkard and ought not to have a pension. There was far greater difficulty in defining what the ability of a man of seventy was. It might be easy to do so in the rural districts, but in large cities such as Liverpool and London where work was not given to men over forty-five years of age there were many hundreds of deserving people who were unable to find work. How was it possible to say that those men had failed to work according to their ability, opportunity, and needs? It would be a very easy thing for a pension officer to say to a man: "You have not worked according to your ability, opportunity and needs, because I myself have seen you knocking about for the last ten or fifteen years doing nothing." The clause, if passed, would be a most unsatisfactory and difficult clause to deal with; it provided no reasonable safeguards against; the wrong kind of men getting pensions, and the idea of the Amendment was to make it possible for the habitual drunkard, gambler, or idler to be kept out. He would support the Amendment.
      MR. ADKINSsaid that while the hon. Member who spoke last was nominally supporting the Amendment, his speech was a criticism of the clause which the Amendment was to alter. If there were difficulties of construction in the clause those difficulties would be increased by the Amendment, which would lead to great injustice in many cases. The word "habitually" did not apply in any reasonable interpretation of the clause. He was surprised that the hon. Member should seek to support an Amendment which would bring into consideration matters which could not properly be decided by any tribunal or committee established under the Bill and which would work inequitably and unjustly throughout the country. On these grounds he opposed the Amendment.
      MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he could not support

      1561
      the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It only carried the absurdity of the clause a little further. There were only two ways of carrying out a pension scheme: it should be either contributory or universal. In either case these difficulties would have been avoided. He was amazed at the attitude of the Postmaster-General when he said the Government were abandoning the character test.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I said it was an industry test.
      MR. BKIDGEMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman called it an industry test. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to an industry test, but he made one reservation in the case of what he called the wastrel. He himself would like to know what a wastrel was. What was the meaning of subsection (b), which referred to refusal to work, if it was not a character test? Surely, if it was an industry test to exclude wastrels, it was an industry test to exclude a person who had brought himself into a position to apply for a pension by reason of gambling, drunkenness, and idleness. It was really absurd for the Postmaster-General to tell them there was any difference in principle between the two. The Amendment would make the Bill more ridiculous than it was, and for that reason he thanked his hon. friend for having moved it.
      MR. VERNEYthought the Postmaster-General was perfectly justified. The whole system of pensions was based on wealth which was the direct result of industry. An immoral man who by industry contributed to that wealth had a right to a pension. But, in the absence of industry, there could be no right to a pension at all.
      MR. JAMES HOPEhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. He sympathised with his object to clear up the definition in the Bill, which he was sure would lead to untold difficulties, but he was afraid his words did not do it. Under the Amendment it would not only be necessary
      1562
      to prove a man had been a gambler, an idler, or a drunkard, but that his gambling, idleness, or drunkenness had placed him in a position to need a pension. They might prove the one, but how would they prove the other? A man might admit he had put a shilling on, had no doubt taken too much at times, and had not worked as hard as he might, and yet say that his present condition was not owing to these little peccadilloes but to other matters, such, for instance, as foreign competition or hostile tariffs. A pension committee, unconsciously impregnated with these views, might accept his excuses. He was afraid the Amendment was not practicable, and, though he had the heartiest sympathy with his hon. friend's object, he could not support him and would be bound to vote against the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON moved to insert in Clause 3, after the word "maintenance," the words "or benefit." It had, he said, been thought by some Members that the subsection would only apply to men, because it might be difficult for a woman to show that she had worked according to her ability, opportunity, and need for the maintenance of herself and those legally dependent upon her; and they proposed to insert the words "or benefit" in order to make it clear the subsection applied to women as well as to men.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 23, after the word 'maintenance,' to insert the words 'or benefit1.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
      Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was in entire sympathy with the Amendment and he had only one observation to make. The Bill either included married women who had kept house respectably and well, but who technically it might be said had not worked for the maintenance of themselves or those dependent upon them,

      1563
      in which case the words proposed were unnecessary; or it did not, in which case the Amendment would place a new charge upon the Exchequer and therefore fell within the category of those which they had not been allowed to move. He did not know on which of these horns of dilemma the right hon. Gentleman desired to sit.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not desire to sit on either. The Government had carefully considered the question, and they had been advised that the words in the Bill would cover the case of women. Certain Members doubted that. They were anxious to make it absolutely clear, and they therefore proposed these words. They would not impose any additional charge, because in the opinion of the Government the case of women was already covered.
      MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that, so far as wives were concerned, the words were not necessary, because provision was made for them in a second paragraph of the clause, but the object of the Amendment which he had put down was to meet the case of a woman who was not a wife but who was either a widow or a spinster. They might possibly have been excluded, and he was therefore very glad the Government preferred to insert the words.
      MR. BOWLESsaid he had an Amendment to deal with this very point. It appeared to him that whilst the Amendment of the Postmaster-General would no doubt provide for the case of married women, it was not certain that it would do so for the single woman, who possibly had no person legally dependent upon her. He preferred the plain and straightforward statement of his own Amendment to the very intricate Amendment the Government proposed. It did not seem at all certain that it would include all women.
      LORD R. CECILsaid they had not had an opportunity of considering words but he Confessed they appeared to him to make it very doubtful what would be the ultimate meaning of the
      1564
      clause. All work was practically done for the maintenance or benefit either of the man himself or those legally dependent upon him, and he wanted to ask the Government what was the force of the words, "maintenance or benefit of himself or those legally depend-dent upon him." He ventured to submit that the addition of the words "or benefit" would enormously extend the scope of the clause.
      THE CHAIRMAN: If the noble Lord puts that to me as a point of order, I have to say that the Postmaster-General, in reply to a question, stated that the charge would not be increased, and I shall treat the Amendment as an explanation, just as I have decided to treat the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood which follows. It is extremely difficult, as hon. Members will see, to draw the line sometimes.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. BOWLESsaid he desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name, because it appeared to be extremely doubtful whether the words, as amended, included every woman whom it was desired to include. There were very few working women of whom it could be said that they had worked according to their ability, opportunity and need for the maintenance of themselves and those legally dependent upon them. What was wanted was not some mere indirect allusion such as the Postmaster-General had put in, but a plain and simple statement such as he now proposed. To leave it to the pension officer to judge whether or not she had worked for other people's benefit was very vague, and it was not the right way to deal with it. The Government Amendment gave great scope to doubts of interpretation of many kinds. He hoped the Government would either assure them that the case of every woman who ought to be included was included in the words as they stood or accept the Amendment.
      LORD R. CECILseconded the Amendment. He did not understand that the words of the Government

      1565
      would include the case which they all wanted to include, namely, that of the woman who was keeping house. It was pretty clear that she did not work for the maintenance of herself if she kept house for her husband.
      AN HON. MEMBER: You ask my wife.
      LORD R. CECILsaid he did not think the wives of hon. Members were the best judges of the construction of the clause. He did not think the words were at all clear, but the words of the Amendment were perfectly clear, and the Government, he suggested, would do well to accept it.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 24, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that a woman shall be deemed to have worked for the maintenance of herself and her dependants if she has kept house for others.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhad no hesitation in saying that every case that had been mentioned by the mover and seconder of the Amendment was absolutely covered by the Bill as it stood. The Amendment, however, appeared very much to limit the number of those who would benefit under the Bill. It limited them to those who had kept house for others, and not even kept house for themselves, and the Government could not possibly accept the words as they stood.
      MR. BOWLESsaid that if the Government were sure these cases were covered, he did not think he ought to put the House to the trouble of a division.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to omit the words "up to" and insert "any time before" in the proviso removing the disqualification in the case of ten years
      1566
      continuous membership of a trade union or benefit society. He wanted to know whether by "up to" they meant from fifty to sixty or any time before reaching the age of sixty. It was a matter of great importance, because if it meant from fifty to sixty he would have thought that that would exclude a very large number of people whom it would be rather hard to exclude because they had failed for one term to pay their subscriptions after the age of fifty. That was probably the most difficult period for a working man to keep up his payments to a society. Whichever the Government meant, they ought to make it quite clear. He had put down two alternative Amendments. One was to insert "any time before." and the other to insert "immediately before." He did not think it was of very great importance which was intended, though there were great difficulties attaching to both, but whichever was intended it should be made quite clear.
      MR. BARNESsaid he would do himself the pleasure of seconding the noble Lord's Amendment, and he was very glad to find himself in agreement with him for once. This seemed to have a widening effect on the Bill, and he was glad the point was raised, because he could conceive conditions under which it would be a very great hardship for a man between fifty and sixty to keep up his payments. That was the most difficult period to get through. In the industrial world a man often found it difficult even before fifty and very hard after that to get work, and he would say there were many cases which would be excluded under the operation of the Bill as it stood. He knew the point had been made before. It might be said that members of friendly societies and trade unions were members of those societies at an early age and had to stick to them. But that did not apply all round. There were members of such trade unions, for instance, as that with which the hon. Member for West Ham was connected, where members were constantly going in and out again.
      MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that having heard from the speeches of the

