Sitting of 9 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Thames River Steamboat Service Act (1904) Amendment Bill.—Reported, with

39
Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Leeds Corporation Bill; Doncaster Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Rhymney and Aber Gas and Water Company." [Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, against; to lie upon the Table.
  DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Hinckley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stranraer, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the form of Contract in use in connection with the recruitment of Native Labourers for the Transvaal Mines in Portuguese East Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEER FORESTS (HIGHLAND CROFTING COUNTIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th March; Mr. Weir]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 220.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Technical Schools, Schools of Art and other forms of provision of further Education in England and Wales (from 1st August, 1908, to 31st July, 1909) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINT.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-eighth Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Devon).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 221.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 222.]

  OFFENCES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing respectively for each month, January to June inclusive, the number of cattle-drives, of cases of firing into houses and at persons of boycotting (complete and partial), of prosecutions for foregoing offences, of

  41
  results of prosecutions, of claims for malicious injuries, amount of awards,

  Month, 1908

  Cattle-Drive.

  Firing into Houses and at Persons.

  Boycotting.

  Number of Prosecutions for foregoing Offences.

  Result of Prosecutions.

  Number of Claims for Malicious Injuries.

  Amount of Awards.

  Number of Appeals against Awards.

  Remarks.

  Complete.

  Partial.

  Number of Convictions.

  Number of Dismissals.

  Number bound to keep the peace, &c.

  Granted.

  Refused.

  £

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Totals

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Development Grant—Revised Estimate.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reason for the alterations contained in the revised Estimate for the Ireland Development Grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) In the Estimate for the Ireland Development Grant which was prepared early in December last, the estimated balance to the credit of the account on 1st April, 1908, was shown to be £91,538. In May last, when the account for the year ending 31st March, 1908, was made up, it was found that the actual balance in hand was but £51,135. The difference arose mainly from the fact that in the last quarter of the financial year claims
  number of appeals against awards, etc., in the form set out as under—
  amounting to £37,031 were received from the Commissioners of National Education on account of training colleges under private management and salaries of assistant teachers in national schools which have not been taken into account in estimating the balance in December. It therefore became necessary to prepare a revised estimate for the current year showing proposed expenditure at the reduced total of £236,477. The subheads of the Estimate in which a reduction has been made are as follows: Subhead C. (National School Buildings).—£25,000 being an instalment of a grant of £70,000, reduced to £5,000, on the understanding that the balance of the £70,000 will be made available in future years, and that the unexpended balance of £35,455 on Vote 14, Class I., for 1907–1908, will be available to meet expenditure on school buildings in the current year. Subhead H. (Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway).—It is doubtful whether the promoters of this Railway will be in a position

  43
  to make good their claim to any portion of the promised grant. Provision is made for £2,318 instead of £23,950. Subhead K. (Arklow Harbour).—Grant reduced from £10,362 to £8,000, the latter sum being now considered sufficient to meet expenditure during the year. In the case of two of the sub-heads, the provision has been somewhat increased, as compared with the first estimate, namely: Subhead B. (Marlborough Street Training College).—Grant increased from £2,792 to £4,277, the latter being the actual balance unexpended of the total grant of £50,000. Subhead L. (Wicklow Harbour).—Grant increased from £1,536 to £3,822, the latter being the actual balance of the complete grant. The work is approaching completion.

  County Court Fees.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the committee now sitting to deal with the question of imprisonment for debt can be given powers to consider the fees now charged to litigants in County Courts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have considered this question and consulted the Treasury, but I am afraid that the proposed extension of the reference would not be practicable. The subject is one quite foreign to that of the committee's inquiry.

  Small Holdings—Guarantees for Rent.
  MR. RENDALL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board is aware that the town clerk has been directed by the Bristol small holdings committee to demand from an applicant for a small holding of five acres a responsible person to guarantee the rent, in spite of the fact that the applicant has satisfactory evidence that he has paid a rent of £26 yearly for a considerable time; and whether the Board will take such action in this and similar cases as will prevent the purpose of the Small Holdings Act being defeated.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are informed that an applica-
  44
  tion for a small holding of four to five acres with a cottage and shed has been made to the Bristol Town Council which is now under consideration. The applicant describes himself as a labourer without capital, and it will be necessary for the small holdings committee of the council to satisfy themselves that he would be a suitable tenant if a holding is provided, but they have not stipulated that any guarantee for the payment of the rent should be given.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Cummins.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of Mrs. Cummins, evicted tenant on the Atkins Estate, Pencil Hill, Mallow, County Cork; and, if so, what steps are being taken towards the reinstatement of this evicted tenant in her former holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are inquiring into the case of Mrs. Cummins with a view to consideing the question of providing her with holding on any untenanted land that they may acquire.