      1567
      mover and seconder what they were desiring to do, it seemed that it must inevitably increase the charge.
      MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether this was not an interpretation Amendment similar to the two which had been allowed to pass previously.
      MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his interpretation of the Amendment is.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he had proposed to raise the point of order. It was clear that the paragraph could only mean the ten years immediately before the age of sixty. He would not have thought that there was the slightest doubt about that. If any ten years were to be taken, a man might have been a member of a friendly society or trade union at any time of his life, and that would add considerably to the number of those who would come on the pensions.
      MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the Amendment clearly enhanced the charge, and that was out of order.
      LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out "up to" and insert "immediately before." Let them at any rate know what they were doing. The Labour Members would hope the Bill did not mean what the Government said it did, and he could understand that they would be against the Amendment, but the Government would be only too glad to accept it because it would make it perfectly plain. "Immediately before attaining the ago of sixty" was far clearer and more definite than the Government's words. Let them not use a phrase which might be construed by one committee in one way and by another committee in another. Let them say exactly what they meant and they would know what benefit they were conferring on the working class and what they were not.
      SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment, as he understood that
      1568
      it only effected what the Government desired.
      Amendment proposed to the Bill—
      "In page 2, line 26, to leave out the words 'up to,' and insert the words 'immediately before,' "—(Lord R. Cecil,)—instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words 'up to' stand part of the Bill."
      MR. SHACKLETONsaid the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer' had taken him by surprise. The language of the provision had not given the impression which the right hon. Gentleman now placed upon it. Had the word "the" been inserted before the words "ten years" the section might have been understood in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman interpreted it. The impression of the Labour Party had been that what was required was membership of a trade union or friendly society for any ten years of a man's life before he reached the age of sixty years. They were seriously concerned about the construction which the right hon. Gentleman had put upon the provision. In his own trade union there were 150,000 operatives in the cotton trade, not one of whom had a vested interest in a pension. It was a common thing for those people to cease work at fifty or fifty-five years of age, and, according to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, the Bill would be of no use to them. That was something which the Labour Members had never contemplated, and it appeared now, by the ruling from the Chair, that the provision could not be altered; but he hoped that another opportunity would be found to alter it, and that the Government would not acept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that he would not have thought there was the slightest doubt about the meaning of the clause. The Government chose the words in order to make it clear to everybody that they meant the ten years before the age of sixty was reached. That was done for a very good reason. A man might join a friendly society or trade

      1569
      union at the age of twenty years, remain a member for ten years, and then become a wastrel and a loafer through the remainder of his life. If he could claim a pension, that would not make the clause a test of industry and thrift. But if from his fiftieth to his sixtieth year a man worked and was a member of a friendly society or trade union, that was a real test, and if his hon. friend looked at any Colonial or foreign scheme of old-age pensions he would find that that period of life was the real testing time. In the most favourable scheme—the Colonial—the test of industry and character went up to sixty-five years of age. The Government had taken the age of sixty. He had interviewed representatives of friendly societies, and put this point to them, and they were certainly in favour of a test up to sixty years of age.
      LORD R. CECIL: Did the right hon. Gentleman put this test to the friendly societies?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he did, and they preferred it, because they did not wish a man merely to join a society in a fit of enthusiasm and leave it after a few years, but to continue his membership. He put to them the case of a man whose health broke down when he was fifty years old, and he became unable to keep up his subscriptions, and they answered that they regarded such a man as a member as long as he was receiving benefit from the society, and that his subscriptions were paid by the society for him. The question was purely one of drafting. They could not go back on the decision of the Committee. If there was to be any test of thrift and industry at all, it was certainly better to have it immediately before a man reached the age at which he might be entitled to a pension. The words suggested by the noble Lord were the alternative words considered by the Government, and their advisors were strongly of opinion that those they had decided upon were better, and made the matter clearer. After a good deal of careful consideration the Government decided on these words.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINconcurred in thinking that these words,
      1570
      naturally interpreted, meant the last ten years preceding the age of sixty. No doubt it was annoying and vexatious to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to find out at the last moment, when neither they nor anyone else had the opportunity of moving an alternative, what was the intention of the Government, and what was the effect of the Bill they were passing. Once again those hon. Gentlemen had an illustration of the result of the cheerful vote they gave for the guillotine, and the engineer found himself hoist with his own petard. On the general merits of the case he was with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as against hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. At the same time he thought there would be some very hard cases under the test, and he hoped that even now the Government would consider what could be done to meet them. There was the case of the man in the rural district, often alluded to by his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin, who joined one of the small clubs or friendly societies, many of which had come to grief. He might have contributed right up to the time the club failed, but if it failed when he was fifty-nine or fifty-eight, or at any time when he was between fifty and sixty, it was practically impossible for the man to qualify under this proviso. The proviso said—
      "If he continuously makes payment."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had again referred to this case. He thought it was a very strong case on its merits, and he was advised' that under the words in the proviso, "or other approved steps made such provision," he had power to deal with it. He thought the case was one which ought to be recognised.
      MR. GRETTONdesired to give a word of warning in reference to the wholesale statement which had been made on this point, because he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, at some future time, find it very difficult to resist the claims which would be made.
      MR. KEIR HARDIEasked the Attorney-General whether, according to

      1571
      the interpretation, of the subsection, a pension committee or pension officer would be justified in holding that a person had not worked to the best o his ability if he had failed to maintain his contributions to one of the societies mentioned. That appeared to him to be a real danger. The pension committee might take that as a test whether a person had worked according to his ability, and if an applicant had not complied with that condition, he might be ruled out. If that was so, it constituted a very serious state of affairs indeed.
      SIR W. ROBSONsaid that the hon. Member anticipated a danger that would not arise in the construction of the clause The first part laid down the principle that if a man had "habitually failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need" he was disqualified. But in order that there might be an easy means of rebutting any allegation made against him the man was provided with a remedy if he could show that "he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty" made his contributions in the way prescribed by the proviso. No question could arise, therefore, out of the antecedent part of the clause.
      LORD R. CECILasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The next Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of Lord Robert Cecil as follows—
      "In Clause 3, page 2. line 29, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'if at any time he has by.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
      MR. SPEAKER: This Amendment is not in order. It seems to me to whittle away the meaning of the word "continuously," and in that respect it Would increase the charge.
      LORD R. CECIL: May I ask your construction of the words "or other approved steps." I do not understand that to mean some other means of con-
      1572
      tributing to societies, but that a man has taken some other means of providing for old age. I think that, as a matter of clearness, it is desirable it should be stated in the clause that this need not be done over a period of ten years. It cannot be the meaning of the Government or of any sane person that you should not invest your money for ten years except in "friendly, provident, or other societies."
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: According to the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it need not be a continuous contribution even to a friendly society. The right hon. Gentleman explained that he meant to include, or to leave himself open to include, cases in which a man had contributed for part of the ten years to societies which had subsequently become bankrupt.
      MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must not ask me to construe the words of the Bill. As to the import of the word "continuously" I would say that it is applicable to the whole of that sentence, and, therefore, if the noble Lord seeks to whittle it away, he is really going back on the decision of the Committee and also widening the number of persons who will be admitted, and for that reason I do not think the noble Lord has a right to move it.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With all respect, on the point of order may I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the Government draftsman did not mean the word "continuously" to apply to all the methods by which approved steps for providing against old age, sickness, and infirmity, are dealt with. That is part of the explicit policy of the Government.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I take the Amendment on the Paper which proposes to insert the words "if at any time he has by." That certainly widens the clause, and it would increase the number who would come under the provision.
      MR. BOWLES MR. BOWLES moved to leave out the following words at the end of the proviso:

      1573
      "And any such provision, when made by the husband in the case of a married couple living together, shall as respects any right of the wife to a pension, be treated as provision made by the wife as well as by the husband." He did not know whether the Government had considered this any more than the rest of the subsection, but it seemed to him to be an extraordinary provision. It would mean that a perfectly worthless woman whom nobody would desire to provide with a pension would be pensioned at the public expense. It could not be said that the pension in such a case was the reward of industry or of anything else. He could not understand how such a position could be justified. He supposed it had been put in, like a good deal of the rest of the Bill, in order to meet some case which had vaguely floated across the mind of the Government. The Government should say what they meant by a form of words which seemed to him to be perfectly ridiculous. He begged to move.
      LORD R. CECILseconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 32, to leave out from the word 'Act' to end of page 2, line 36."—(Mr. Bowles.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that these words had received very careful consideration from the Government, and they intended to stand by them. If a man had been able to pay his subscriptions up to the age of sixty years, the wife ought to benefit from it. It was very often owing to the wife's care and good housewifery that the man had been able to save any money and pay his subscription to his friendly society, and she ought to have a fair share of the benefit of it. If the woman had been one who squandered her husband's means, he would not have been able to save anything at all.
      MR. STANLEY WILSONhoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
      MR. BOWLESsaid that, after the appeal which had been made to him by his hon. friend, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to insert the following proviso at the end of Subsection (c) in Clause 4: "Provided that such property shall not be deemed to be capable of investment, so as to bring in a larger return than at the rate of 2frac34;per cent, per annum." He thought something should be done to say what kind of investment a man who had saved—100 was bound to make of that money. Was he to buy an annuity? Supposing a man did buy himself an annuity with his £100 at seventy years of age, that would represent a very considerable annuity and would reduce his pension considerably. But if he was bound to invest in Consols, his £100 would only bring in £2 15s. per annum. In that case, he would get a pension of an income subject to that deduction, and in addition to that he would be able to leave his £100 to his children, or his descendants. He thought that some such words as he proposed were needed in order to make it quite clear what was the nature of the investment the man was to make. He begged to move.
      MR. MIDDLEMOREseconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 32, after the word 'him' to insert the words, 'Provided that such property shall not be deemed capable of investment so as to bring in a larger return than at the rate of 2frac34;per cent, per annum.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished the noble Lord had put his Amendment

      1575
      down on the Paper so that they might have seen what the effect of it would be on the rest of the proviso. The noble Lord had taken only one kind of property. He had taken a sum of money yielding more than 2frace34; per cent.; they might take some other kind of property which was not put to profitable use, and which ought to be put to profit able use. They must judge each case on its merits, and that was what the section did. It left it to the officer of the Government and to the pension committee to exercise their discretion in deciding in each particular case what use the property could be put to, and what return could be reasonably expected from it. It was all a matter of business, and he did not think they ought to prescribe the particular investment that ought to be made in each case.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURthought there was a bigger question behind this. A man might save throughout his life, and put his savings into a friendly society, insurance society, or some other society which paid him an annuity at a certain age, and paid him at a different rate of interest to a permanent investment because this investment would cease altogether with the man's life. Then there was the other case. Another man would invest exactly the same sum of money for the same number of years of his life, but he invested his money in some permanent funds like Government stock. During the short period of expectancy of life after seventy the man who had bought an annuity got large interest on his money, and it would seriously diminish the amount of his pension. But the second man, who had invested in a permanent security, got a smaller rate of interest, but he could leave the principal sum to his children, and the burden was thrown upon the taxpayer of paying the whole of his pension. The first man saved the taxpayers; the second man saved his principal. These were two quite different methods of dealing with exactly the same sum of money. The House ought to determine how the directions in this subsection were to be carried out by the committee. He hoped the
      1576
      Government would carefuly consider this question.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was very difficult to go into all the ramifications of a proposal of this kind without a little more notice.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the noble Lord had a case where a man might have saved £1,800, and yet he and his wife might be able to claim the whole of their pensions.
      LORD R. CECIL: A sum of money in a stocking?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes. That was a case which ought to be excluded. The committee ought to have some discretion. The pension committee ought to be able to say what sum of money ought to produce more than enough to exclude. It would be absurd that a man who had £1,800 which he could leave to his children should be able to claim 10s. in pensions for his wife and himself.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: £1,800 invested in the funds?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, not invested at all. In a stocking. They would be able to claim a pension.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the Government ought to be particularly careful if they discriminated that they did not discriminate against those who invested their savings with the Government itself. He had always regretted that in this country we had not that large number of small investors in Government funds which in France made so much for the stability of the French nation as well as French finance, and he thought that the Government ought to be very careful if they discriminated at all that they should not discriminate in such a way as to deter

      1577
      people from investing in Government funds.
      MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised a very important question which ought to be debated. Let him take the case of a man to whom at the age of sixty-eight £400 was given as compensation for an accident. If that man invested it in Government funds it would bring in £10 a year. Was the pension officer to say that the money was not properly invested and that if instead of putting it in the funds its
      possessor had purchased an annuity it would have produced 4 per cent., and that therefore he was entitled to less pension?
      And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th June, to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 363.(Division List No. 177.)

      AYES.

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Ashley, W. W.

      Fell, Arthur

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gordon, J.

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Parkes, Ebenezer

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

      Gretton, John

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Haddock, George B.

      Renton, Leslie

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Stanier, Beville

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hills, J. W.

      Starkey, John R.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Cave, George

      Hunt, Rowland

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Whitbread, Howard

      Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

      Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

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

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

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

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Younger, George

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Craik, Sir Henry

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Alexander Acland-Hood and

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Viscount Valentia.

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Barnes, G. N.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Adkins, W. Ryland D.

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Agnew, George William

      Beale, W. P.

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Alden, Percy

      Beauchamp, E.

      Brigg, John

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Bright, J. A.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp' rt

      Brooke, Stopford

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

      Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

      Astbury, John Meir

      Bennett, E. N.

      Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir JT (Cheshire

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Bertram, Julius

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hall, Frederick

      Mac veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Halpin, J.

      MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

      M'Callum, John M.

      Cameron, Robert

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      M'Laren, Sir C B. (Leicester)

      Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

      M 'Micking, Major G.

      Chance, Frederick William

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh.

      Maddison, Frederick

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Harwood, George

      Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Clough, William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Marnham, F. J.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Massie, J.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Meagher, Michael

      Cooper, G. J.

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

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Henry, Charles S.

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Mond, A.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Crean, Eugene

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Morrell, Philip

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Hodge, John

      Morse, L. L.

      Crooks, William

      Hogan, Michael

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Holden, E. Hopkinson

      Murnaghan, George

      Crossley, William J.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Cullinan, J.

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Myer, Horatio

      Curran, Peter Francis

      Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Napier, T. B.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Hudson, Walter

      Nicholls, George

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Button, Alfred Eddison

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Nolan, Joseph

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

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Duffy, William J.