  Holding for Mr. Morris on the Wilkinson Estate.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased an evicted farm, formerly held by Mr. Morris, on the Wilkinson property, in the County Meath, and given it to an evicted tenant, Mr. Morris having got an equivalent holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners had already provided Frederick Morris, the evicted tenant, with another holding at the time when they purchased the estate upon which his former holding is situate.

  Prosecutions for Walking with Cycles without Lights.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any representations from Ireland as to vexatious prosecutions

  45
  against persons found walking with their bicycles after dark; whether he is aware that several such prosecutions leading to convictions have taken place at Roscrea, County Tipperary, recently; and if he will take any steps to prevent a repetition of such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Ramsey division on 26th May, front which it will be seen that, under a strict interpretation of the law applying to Ireland, a bicycle which is upon a public road at night requires to be lighted whether it is being ridden or not. I am informed that some prosecutions for wheeling unlighted bicycles at night have taken place at Roscrea, but it is not intended to institute such prosecutions in future unless the police are satisfied that more than a mere technical breach of the law has occurred.

  Preservation of Rate Books of Irish Poor Law Unions.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will take steps to secure the preservation in the Irish Record Office of the rate books of the various Irish Poor Law unions as also the Tithe Applotment records, and the records of the Census Returns from 1881.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The rate books of Irish Poor Law unions are the property of the local authorities and are not under my control. The Tithe Applotment books, which are stored in the strong room of the Land Commission, are used in connection both with the recovery of tithe rent-charge and also with land purchase proceedings. They are open to public inspection. The records from which recent Census Returns were prepared are in the custody of the Registrar-General, and being confidential documents they cannot in any way lie made available to the public. The facts relating to the census, so far as they are of public interest, are embodied in the public Census Returns. In the circumstances it does not seem that any of the documents mentioned can be placed in the Irish Record Office.

  Increased Salaries for Irish Workhouse Teachers.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if Irish workhouse teachers will be allowed to share in the grant for the increase of the salaries of Irish National school teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply is in the negative. No charge in respect of the teachers of Poor Law union schools has ever been borne on the Vote for public education. Such teachers are in the service of the boards of guardians and are paid out of the local rates.

  Irish Education Grants and Assistant Teachers.
  MR. J. MURPHY; To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will take steps to insure that assistants in National schools are equitably dealt with in the new distribution of the supplementary grant for primary education in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The position of assistant teachers will receive full consideration in dealing with the allocation of the supplementary grant in question.

  Dublin Police Court Clerks.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether any changes in the Regulations governing the appointment of second-class clerks in the Dublin Metropolitan Police Courts have been made; and, if so, when such changes were made, and what is the nature of them; and if he will state when the next examination, if any, for second-class clerks in the Dublin Metropolitan Courts is likely to be held.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No change in the Regulations has been made for several years past. No vacancy for a second-class clerk exists or is imminent, and it is impossible to say when a vacancy is likely to arise.

  Ballingarry Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the

  47
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners in the month of April last referred the ease of Denis Cronin, of Ballingarry, in the county of Limerick, representative of his mother, Catherine Cronin, deceased, evicted tenant, to one of their inspectors with the object of providing him with a suitable holding in lieu of the evicted farm; whether he is aware that Cronin has not yet got the holding; and will he press on the Commissioners the necessity and desirability of acquiring such a holding without delay as a provision for this young man.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have already referred this case to one of their inspectors for consideration in connection with the allotment of untenanted land which the Commissioners have acquired, or for the purchase of which they are negotiating.

  Scottish Regiments in India.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give the stations where Scottish regiments are at present quartered in India, specifying those quarters where Presbyterian places of worship exist, and also give the names of localities where such places of worship exist in India and at which it would be possible to station such regiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The stations at which Scottish regiments are at present quartered in India are Bombay, Bareilly, Cawnpore, Dinapore, Calcutta, Sialkot, and Nowshera. Places of worship are available for their exclusive use at all these stations except Nowshera. My hon. friend will find a complete list of the localities where churches available for Presbyterian worship exist at page 20 of the Papers [Cd. 4022] recently presented to Parliament.

  Arbitration on Trade Disputes in New Zealand.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction existing amongst the workers of New Zealand in
  48
  connection with the operation of the Arbitration Act, and whether he would consider the avisability of issuing a short Report on the subject for the information of workers and others interested in the matter in this country.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) My hon. friend will find that the matter is dealt with in Mr. Ave's Report on the Wages Boards and Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts of Australia and New Zealand, which will be published in a few day's time.

  Australian Commonwealth and the Navy.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the naval arrangements have been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth of Australia; and if he can state what has been the delay in bringing the matter to a close.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Answer to the Question is in the negative. I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given in his previous Question on 21st May. As then stated, the subject is an exceedingly complex one, and the scheme put forward by the Australian Government requires much amplification before it can be fully considered from the point of view of its possible adoption as an alternative to the present naval agreement.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that American gooseberry mildew has broken out afresh, in the infectious condition known as the summer stage, in sixty-eight plantations in which all the requirements of the Board of Agriculture and its inspectors have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Board, the Board will now have recourse to more drastic measures to stamp out this pest, in accordance with the promise made by the President to the deputation of fruit growers on 8th April.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The experience gained in dealing with

  49
  gooseberry mildew this year goes to show that it will not be desirable, at any rate at present, to alter the Order now in operation.

  Flax Growing in Ireland.
  MR.. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that there is a decrease of 16¼ per cent. in the flax-growing area in Ireland this year as compared with 1907; whether he could give any reason for this decrease; and if he could state in what particular districts the decrease was greatest.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department understand from reports received that the acreage under flax in Ireland this year is less than in 1907. As the agricultural statistics for 1908 are not yet available, it is not possible at present to state the extent of the decrease in acreage nor the districts in which the decrease is most marked. Th decrease reported is, in the view of the Department, mainly due to the following circumstances: (1) In some districts the 1907 crop gave a lower yield and was of poorer quality than usual; (2) owing to the depression in the linen trade smaller prices were realised by the growers for scutched flax of the 1907 crop.

  Temperance Meetings in Regent's Park.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that for the last six years the police have permitted temperance meetings to be held on Sunday mornings at the top of Park Street, Regent's Park, and that police permission has during the past month been asked for and refused for a continuance of such meetings, and whether, if on inquiry into the cause of such refusal he finds that no legitimate ground of complaint exists, he will cause the permission to be renewed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The permission of the police is not required for the holding of temperance meetings at the top of Park Street, Regent's Park, or elsewhere, and they would not intervene unless obstruction or annoyance were caused. Police action
  50
  in this instance has been limited to ceasing the issue of permits authorising the collecting of money at this spot, in consequence of complaints from residents. Discretion to grant or refuse permits for the collection of money is vested in the Commissioner, and I am not prepared to interfere with his exercise of that discretion.

  Territorials and Vaccination.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether members of the Territorial Forces, who may have a conscientious objection to vaccination, will be entited, in case of their desiring to enlist in the Regular Forces, to have their conscientious objection respected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no intention of waiving the regulation regarding vaccination in the Regular Forces in favour of members of the Territorial Force desirous of enlisting into the Regular Forces.

  Purchase of Lands by the War Office.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the items of £1,000 and upwards composing the sum of £38,340 to be voted under Vote 10, Subhead P., for purchase of land for military services.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It would be contrary to the public interest to give particulars of the several purchases contemplated; but when the purchases have been effected details of the expenditure will be furnished as usual in the Appropriation Account.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Unemployment in Sheffield.
  MR. WALTERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the lack of employment in the East End of Sheffield amongst workmen chiefly dependent upon Admiralty orders, he will expedite the distribution of contracts for his Department.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY To THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,): The

  51
  amount of money the Admiralty can spend is limited by the amounts that Parliament sanctions. The Admiralty could not expedite the placing of contracts and the consequent greater expenditure of money during the financial year, without coming to the House for a Supplementary Vote.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: In view of the exceptional distress in Sheffield cannot the hon. Gentleman bring in a Supplementary Estimate, especially as as a large Naval programme may have to be undertaken next year?
  DR. MACNAMARA: Not as I am at present advised.
  MR. WALTERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men employed on this work are specially trained; that it is work of a highly specialised character, and if the men are thrown out in the winter and scattered all over the country, difficulty may be experienced in getting enough together again?
  MR. CROOKS: Surely Woolwich would be equal to the occasion.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Pembroke Dockyard.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty have sent a letter to Pembroke Dock, expressing appreciation of the fact that the first-class cruiser "Warrior," built at the Welsh dockyard, was built cheaper than any other ship of her class, and complimenting the officers and men who contributed to this creditable result.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have sent a letter to the Captain Superintendent of Pembroke Dock, expressing their satisfaction at the saving which has been effected over the approved estimates in the construction of H.M.S. "Warrior."
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: May I ask whether in view of the saving effected and the fact that a large Naval programme may be anticipated next year, the hon. Gentleman will see that one of the large ships is allotted to this dockyard?
  *MR. REES: And bear in mind that our shipbuilding is precisely the same case as our cloth manufacture?
  MR. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the claims of the Thames yard at the East End of London?
  MR. JENKINS: Is it not the fact that this is the invariable result of building the ships in H.M. dockyards, and will the Admiralty consider the advisability of completely nationalising the building of war ships, in order that the money thus saved may go towards the old-age pension fund?
  MR. MARKHAM: Does the Admiralty employ commercial travellers for the dockyards?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: I can only say that all these suggestions from so many quarters will have our respectful consideration.
  *MR. REES: May I ask whether the distribution of these contracts can matter if all Admiralty expenditure is, as contended by hon. Gentlemen opposite, unproductive?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative question.