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Jenkins, J.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      O' Doherty, Philip

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Jowett, F. W.

      O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

      Erskine, David C.

      Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

      O' Dowd, John

      Essex, R. W.

      Kekewich, Sir George

      O' Grady, J.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Kilbride, Denis

      O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      O' Kelly Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Fenwick, Charles

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Ferens, T. R.

      Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

      Partington, Oswald

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Lament, Norman

      Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Perks, Sir Robert William

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S' thampton)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

      Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Pollard, Dr.

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Lupton, Arnold

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Glover, Thomas

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Lynch, H. B.

      Radford, G. H.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

      Maclean, Donald

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Gulland, John W.

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Reddy, M.

      Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      1580

      1581

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Waring, Walter

      Richards, T F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

      Richardson, A.

      Snowden, P.

      Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

      Steadman, W. C.

      Weir, James Galloway

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Robinson, S.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Summerbell, T.

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Rowlands, J.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Russell, T. W.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Williamson, A.

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Scarisbrick T. T. L.

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

      Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

      Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Scott, A. H (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)

      Soars, J. E.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

      Seaverns J. H.

      Tomkinson, James

      Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

      Seddon, J.

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Seely, Colonel

      Toulmin, George

      Winfrey, R.

      Shackleton, David James

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Wood, T. M' Kinnon

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Verney, F. W.

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

      Vivian, Henry

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Wadsworth, J.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Walsh, Stephen

      Elibank.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Walters, John Tudor

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Walton, Joseph

      Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 4, line 12, after the word 'after,
      'to insert the words 'the day on which.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Question put, ''That the Amendment be made."
      The House divided:—Ayes, 372; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 178.)

      AYES

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Beale, W. P.

      Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh'

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Beauchamp, E.

      Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir JT (Cheshire

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Adkins, W. Ryland D.

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Agnew, George William

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Alden, Percy

      Bennett, E. N.

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Bertram, Julius

      Cameron, Robert

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

      Astbury, John Meir

      Black, Arthur W.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Chance, Frederick William

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Brigg, John

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Bright, J. A.

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Cleland, J. W.

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Clough, William

      Clynes, J. R.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Maddison, Frederick

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Harwood, George

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Collius, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

      Cooper, G. J.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Hazleton, Richard

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Marnham, F. J.

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Massie, J.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

      Meagher, Michael

      Crean, Eugene

      Henry, Charles S.

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Crooks, William

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Mond, A.

      Crossley, William J.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Cullinan, J.

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Curran, Peter Francis

      Hodge, John

      Morrell, Philip

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Hogan, Michael

      Morse, L. L.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Holden, E. Hopkinson

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Murnaghan, George

      Devlin, Joseph

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Myer, Horatio

      Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

      Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Napier, T. B.

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Nicholls, George

      Duffy, William J.

      Hudson, Walter

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Nolan, Joseph

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Jenkins, J.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Erskine, David C.

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Essex, R. W.

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Jowett, F. W.

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Dowd, John

      Fenwick, Charles

      Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

      O'Grady, J.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Kekewich, Sir George

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

      Ffrench, Peter

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Findlay, Alexander

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Partington, Oswald

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

      Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

      Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Perks, Sir Robert William

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Lament, Norman

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Gill, A. H.

      Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Pollard, Dr.

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Glover, Thomas

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Radford, G. H.

      Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

      Lynch, H. B.

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Gulland, John W.

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Maclean, Donald

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Hall, Frederick

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Reddy, M.

      Halpin, J.

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      M'Callum, John M.

      Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Richardson, A.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

      M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss-sh

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.).

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Hart-Davies, T.

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      1584

      1585

      Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

      Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Robinson, S.

      Steadman, W. C.

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Whitbread, Howard

      Rowlands, J.

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Summerbell, T.

      White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

      Russell, T. W.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

      Thomasson, Franklin

      William, Llewelyn (Carm'rthn

      Sears, J. E.

      Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

      Williamson, A.

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Seddon, J.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Seely, Colonel

      Tomkinson, James

      Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

      Shackleton, David James

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Toulmin, George

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Ure, Alexander

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Verncy, F. W.

      Winfrey, R.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Vivian, Henry

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Wadsworth, J.

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Walsh, Stephen

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Walters, John Tudor

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Walton, Joseph

      Elibank.

      Snowden, P.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Waring, Walter

      NOES.

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Fell, Arthur

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Forster, Henry William

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      Ashley, W. W.

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

      Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gordon, J.

      O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gretton, John

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Haddock, George B.

      Renton, Leslie

      Banner, John. S. Harmood-

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hills, J. W.

      Stanier, Beville

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Starkey, John R.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Hunt, Rowland

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Cave, George

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J. A.(Worc

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)

      Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

      Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

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

      Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

      Lonsdale, John; Brownlee

      Younger, George

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      M' Arthur, Charles

      Claude Hay and Mr. George

      Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Denison Faber.

      Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to add at the end of line 13 the words "or if that day is a Friday on that day," is one which increases the charge by adding one week to the pension period, if a pension is granted on a Friday, and consequently it is not in order.
      Other Amendments made—
      "In page 4, line 27, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words '(except in the case of a question which has been originated by the pension officer and on which the committee have already received his report).'"
      "In page 4, line 37, after the first word 'The,' to insert the words 'pension officer, and
      any person aggrieved, may appeal to the central pension authority against a.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 4, line 39, to leave out from the word 'them' to the word 'referred,' in line 40, and to insert the words 'within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, and any claim or question in respect of which an appeal is so brought shall stand.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
      The House divided:—Ayes, 360; Noes, 82. (Division List, No. 179.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Byles, William Pollard

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Agnew, George William

      Cameron, Robert

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Alden, Percy

      Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Erskine, David C.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Chance, Frederick William

      Essex, R. W.

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Astbury, John Meir

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Fenwick, Charles

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Clough, William

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Barnes, G. N.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

      Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Beale, W. P.

      Cooper, G. J.

      Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

      Beauchamp, E.

      Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Gill, A. H.

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

      Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

      Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

      Bennett, E. N.

      Crean, Eugene

      Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Glover, Thomas

      Bertram, Julius

      Crooks, William

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Crossley, William J.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Cullinan, J.

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Curran, Peter Francis

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

      Brigg, John

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Gulland, John W.

      Bright, J. A.

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Bampton

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Brooke, Stopford

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Hall, Frederick

      Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh)

      Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

      Halpin, J.

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

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

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Duffy, William J.

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Robertson Sir G Scott (Bradford

      Harmsworth RL (Caithness-sh.

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Maddison, Frederick

      Robinson, S.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Harwood, George

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

      Rowlands, J.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Marnham, F. J.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Hodges, A. Paget

      Massie, J.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Meagher, Micdael

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Henry, Charles S.

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Mond, A.

      Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Sears, J. E.

      Hodge, John

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Hogan, Michael

      Morrell, Philip

      Seddon, J.

      Holden, E. Hopkinson

      Morse, L. L.

      Seely, Colonel

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Shackleton, David James

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Murnaghan, George

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

      Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

      Myer, Horatio

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Napier, T. B.

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Hudson, Walter

      Nicholls, George

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Nolan, Joseph

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Snowden, P.

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Jenkins, J.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Steadman, W. C.

      Jowett, F. W.

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

      O'Dowd, John

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      O'Grady, J.

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Summerbell, T.

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Partington, Oswald

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

      Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Perks, Sir Robert William

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

      Lamont, Norman

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E,)

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Pollard, Dr.

      Tomkinson, James

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Toulmin, George

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)\

      Ure, Alexander

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)

      Verney, F. W.

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Vivian, Henry

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Lupton, Arnold

      Radford, G. H.

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Luttrell, Huge Fownes

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Walsh, Stephen

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Walters, John Tudor

      Lynch, H. B.

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Walton, Joseph

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

      Reddy, M.

      Waring, Walter

      Maclean, Donald

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

      Wason, Rt Hn. E (Clackmannan

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

      Richardson, A.

      Waterlow, D. S.