  H.M.S. "Blake."
  MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the First. Lord of the Admiralty whether the storehouse staff at the Chatham Dockyard that prepared the racks, bins, and shelves for the storerooms of H.M.S. "Blake" are skilled or unskilled workmen, and whether they were paid the rate of wages usually paid to workmen doing this class of work; and whether the workmen that fixed the work on board the ship were skilled or unskilled workmen.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The men employed on the work referred to are rated as skilled labourers—the class of men which is usually employed on work of this character in the storehouses. Their wages are fixed at a rate of from 22s. to 28s. per week. The racks, bins

  53
  and shelves were fixed on board, the ship by men of the ship's company, under the carpenter of the vessel.

  Dissensions in the Navy.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the present Commander of the Channel Fleet, Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, is not on speaking terms with his official superior, Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Fisher, and with his official subordinate Admiral Sir Percy Scott; and, if so, whether having regard to the Regulations relating to dicipline in the Navy and the fighting efficiency of the Fleet, he will say what steps he proposes taking in the matter.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have nothing to add to the Answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a Question from my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Is the House to understand that the rules and regulations of the Navy on the subject of discipline and fighting efficiency in the Fleet are only to apply to the humbler ranks, stokers, for example, while Lord Charles Beresford is to be allowed to break them with impunity?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that last week Admiral Lord Charles Beresford ordered the "Good Hope" and the "Argyll" to execute a manœuvre which would have made collision inevitable and thus reproduced the disaster caused by the "Camperdown" sinking the "Victoria" in the Mediterranean, and that this was averted by the officer commanding the "Good Hope" disobeying the order, and, if so, whether a court of inquiry has been ordered to assemble, and, if a prima facie case has been established for an inquiry, will he, in the meantime, relieve Admiral Lord Charles Beresford of his command.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have no information on the subject.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two days ago The Times published a full description of this incident, and to-day, again, a diagram illustrating the incident; has the Admiralty, seeing the grave importance of this matter, telegraphed to Lord Charles Beresford for an explanation?
  DR. MACNAMARA: I saw the statement in The Times, but I have to add that we have no information on the matter. The Commander-in-Chief is now on the high seas in connection with the manœuvres. I assume that a report will be forthcoming from him, if any exceptional incident arose on which he may think it necessary to report.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDWill the hon. Gentleman in considering this matter, be careful to receive with the utmost caution any charges made against Lord Charges Beresford or any other Irishman by The Times newspaper?
  MR. MARKHAM: Are there any means of protecting distinguished naval officers from these personal attacks in this House?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Member also consider whether there is any possible way of preventing The Times newspaper from constantly circulating scandals of every kind?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Enlistment and Rejections of Recruits.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of recruits that have applied for enlistment during the year 1907 in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Glasgow, Dundee, and Edinburgh, and the number of rejections in each town as being physically unfit to join the Army.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): The number of men who offered themselves for enlistment into the Regular Army in the following towns during the twelve months ended 30th September, 1907, and the numbers

  55
  of such men who were rejected for physical reasons—

  Town.

  Offered for Enlistment.

  Rejected for Physical reasons.

  London

  20,975

  8,806

  Birmingham

  1,858

  1,084

  Manchester

  2,523

  1,821

  Sheffield

  1,031

  363

  Leeds

  791

  452

  Newcastle

  1,493

  1,046

  Sunderland

  776

  282

  Glasgow

  2,905

  1,135

  Dundee

  956

  680

  Edinburgh

  1,500

  628

  Shannon Bridge Barracks.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the military barracks near Shannon Bridge, in the County of Rocommon, were last occupied by military, the rent of those buildings and ground attached, and the annual upkeep; whether those buildings are used for any purpose by the Government; and, if not, whether he will take steps to avoid the expenditure which is involved in retention and preservation.
  MR. ACLAND: The rent of a portion of this property is £59 11s.; the rest is freehold. The buildings are not in oecupation by the Military and there is a proposal under consideration to dispose of the property.
  MR. REDDY: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.
  MR. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down again.

  Volunteer Long Service Medal.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War
  56
  whether a Volunteer who has been returned efficient for sixteen consecutive years is entitled to the Volunteer long service medal unless he has, subsequently to 30th April last, signed on as a Member of the Territorial Army, in which case he is disqualified; and, if so, what is the reason of this disqualification, which would seem calculated to discourage men from joining the Territorial Army.
  MR. ACLAND: 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.

  Machine Guns.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any proportion of the Special Reserve will be trained to the thorough use and manipulation of machine guns; and what that proportion will be.
  MR. ACLAND: Yes, Sir. In each battalion of the Special Reserve a detachment consisting of one officer, two non-commissioned officers, and seventeen privates will be trained in the use of machine guns.

  Fife Yeomanry Camp Incident.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the degradation for alleged disobedience of Private James Rennie, of the A squadron of the Fife and Forfar Imperial Yeomanry at their annual training camp at Annsmuir, Ladybank, on 27th June; whether Rennie was taken under escort to the centre of the square and informed that he had been sentenced to be drummed out of the regiment, and was thereupon deprived of his cap and had the buttons and decorations cut from his tunic, and was thereafter marched outside the camp; what was the offence for which this punishment was inflicted, and what opportunity had Rennie for defending himself; and what regulations authorise this form of punishment without trial.
  MR. ACLAND: Nothing is known at the War Office of this occurrence, but inquiries are being made.

  Territorial Camps.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, of the Territorial Forces remained in camp for fifteen days during the month of June.
  MR. ACLAND: No returns of the attendances in camp have as yet been forwarded to the War Office.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: When will they be forwarded?
  MR. ACLAND: They are not usually forwarded, but no doubt we can get them.

  Durham Royal Engineers Adjutant.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Durham (Fortress) Royal Engineers, Territorial Force, are to be deprived of their present adjutant and that he is to have no successor; and, if so, can he give the reason for this change.

  Royal Irish Rifle.

  Officers.

  Non-Commissioned Officers.

  Men.

  Total.

  3rd Battalion.

  15

  40

  670

  725

  4th Battalion

  22

  44

  600

  666

  5th Battalion

  17

  41

  530

  588

  (2) The numbers in each unit of noncommissioned officers and men who have joined the Special Reserve, and the

  Royal Irish Rifles.

  Joined Special Reserve.

  Taken a free Discharge.

  3rd Battalion.

  342

  34

  4th Battalion

  307

  109

  5th Battalion

  448

  41

  MR. ACLAND: The officer of the coast battalion at the Tyne will carry out the duties of adjutant to these companies, as in the case of other engineer fortress units at defended ports where sections of the coast battalion are stationed. Owing to the large establishment of fortress engineers in this division temporarily retained pending the raising of local corps at other stations, it has been decided to appoint a Territorial officer as acting adjutant to the fortress units to assist the coast battalion officer.

  Royal Irish Rifles.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the strength of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th battalions Royal Irish Rifles in officers, non-commissioned officers, and men on assembling for annual training this year, the number who have joined the Special Reserve, and the number who have taken their discharge from each battalion, respectively; and can he state, with regard to the total number who have joined the Special Reserve, how many have joined for one year and longer periods, respectively.
  MR. ACLAND: (1) Strength of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th battalions, Royal Irish Rifles on assembling for the annual training for this year—
  number who have taken their discharge from each battalion respectively—
  (3) Periods for which men of the Militia of the Royal Irish Rifles joined the Special Reserve—

  Royal Irish Rifles.

  Over 1 year and under 2 years.

  Over 2 years and under 3 years.

  Over 3 years and under 4 years.

  For 4 years.

  Over 4 years and under 5 years.

  Over 5 years and under 6 years.

  3rd Battn.

  69

  86

  72

  48

  28

  39

  4th Battn.

  46

  57

  52

  35

  80

  37

  5th Battn.

  79

  91

  166

  30

  46

  36

  Dr. Sven Hedin.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet been able to make inquiries regarding the distinguished scientist and traveller, Dr. Sven Hedin, who was last heard of in Thibet, and with what result.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Government of India have reported that the latest news received of Dr. Sven Hedin was in November, when he informed the local official at Leh in Kashmir by letter that he was going to winter in Khotan in Chinese Turkestan and expected to return to Leh in the course of the summer. Further inquiries are being made; the Resident in Kashmir, the special assistant at Kashgar and the trade agent at Gyantse are being asked whether they have any information.