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Watt, Henry A.

      M'Callum, John M.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      M'Crae, Sir George

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Weir, James Galloway

      M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

      Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs

      White, Sir George (Norfolk) W.

      1590

      1591

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Williamson, A.

      Winfrey, R.

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Wiles, Thomas

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

      Elibank.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

      Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

      NOES.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Forster, Henry William

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Ashley, W. W.

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Middlebrook, William

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gordon, J.

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Morrison-Bell, Capain

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gretton, John

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

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

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Haddock, George B.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Renton, Leslie

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hills, J. W.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

      Cave, George

      Houston, Robert Peaterson

      Stanier, Beville

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Starkey, John R.

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

      Lockwood, Rt Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

      Younger, George

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee.

      Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Lord

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Edmund Talbot.

      Fell, Arthur

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Other Amendments made—
      "In page 5, line 28, after the word 'person,' to insert the word 'knowingly.'"
      "In page 6, line 30, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'and for notice being given by registrars of births and deaths to the pension officers or local pension committees of every death of a person over seventy registered by them, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be laid down by the regulations.'"
      "In the Schedule, page 7, line 22, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'per week.'" —(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

      CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
      As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.
      Adjourned at eighteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

VISCOUNT BOYNE.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Monday last, that the right of the Viscount Boyne to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—Local Government Provisional Orders(No.10); Marriages Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Camborne Water Bill.—Reported without Amendment.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [H.L.] (Swansea Orders No. 1 and No. 2).—Report from the Select Committee. That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the said Orders no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on 24th June last and the 1st instant respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select
1418
Committee in regard to the said Orders discharged.
Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
Swinton and Mexbrough Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
Merthyr Tydvil Corporation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
Stockport Corporation Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Southwell District Gas Bill; Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill; Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 563. Gibraltar (Report for 1907).

  TRADE REPORTS: MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 668. Japan (Report on the Hok Kaido).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 AND 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 3rd July, 1908, approving of a regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND),1877.
  Order in Council, dated 3rd July, 1908, giving effect to Rules of Court.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CITY OF EXETER).
  Order made by the Council of the City of Exeter, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is really a Departmental Bill, of, I think I may say without exaggeration, an agreed character. Questions have arisen from time to time as to the power of the Board of Education to insert in schemes relating to endowed schools a provision for giving notice to the headmasters and assistant masters employed in the schools to which the schemes relate. The matter was much discussed in the case of Wright v. Zetland (Marquess of) [1908] 1 K.B. 63; and this Bill is really in consequence of the proceedings which took place on that occasion.
  The question is not a very material one in regard to headmasters, but the Bill deals more particularly with assistant masters. Your Lordships will see that by Clause 1 the employer is made the governing body. There was some question before that action as to whether the assistant masters were not in the employment of the headmaster, who had technically engaged them, but as headmasters are not generally men of much means, I think your Lordships will see that it would be rather unfair that the assistant masters should be in their employment rather than in that of the governing body of the school. The second subsection provides that—
  "Notwithstanding anything in Section 22 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, any pro-
  1420
  vision in any scheme, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, providing for notice being given to a master before he is dismissed from office, shall have full effect."
  This provision will prevent the Bill interfering with the particular circumstances of any special scheme. The third subsection provides that, subject to any other special provision, an assistant master shall have at least two months notice. That is agreed upon as being a reasonable period. Finally, subsection (4) allows an assistant master to be dismissed without notice for misconduct or other good and urgent cause, in spite of any thing contained in this Bill.
  The Bill in its present form represents the result of long negotiations which have taken place between the Board of Education and the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, and a similar Association of Assistant Masters, and it is understood to have the support of both these bodies and of other persons interested in the question. I think I ought to mention that the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters have pressed upon the Board of Education a demand for the introduction of legislation that should confer on them absolute security of tenure, or, in the alternative, security of tenure subject to appeal to the Board. The Board have not seen their way to agree to such a proposal, because they think that no Department of State could usefully assume the position of arbitrator in such matters. The Association of Assistant Masters have been informed of this decision. They have expressed themselves as satisfied, and have foregone any further demands in this direction.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think there is any disposition on this side of the House to resist this Bill, certainly not the Second Reading of it. With regard to what has just been said by the noble Earl, we are disposed to agree with him that at any rate in the first instance, it would be far better not to proceed further than the provisions in the Bill. It will

  1421
  be time enough to judge, after the Act has been in operation some little time, whether sufficient security has been given to the masters under its provisions before any fresh legislation is introduced giving an appeal to the Board of Education such as was mentioned by the noble Earl. There are two matters to which I should like to refer. I presume the intention of the first subsection of Clause 1 is that if an assistant master has reason to complain of action taken against him he will sue the governing body rather than the headmaster.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no doubt, speaking quite off-hand and without committing oneself too far, that that is a proper provision. As to the second subsection, I am surprised that the Government have not proposed to repeal Section 22 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869. That section absolutely prohibits a scheme from containing any other provision except that of dismissal at pleasure, so that as it stands upon the Statute-book Section 22 of that Act is absolutely in the teeth of the policy of this Bill. That being so, perhaps the best course would be to repeal the section before the Bill is finished with in your Lordships' House. I submit that suggestion for the consideration of the Government.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BOARD OF TRADE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read..
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which requires a few words of explanation. Its object is to enable the Board of Trade to make rules as to procedure for obtaining and granting Provisional Orders. This power of granting Provisional Orders has been exercised by the Board of Trade for a number of years. The Board was first
  1422
  given power to make Provisional Orders in regard to piers and harbours in the year 1861, and with regard to tramways and to the supply of gas and water in 1870, and the latest powers were given under the Supply of Electricity Act in 1882.
  This Bill does not enlarge the powers with regard to the scope of these Provisional Orders; it merely enables the Board to make rules as to the procedure to be adopted. Its object is to remove certain difficulties which have arisen from the fact that the older Acts of Parliament lay down the exact procedure which is to be adopted. That is not the case in the newer Act—the Electric Lighting Act—as I will explain in a moment. This fact has caused a considerable amount of inconvenience. As an example of this inconvenience I may quote the case of the date on which the draft Provisional Orders have to be deposited. That is fixed at 23rd December. I believe that a similar date was originally fixed by the Standing Orders in the case of Private Bills before Parliament, but that date was found to be most inconvenient, and Parliament altered the Standing Order accordingly. The Board of Trade, however, have no power to alter a thing of that kind without coming to Parliament in each instance and it is with the object of conferring such a power that this Bill is introduced.
  Several other inconveniences arise, and I may quote one in the fact that under the Piers and Harbours Act a period of fourteen days must elapse after the deposit or advertisement of the Order before the confirming Bill can be introduced. In the case of gas, water, and tramways this period is only seven days. Of course, it is inconvenient that these periods should be different, and in the case of electric power and electric light Bills, no such interval is found to be necessary at all. I will give one more instance. Great expense is caused by a provision in regard to gas, water, and tramway Provisional Orders to the effect that the Provisional Order has to be published in extenso in the local newspaper, whereas with regard to other Orders, it has been found sufficient to insert a notice stating that

  1423
  the Order has been made and where copies of it may be obtained. The Board of Trade have had strong representations made to them that the cost of Provisional Orders has very often deterred the owners of non-statutory gas companies, for instance, from coming to Parliament and having their undertaking put upon a proper legal footing.
  The Electric Lighting Act of 1882 confers powers on the Board of Trade for making rules and regulations with regard to the application for Provisional Orders, to the payments to be made in respect of them, to the publication of notices and advertisements, and to the manner of making objections and holding local inquiries. It is proposed by this Bill to extend a similar power to the Board of Trade in respect of the other matters with regard to which they are empowered to make Provisional Orders. These rules will have to be laid before Parliament and will have statutory force, and, of course, they may be amended by a similar procedure—that is to say, by Amendments being laid before Parliament. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am sure that after the very clear statement made by the noble Lord there will be no desire in any part of the House to interpose any obstacles or delays. The only observation that occurs to me in reference to the matter is this, that it is obvious that this Bill makes the Board of Trade supreme with regard to the important matters referred to it by Act of Parliament. I do not at all say that the Board of Trade are thinking for a moment of abusing their powers, but it is a very serious thing to transfer from Parliament, with all its facilities for examination, revision and inquiry, these powers to one of the Government Departments. It is an important matter to hand over to the Board supreme power in consenting to the making of tramways, for we know that a railway company may be ruined through a tramway being run along near it so as to intercept and tap, and, it may be, destroy its traffic. I do not know whether that would be a matter which the Board
  1424
  of Trade would be taking power by this Bill to deal with. I am quite sure that they have not the slightest intention of doing anything that is not absolutely right and proper, and I merely mention it as an illustration of the powers that may be exercised under the Bill. I am sure that the objects of the measure are to simplify procedure and save expense, and I hope the noble Lord will allow a few days to elapse before taking the next stage, in order that those who are interested may have an opportunity of examining closely the changes the Bill proposes to effect.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I will certainly put the next stage of the Bill down for a few days hence, so as to allow the interval for which the noble and learned Lord has asked. I think, however, that he has exaggerated the possible effects of the measure. It deals with rules of procedure as to the lodging of notices, etc., and it has not the far-reaching scope which the noble and learned Lord seems to think.
  On Question, Bill read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  DISTURBED AREAS IN IRELAND.
  LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing in my name on the Paper—namely, by whose authority and on what principle are the districts selected which are charged with the expenses of extra forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary in proclaimed parts of Ireland; and whether accounts of such expenses can be transmitted to the secretaries of county councils at such times as will enable county councils to consider them in connection with their annual estimates; and to call attention especially to a demand for over £3,000 recently sent to the Galway County Council, and made chargeable on the county at large; and also to ask for a Return showing in the case of each proclaimed county in Ireland:(1) The number of officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary actually in each county at the end of March, 1905; (2) the number of officers and

  1425
  men wholly chargeable out of the Consolidated Fund for each county; (3) the number of officers and men extra of the establishment in each county and their expenses for each half-year from the end of March, 1905, to the end of March, 1908; (4) the sums demanded in these counties for the expense of conveying prisoners in each half-year from the end of March, 1905, to the end of March, 1908; (5) the amount of compensation for malicious injuries granted in these counties in each half-year from March, 1905, to March, 1908.
  In asking for this information and for this Return, I should like to make a few remarks, with the object of, if possible, drawing public attention, and especially public attention in Ireland, to what is occurring in connection with this matter. The most important part of my Questions refers to the subject of the large extra expenditure being incurred in certain parts of Ireland at the present moment, and, in connection with that, the heavy taxation which is being imposed. This extra expenditure is being incurred on account of the large bodies of additional police that are being drafted to certain districts. The extra taxation comes about also owing to the fact that there has been an increase in the number of cases of malicious injury and in the bill for the conveyance of prisoners. This large expenditure, and consequent heavy taxation, is, to my mind, a very serious matter, and it is about to become even more so in the future. It is due to the fact that in certain parts of Ireland, unfortunately, the districts are in a disturbed condition, and it is due, in a still larger degree, to the cumbrous, circuitous, expensive, unjust, and wholly ineffectual mode of dealing with these disturbances which has been adopted by His Majesty's Government.
  I say that the mode of dealing with this state of affairs adopted by His Majesty's Government is cumbrous and circuitous. What is the position? Cattle-driving and other forms of agrarian outrage are very prevalent in certain parts of Ireland, and instead of dealing directly, determinedly, and firmly with
  1426
  the matter, the Government, in spite of their oft-repeated declaration that they would carry on the government of Ireland by the ordinary law of the land, have reconciled that decision, by some interpretation that I cannot follow, with having recourse to the despotic and arbitrary clauses of an old Act of the reign of William IV. By Section 13 of that Act the Lord-Lieutenant can, by proclamation, declare that any county, county of a city, or county of a town in Ireland, or any barony or half-barony, or any district of less extent than a barony or half-barony are in a state of disturbance and require an additional establishment of police; and by other provisions of that Act the Lord-Lieutenant can draft police into those districts, and can direct that half the expense thereof is to be borne by the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and half by local taxation. Under Section 13 the Lord-Lieutenant has, of his own sweet will, proclaimed certain areas in Ireland; he has drafted immense numbers of police into those districts, and great extra expense has been incurred; and this in spite of the fact that the Government have declared that they would carry on the government of Ireland by the ordinary law. Does the noble Lord, who will answer me, consider that having recourse to the Act of William IV. is carrying on the government by the ordinary law of the land? Or is it not a farce and fiction to say that the government of Ireland is being carried on at the present moment under the ordinary law?
  Assuming that this is governing Ireland according to the ordinary law, the next question that arises is: Is this mode of dealing with the matter proving effectual? Are the extra police that are being poured into these districts doing much, or any, good? I regret to have to say that, in spite of this, outrages are continuing to take place, and are actually increasing. Outrages take place in close proximity to crowded police barracks, and it is usual to read at the end of reports of such occurrences that no arrest has been made. If arrests are made no conviction follows; and the evil doers in these parts of the country have come to the conclusion

  1427
  that, not with standing the increased number of police, they can safely anticipate that they will not be detected and arrested, and that, if they are arrested, they will not be punished. So much for whether this mode of dealing with the matter is proving effectual.
  The noble Lord who represents the Irish Office may say that although the method pursued by the Government is not directly effectual, it will prove indirectly effectual through the local taxation which these expenses will involve, and that the increased taxation will deter people from continuing in these evil courses, or will, at any rate, punish them. So far as it merely punishes them and is merely revengeful, I take no interest in the matter. I only take an interest in punishment if it deters people from following evil courses. Further, I may say that personally, and especially in reference to Ireland, I am no admirer of this way of punishing districts by taxation. Ireland is already over-taxed. These poor districts can badly afford any additional taxation, and I think it is deplorable, if there are any extra means that can be raised on the rates, or if there is any financial assistance to be given to these districts out of the Consolidated Fund, that the money should be spent in this wasteful and useless fashion and not retained for other beneficent objects to which it might be applied.
  Again, I think that this form of punishment by taxation acts very unfairly. It punishes the many innocent people in those districts just as much as the few guilty ones, and the latter do not feel that they are suffering any extra punishment over the innocent. The only, chance that that form of dealing with the difficulty would have of proving effectual would be if the taxation were confined to the districts in which the outrages had occurred, and into which the additional police had been drafted. But that is not so. I have not the statistics of all the counties in Ireland, but I have those of County Galway, and I can show that it is the policy of the Government not to confine this taxation to the districts affected but to spread it over large areas that have no connection whatever with the outrages and are wholly blameless in
  1428
  the matter. In County Galway—I am a member of the county council, and therefore familiar with all these matters—in the last three years, for example, over £13,000 has been called for in respect of extra police. It has been gradually growing. For the half-year ended 31st March last year the total extra expense was £889; for the half-year ended 30th September last the total extra expense had risen to £2,349. So much for whether the method pursued by the Government is effectual. The more police that are put into a district the more crime; and I find that in the half-year ended 31st March last the extra expense for police was £6,000. I am told that for the next half-year, half of which has already passed, it will be something like £8,000; so that £14,000 will have been spent in one year for extra police.
  With reference to the area of levy, when these demands were first sent to the county council they were allotted to certain district councils and even to certain town land where the expenses had been incurred. So far so good. Taxation so imposed might have had a punitive value. But recently the authorities in Dublin have ordered that the area of taxation shall be largely the county, and we were directed to levy the most recent demand—one for £3,000—over the county at large, thereby wholly depriving this taxation of its punitive value. I wish to point out how very unjust that is. Galway is a very large county, and on the side where I live there are none of these disturbances; the people are all small peasant farmers, who are wholly blameless in reference to these disturbances. No extra police are required in these districts, and not alone have we got no extra police but we are actually denuded of our own share in order that they may be drafted to other districts. I maintain that this is monstrously unjust and even tragic when you think of the various parts of Ireland which are composed of congested districts, and that at this very moment, in the county of Galway, which has put into operation a section of the Local Government Act, we are taxing ourselves for this purpose, although a certain part of the community are actually dying of starvation. I mean to say it is perfectly monstrous to include these