  Assaults on Europeans in India.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give an assurance that the frequent cases of assault upon European residents throughout the Indian Empire is receiving the due attention of the authorities; and whether it is proposed that steps shall be taken to strengthen the law in dealing with similar cases.
  MR. BUCHANAN: We have no official information that cases of assault on European residents in India are becoming more frequent, but the question of assaults, of whatever class, is, of
  60
  course, a matter that receives the constant attention of Government, particularly at the present time. The Secretary of State sees no reason for taking steps to strengthen the existing law on the subject.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Have any steps been taken against those newspaper correspondents who spread false reports of this kind?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

  St. Vincent Relief Fund.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Government of St. Vincent a request for the sanction of a loan, from the Government of St. Vincent relief fund, for the purpose of reopening the Carib country fresh-water canal, which was destroyed in the eruption; I and, if so, what reply he has given to this request.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Secretary of State has sanctioned the free grant of £1,600 from the St. Vincent Eruption Fund for the purpose mentioned in the Question. As regards a loan in addition to it, it would not have been possible to make a loan from the fund without trenching on the invested portion of the Fund, which the Secretary of State has decided should

  61
  be held as a reserve against the contingency of a future disaster, and should not be invested on local security. A loan has, however, been authorised from floating balances of general revenue if the Legislature are willing to pass an Ordinance for the purpose.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it not the fact that the floating balance of general revenue is only £5,600.?
  COLONEL SEELYasked for notice of the Question.

  Tristan D'Acunha.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER - GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to obtain timely information from the Cape Colony authorities of ships intending to visit Tristan D'Acunha, so that mails may be made up from England and thus avoid the disappointment that occurred lately when the ship sailed from the Cape before the arrival of the mail from England.
  COLONEL SEELY: The attention of the Governor of the Cape will be called to this request in order that if possible it may be complied with.

  A Blue-Book Libel.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the petition presented by Alfred Mangena, praying for the removal of certain libellous statements regarding himself published in a Blue-book [Cd. 3027]; and whether he can inform the House what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State has carefully considered Mr. Mangena's petition, and it has been decided, after consultation with the authorities of this House, that the best course will be to present a further Command Paper containing a full Report of the proceedings in the actions brought by the petitioner, showing that the jury found that the statement made in Mr. Ndelomba's Report were not true in substance and in fact. This will be done, forthwith.

  Holland's Import of Irish Built Vessels
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement in the latest Consular Report from Rotterdam and Flushing that the new steamer added to the Holland-America line was built at Belfast and launched on 3rd March; whether in the list of imports into Holland for the present year, this vessel will be credited to Ireland, in view of the fact that in the current Report no record is made of new vessels being purchased from Great Britain or Ireland; and whether, in view of the importance of the shipbuilding industry to Ireland, care will be taken that in recording the statistics of Irish imports into those countries which have agreed to keep separate records of Irish trade the number and value of Irish-built vessels shall be specified in the Consular Reports.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I learn on inquiry from His Majesty's Consul at Rotterdam that the item "ships" is not especially mentioned in the monthly official statistics which are alone available when the Consul sends in his Report, but only in the official statistics for the whole year. In these circumstances, the Consul could not do more than state that the vessel was built in Ireland. The vessel will no doubt appear as desired in the official statistics for the year.

  The Arrest of Mr. Luxenburg.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the result of his claim on the Russian Government for compensation in connection with the unwarranted arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Luxenburg.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 2nd instant.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Are the Government using their best efforts to press their claim?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There are one or two difficult points in connection with it, and until they are thoroughly investigated it is impossible for me to come to a decision.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I shall repeat the Question this day fortnight.

  British Access to Lake Albert Edward— Incorrect Maps.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received the Report of the Anglo-Congolese Frontier Commission; whether the investigations of the Commission have revealed a mistake in the maps on which the Anglo-Congolese Convention of 1894 was passed, the effect of which is to deprive Great Britain of a strip of territory giving access to Lake Albert Edward; and whether any steps are being taken to rectify this error.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Report has been received, but has not yet been considered. A mistake in the maps, which is probably that alluded to by the hon. Member, was brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government in January, 1904, this was why the Commission was appointed.