  1429
  districts where these outrages do not take place in the taxation, apart from the fact that it wholly deprives this Act of its punitive force.
  There is only one other point I wish to mention—a small point but not without importance—with reference to the procedure of the county council. In former days, if any charges were incurred under this Act, the account was sent twice a year, because the Grand Jury met twice a year, and struck a rate twice a year, whereas now, although the county councils still meet half-yearly, they only strike a rate once a year, and it is impossible to meet these demands anyhow if they are sent after the Estimates are considered and the rates struck, when we have no floating balance out of which to meet this large item of £3,000 or £4,000. I would therefore ask the Government to say that they will send these demands early in the year—generally about February, when we strike, the rate—so that the matter can be considered, and above all I ask them to see that the area of applotment is justly and properly chosen.
  LORD DENMAN: The noble Lord (Lord Killanin) speaks, of course, with very considerable authority on this particular question. Being himself a member of the Galway County Council I have no doubt that he has a very intimate knowledge of these matters, and, naturally, any views which he puts forward will receive the careful attention of the Government. I am certainly not surprised that he views with some alarm the considerable charge of some £3,000 that is put upon the county council of Galway for the extra police which it has been found necessary to draft into the district, and though I have not the advantage of his local knowledge I shall certainly not be prepared to deny that this is rather a rough and ready method of enforcing justice. At the same time, my Lords, it is also impossible to deny that this is part of the ordinary law of the land which is on the Statute-book. Irish counties have been proclaimed by both Parties in the State several times in recent years, and therefore if he asked me across the floor of the House, I should say, of course, that this is part
  1430
  of the ordinary law of the land. The noble Lord complains of the despotic powers which are given under this Act. I can only repeat that this Act has been enforced very many times by both Parties in the State in recent years, and certainly His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any alteration in the law at the present time. The noble Lord asks in his Question by whose authority these districts are selected, but I gathered from his speech that that was rather a rhetorical form of question, because I think he himself supplied the answer—that it was upon the authority of the Statute of William IV.
  LORD KILLANIN: Upon what principle, I also asked.
  LORD DENMAN: I will come to that directly. And also under Statutes 9 and 10 Vict., c. 97, Section 5, and 11 and 12 Vict., c. 72, Section 6, one moiety of the cost of such additional police is chargeable to the county at large to which the police are appointed. As noble Lords from Ireland are well aware, last year it was found necessary to proclaim six of these counties, and this year—last month, I think—the counties of Sligo and Westmeath were also proclaimed, and in each of these cases the entire county, as has generally, I believe, been the practice, was declared by the proclamation to be in a state of disturbance. The noble Lord appeared to be under the impression that we could declare a smaller portion of the county in a state of disturbance, and that is so, but you must rate the whole county for the extra charge of police, even though you only declare a small area or a small portion of that county to be in a state of disturbance. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown—
  LORD KILLANIN: In many of the demands sent to us they, as a matter of fact, only directed us to levy the rate for certain portions of the county. If it is as the noble Lord now says, the procedure has only been quite recently changed, and things must have been done very irregularly during the last three years.
  LORD DENMAN: I am afraid I cannot explain that fact; I can only state that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown has recently been taken on this point, and they are quite clear that the law is as I have just told the House. Then the noble Lord has raised the particular question of the county of Galway. Last year both the East Riding and the West Riding of the County of Galway were in a state of disturbance.
  LORD KILLANIN: Not the West Riding.
  LORD DENMAN: It is true parts of the West Riding, as I am informed, were certainly in a very much better condition than other parts of the county, and were possibly not in a state of disturbance at all. I will not argue that question, but I wish to point out that as long ago as August of last year monthly returns were sent to the county council in order to give them some idea of the expenditure they would have to meet. The county council estimates for the rest of the ensuing year are prepared compulsorily for that period, and the county council had full means, before striking their rates, of estimating the amount of the charge for which they would be liable for the half-year ending 30th September, 1908. I am informed that the monthly reports were sent to the county council. As a matter of fact, the secretaries of county councils are in possession by 31st January of each year of accounts for extra police covering a full year up to the end of the previous September. And then I have to meet the point which the noble Lord has raised—it has happened and I take it it will happen, that extra police may be drafted into a county after the rate has been struck, and it may so happen that the county council have not the current funds to meet that charge immediately. In that case the Government will be prepared to consider any reasonable demand for time for the county to pay the rate in question. The Government have no information—at any rate, no detailed information—with regard to the state of the finances of the county council of Galway and their ability or otherwise to meet this charge, but as I
  1432
  have endeavoured to show, the council had pretty good reason to anticipate the charge when their rates for the year were struck. But if the county council can advance any sufficient reason why there should be some delay in enforcing the charge, the Government will give the case careful consideration before deducting the amount of £3,000 odd, I think it is, which, as the noble Lord is aware, they are empowered to do by Act of Parliament from the Local Taxation Grant.
  Then the noble Lord asks for a Return of police in the case of each proclaimed county. This Return was asked for, I think, at the end of last week, and I had hoped that I should have been enabled to give it to the noble Lord to-day, but I trust that he will be content if I promise him that the Return for which he asks will be given to him at a very early date—I hope some day this week.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I suppose the answer that has just been given by the noble Lord (Lord Denman)is in accordance with the official information in the Irish Office, and that he could not add to it without inconvenience. But all these discussions and questions that come up in reference to Ireland raise very painful thoughts in the mind of anyone who is in the slightest degree interested in that country. One has only to think of the Questions that have been asked so quietly in this House, and just replied to, to enable one, with very slight effort, to realise the very grave state of things existing in Ireland at the present moment. It is extremely serious, and to anyone—it does not require that he should be an Irishman—to anyone interested in the welfare of any part of the United Kingdom it is most distressing knowledge. One has only to open The Times, or any other of the papers of the day, and read the charges of the Judges who are now going upon circuit, in order to see the painful and the singularly distressing state of several of the counties of Ireland—the lawlessness that is too rampant in many places, the outrages that are but too often unchecked, too often unpunished, and the perpetrators of