  Persia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information with regard to the unrest in Persia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The latest information points to fighting having ceased.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Cossacks guarding the approaches to the British legation in Teheran in order to prevent refugees from obtaining sanctuary there have been removed; can he state the nature of the powers conferred on their commander, Colonel Liakhoff; is it a fact that this officer was implicated in the coup d'etat of 1907; and will His Majesty's Government make friendly representations to that of Russia, with a
  64
  view of securing that officers on the active list of the Russian Army shall in future strictly confine themselves to the function of maintaining order and not engage in operations for the suppression of popular rights guaranteed to the Persian people by the constitution.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Persian troops have been removed. Colonel Liakhoff was stated to have been appointed Governor of Teheran when a state of siege was proclaimed, but a Civil Governor has now been named. I have no information as to the part played by Colonel Liakhoff in the events of 1907; the Shah has announced his intention of maintaining the constitution; and there is no occasion for making representations.
  MR. LYNCHasked how it was proposed to uphold the independence of Persia if Russian officers in the Persian service were to be permitted to override the provisions of the Persian constitution.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Colonel Liakhoff is in the employment of the Shah, and whatever action he took in the emergency which arose the other day was taken independently of his Government.
  MR. LYNCH: That no doubt is constitutionally correct, but is not the Shah solely responsible for the Government of Persia?
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Does Colonel Liakhoff hold his commission in Russia?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His commission is under the Shah as instructor and commander of the Persian troops. He may be on the active list of the Russian army. If so, it is only in the same way as British officers are sometimes maintained on the active list of the British Army, but employed on service abroad under a foreign Government.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the hon. right Gentleman take steps to see that Russia does not bag the whole of Persia?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Why was not that attended to when the King met the Czar?
  *MR. REES: There seems to be a wide impression that Cossacks are Russian troops, whereas they are Persian.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Cossacks are Persians, not Russians.

  British Vice-Consul at Santiago.
  MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he has received any complaints of the treatment by the British Vice-Consul at Santiago, Chili, of Mr. C. R. Pettit, a British subject; and, if so, will he say what he proposes to do under the circumstances.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have received a complaint on this matter; but as the action of the Vice-Consul at Santiago, who is an unsalaried officer, was taken in his private capacity, I am unable to intervene.
  MR. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Pettit was nominated for membership of the Union club, Santiago; and that he was blackballed at the instigation of the British Vice-Consul?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand that that is the complaint, but any action taken in connection with the club was taken by the Vice-Consul in his private capacity.

  Apology Demanded from Persia.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any apology has been demanded from the Government of Persia for the disrespect shown to the British Legation at Teheran; and, if so, whether he can state the result.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: An apology has been demanded from the Persian Government, and I understand that it will be forthcoming; but till it has been made in satisfactory terms the incident cannot be regarded as closed.

  International Administration of Persia.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many people have been executed in Persia in connection with the recent disturbances; whether torture has been used in the case of any of the Nationalist Leaders, and, if so, in how many cases and to what extent; and whether His Majesty or His Majesty's Government has made any formal protest against these proceedings.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not know how many executions have taken place in connection with the recent disturbances in Persia, nor what methods have been employed by the Persian Government in dealing with any Persians. I do not see that any good result would follow if we departed from the policy of non-intervention, and I do not propose to take any step which would imply responsibility for internal affairs in Persia. I have already stated that we have demanded guarantees for the safety or proper treatment of refugees at the British Legation. I cannot go beyond that.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what is the revised estimate of the increased cost of old-age pensions consequent upon the alteration, made during the Committee stage, of the sums payable in respect of two or more persons living together.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEOKGE,): The deletion of the provision reducing the amount of the pension in the case of two or more persons living together in the same house is estimated to increase the cost of the scheme, as compared with the original estimate, by £342,000.

  Wholesale Wine Dealers' Licences
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of issuing a special 10-guinea form of Excise licence, a applicable

  67
  to the cases of wholesale wine-dealers and shippers only, for which it would not be necessary to apply for a justices' licence in addition; and whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue could issue such a new form of licence without any fresh legislation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A new form of licence such as that suggested by my hon. friend could not be issued without fresh legislation.

  British East African Railways.
  MR. LONSDALEI beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to the financing of schemes of railway construction in British East Africa; and whether it is intended to make provision for this work during the present financial year.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The question is still under consideration; and I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

  Royal Warrant Traders.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps, if any, he has taken to insure that firms enjoying the Royal Warrant or applying for the Royal Warrant observe the particulars clause and other regulations under the Health and Factory Laws.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): As I have already said, I have nothing to do with the grant of the Royal Warrant to individual firms. All I can say is, that firms holding the warrants are subject to the same regulations and inspection as other firms, and that, if any failure to observe the Factory Act regulations comes to the knowledge of my Department, action will be taken.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Two months ago the right hon. Gentleman promised to make certain representations. Can he now say to whom they have been made and what was their nature?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Representations have undoubtedly been made, but I should like to have notice of the Question.

  Bedford Assault Conviction—Case of William Perdue.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any fresh information with regard to the case of William Perdue, who was at Bedford sentenced to prison for assault; and, if so, whether such information wiil lead him to reconsider whether he can revise the sentence imposed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have received some fresh information with regard to this case, and am having inquiry made. As soon as I am able to form a decision on the application made on the prisoner's behalf, I will let the hon. Member know.