  1433
  which have not been found, imprisoned, or checked. It has been pointed out that this is not a thing of yesterday or today; it has been going on for a long time. There was a lull some months ago, but that lull has ceased, and again I have to remind your Lordships you have only to read each day in the paper the charges of the Judges who are now going on circuit to see what is the state of the facts. It was pointed out to the present Government—they did not need it to be pointed out, for they knew it—that there was a statute, not of Edward III. or William IV., but a statute of twenty-one years ago which they always call the Coercion Act, but which is really called "An Act for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland." It is there to their hand. Clause after clause of that Act finds its counterpart in the laws of Scotland. But the Government will not apply it, although their attention has been drawn to it over and over again. The noble Earl opposite who is now the Leader of the House (the Earl of Crewe) indicated last year that he was conscious of it, but that he did not think the time had come to put it in force. Well, I do not know who does their thinking for them, but at all events there is the Act, and they will not apply the Act. They have the means of applying the remedy, and they will not apply it. The Chief Secretary hammered the box in the other House as if he was invoking the Twelve Apostles to witness his rectitude, and said: "I will not do it"—and he looked round for applause and got it. One would have thought he was asking some great Heavenly Power to witness that he was not going to break the Ten Commandments. Really he was asking for witness that he would not apply the laws which were ready to his hand for the obtaining of peace and quiet in Ireland.
  What is the state of things in regard to the Question of my noble friend Lord Killanin? The Government will not apply an obvious remedy, but they search about for statutes in the Statute-book (one of them in the reign of Edward III.) which in many of their provisions are more arbitrary than the Act of 1887, and they have applied the provisions of the other Act referred to
  1434
  by my noble friend, declaring certain counties in Ireland disturbed, and have added the extra police. What does that mean? That they will not apply the statute framed for the very purpose of preserving law and order in Ireland, but that they have to go back centuries to find an Act to help them to do the same thing. Then they fall back on another statute, and they declare that there are seven or eight counties in Ireland in a disturbed state. That is serious enough, and it leads to great expense, because the declaration of its being in a disturbed state, as I gather, is a necessary preliminary to justify the Government in adding to the police in the district, and they have had to increase the police by a very considerable extent, at a cost of thousands upon thousands of pounds.
  Then my noble friend mentioned the element of malicious injuries—a very grave and serious element which exists in Ireland, and if it did not exist in Ireland, it would be more serious still—that in reference to these unfortunate people who have been subjected to the outrage of cattle-driving and other outrages, some much more grave, there is a provision which enables them to apply to get claims for malicious injuries from the County Court Judges. That enables them to be partially recouped the money loss which they have sustained, but it unfortunately entails upon the County Court Judge the disagreeable task that has arrested the attention of my noble friend Lord Killanin, of applotting upon districts the money for the payment of these malicious injuries. That is a very serious and grave state of things. I am aware that often the applotment of the payment of that money must fall upon innocent people, and that those who have committed the injuries and the outrages have to pay nothing. Very likely their fathers and uncles have to pay, but the particular perpetrators of the outrages I venture to say too often escape. My noble friend has drawn attention to that which is a serious matter—the applotment of the expenses of the police—but as I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Denman, who has spoken on behalf of the Irish Government, they are following the statutory requirements of the Acts of Parliament

  1435
  I assume that to be so from what he says, though Lord Killanin indicates that until recently the applotment was somewhat of a different character from what has been lately applied.
  My Lords, in all these discussions it is right to note the living present in which we live. It is painful to reflect that at this time of day, after so many discussions have taken place and so many questions have been asked in the House of Commons—which were resented very much at one time, but are not so much referred to now in terms of censure—that at this time of day, with all the resources which are at the disposal of the Irish Government and the Chief Secretary, matters should be in such a state as that. There are many counties in Ireland declared to be in a disturbed state, and the police force has to be largely Increased, thousands of pounds have to be paid for malicious injuries, and all the time the law is so administered that crime is rampant in many places, that outrages may be read of constantly in the papers, to be followed by the statement mentioned by my noble friend, that no arrests have been made. My Lords, it is a very painful and serious state of facts; it would be impossible to allow any question to be asked in reference to Ireland without drawing attention to some of the circumstances of the case, and that is why I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with these few words.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I quite agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) has said. The fact of the matter is that those who live in Ireland, like myself, have to put up at present with this state of affairs, because we have been told—and by the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack—that coercion—that is to say, the Coercion Act—will not be put in force. Given that state of affairs, I must deal with the question that Lord Killanin has put. The point that he made was that, instead of the districts being charged for the police that were put in the county, the county at large is charged. Now, my Lords, if the district is applotted by the Judge for the
  1436
  charges incurred by reason of malicious injuries, the people around there who, it is no secret to us, although the police do not know it, are well aware of what has taken place, if the people are charged they must pay, but in the case of police being put on the county at large, the districts where the cattle-driving takes place are not necessarily affected at all. As Lord Killanin very properly pointed out, the County Galway is divided by a large lake, and on one side there is a great deal of this bad business going on, while on the other side there is none, and why on earth, if you want to keep law and order in the country should not the common-sense principle be adopted which is adopted by the Judges in the case of malicious injuries—that the districts where the police find there is cattle-driving should have to pay for the expense of those police?
  The noble Lord, Lord Denman, said that the Government would give careful consideration to some minor points about the expenses of the county council—as to how they were to be sent in. I forget exactly what it was, but it was some quite minor point. I wish they would give careful consideration to the great point, because Lord Killanin very carefully stated that the authorities in Dublin now insist upon taxation being put on the whole county, although formerly the taxation was put upon the districts. I ask your Lordships, is any good likely to come of this form of dealing with this outrage—I will not use the word outrage, but call it cattle-driving. Is there any good likely to come of this form of dealing with cattle-driving if the district is not to be charged for it? We are not to have coercion—we are under a Government which will not have coercion, and I suppose we have got to sit under it and exist under it; but as for the whole county being charged for it when you have that county divided by a large inland sea, this seems to me perfectly ridiculous, and not common sense. Lord Killanin pointed out that in many cases, and in very poor districts, there were quite innocent people wholly unable to bear these charges. I only put to the Government the common sense point of view. Why should they not do what has been done before?

  1437
  Now as to the rate. Lord Killanin said it was formerly the custom to strike the rate twice a year in counties, but now it is the custom to strike the rate once a year only, and in consequence of that the county council are put to great difficulties because, as the noble Lord said, the police might be sent down at any moment after the rate is struck without any notice whatever. That the Irish Government have a perfect right to do. But after all, let us go on the principle of live and let live, and instead of the sort of answer that the Irish Office give—that they will give careful consideration to a minor point with regard to a small business of a parochial character—I wish they would give careful consideration to the point I have made with regard to the districts and the counties at large. The noble Lord said he could not give very much information upon that point. I shall have the pleasure, with your Lordships' leave, of raising the question again, or some noble friends of mine will do so, because, as I said before, we have got to live under this regime, and we want to live under it as quietly as possible under the circumstances.
  LORD KILLANIN: Might I, with your Lordship's permission, make a few remarks which may somewhat elucidate matters? I understand the noble Lord (Lord Denman) to say that although the Lord-Lieutenant can proclaim portions of counties, he cannot allot the taxation to portions of counties. Does he say that that is the legal position in the matter, and that, therefore, the authorities are bound to put it upon the county at large? If so, that does not fit in with the facts. I have the Returns here for the last three years. For the half-year ending 30th September, 1905, I have the number of districts in the County of Galway all enumerated, leaving out certain districts; for the half-year ending 31st March, 1906, it was the same; for the half-year ending 30th September, 1906, it was also off districts and even off townlands, there were certain small townlands mentioned, and for the first time a small portion of the taxation was put upon the county at large. The next half-year, to 31st March,
  1438
  1907, again it was put on townlands, and a portion off the county at large. Yet the noble Lord says they can be put upon the county at large. And for the half-year to the 30th September, 1907, again it was on various townlands, various districts, and a certain portion off the county at large. But for the half-year ending 31st March of this present year the total is put on the county at large for the first time. Therefore, for two and a half years they have been putting it on townlands and districts of which I highly approve, and what I object to is that they have not gone on doing that. I cannot see how the legal view he gives fits in with the facts, which facts have occurred under the administration of the present Law Officers. Have they suddenly grown wise, or what? With reference to the legal matter, might I refer the noble Lord to Section 8 of 2 and 3 Viet., c. 35, and 9 and 10 Viet. c. 97, because I think under those two sections the Law Officers have been acting, and under those it is perfectly within their power to applot the charge to the particular districts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CEEWE): We have not the advantage in this House of having any lawyer from Ireland officially assisting us, although I see two noble and learned Lords opposite who must be well acquainted with the state of the law. What my noble friend behind me (Lord Denman) understood to be the case was that the Act of William IV.—I think the Act of 1836—is the Act by which the extra police are allocated to the different counties, but by the subsequent Act—I think of 1847 or 1848—the charge is obliged to be placed on the county as a whole, and not on the district. If that is so, how the facts occur to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Killanin) has drawn attention I confess I do not understand, and it appears to me that it would be best if the noble Lord would put that Question down for another day, when my noble friend behind me will be supplied with the legal information.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.