  Case of G. H. Fletcher, of Sheffield.
  MR. W. THORNE,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the sentence of two months' imprisonment passed upon G. H. Fletcher by the Sheffield stipendiary for addressing meetings in the public park; and whether, in view of the character of the sentence and Fletcher's previous good character, he will take steps to reduce the sentence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made careful inquiry into this case. The offence was persistent refusal to comply with a bye-law made by the local representative body in the public interest, and I regret that I should not feel justified in advising any interference.
  MR. W. THORNE: Did not the corporation break their own bye-laws and thus cause all the trouble?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of that.
  MR. W. THORNE: It is the fact.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I may add that if the person to whom the question refers cares to give any assurance that he will

  69
  observe the bye-law I will give further consideration to the case.

  Police Pensioners.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I bug to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether police pensioners who attend at New Scotland Yard for the purpose of drawing their pensions are frequently kept waiting from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.; whether, being paid by cheque, they have to then proceed to Burlington Gardens to cash their cheque, thereby losing a day's work and a day's pay; whether, in the event of payment being made by post, several days elapse before the pensioner receives his pension; and if he will state what payment is made to the widow of a pensioner who dies during the week preceding that in which his pension is due.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Pensioners who attend personally are required to be present before 11 a.m., and payment is usually made about 2 p.m. I am looking into the matter to see whether some improvement cannot be effected in the present system so as to avoid delay. Payment is made to those attending personally by cheque, drawn on the Western Branch of the Bank of England; but every pensioner has the option of being paid through the post, in which event a money order is sent to him in almost all cases on the day following that on which his life certificate is received. Pensions are paid in advance, and consequently no further sum is payable in the event of death before the expiration of the period for which payment has been made. In some cases, however, where at the time of death a full year's pension has not been drawn, a gratuity is given to the widow.

  Lunacy Certificates.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what mania Mr. F. Watkins, late private Royal Army Medical Corps, was suffering from when he was admitted into the Chartham Asylum; and whether the chief superintendent expressed any opinion upon the man's condition during the seven weeks' stay in the institution.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think that it would be right to give details as to a person's mental condition in reply to Questions in this House, but I may refer the hon. Member to Section 82 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, which provides that the Secretary to the Commissioners in Lunacy shall, upon the discharge of a person who considers himself to have been unjustly confined as a lunatic, furnish to him, upon his request, a copy of the reception order and certificate upon which he was confined.

  The Load Line.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the exact date when sanction was given by his Department for a change in the load line; by whom such change was asked for, and as to the total amount of additional tonnage vessels have been enabled to carry through such concession; and, further, as to whether it is the intention of the Government to give the House an opportunity to further consider the matter.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLKY,): The revised load line tables were sanctioned by the Board of Trade on 1st March, 1906. It is not possible to give any reliable estimate of the amount of additional tonnage that vessels have been enabled to carry owing to the change. The revision was made after prolonged inquiries and consideration by the Board of Trade in conjunction with Lloyd's Register, the British Corporation and Bureau Veritas, the three assigning bodies. My right hon. friend does not think any necessity has arisen for giving the House a special opportunity of considering the matter, but will be pleased to give the hon. Member any information in his power with regard to it.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Would it be right to assume that tins change was initiated by the President without consideration of the views held by his predecessor in office?
  *SIR H. KEARLEY: On the contrary, the arrangements for the change were commenced under the late Government.
  MR. HOLT: Is there any evidence forthcoming that any ship has been put in peril by the alteration?
  SIR H. KEARLEY: We have no record of any danger having arisen from the regulation.
  MR. JOYCEasked whether the change in the load line was not made behind the back of Parliament.
  SIR H. KEARLEY: It was not made behind Parliament.
  MR. JOYCE: Parliament was not sitting at the time. You know that.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: Have any complaints been received from officers of vessels or other responsible persons as to danger arising from the new load line? Is the Department aware that several engineers have been imprisoned for refusing to go to sea in ships in which the load line had been altered?
  SIR H. KEARLEY: We have no information of that.

  Rents in Sunderland.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in the Report on the cost of living of the working classes issued by his Department, under the head Sunderland, page 449, the rents in the Harrison Buildings, which are situated in the eastern and most densely populated portion of the borough, are stated to be two rooms 3s. 9d. and 4s. per week, and three rooms 4s. 9d. and 5s. per week, whereas on page 450 it is stated that the rents generally charged in the other and better parts of the town are two rooms 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d., and three rooms 3s. 6d. to 5s.; and whether he will make further inquiries in regard to the matter with a view to correction.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): No doubt the points referred to
  72
  in the Question will be taken into account when the Board of Trade make further inquiry into the cost of living at Sunderland.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: When will the Board of Trade make further inquiry?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No doubt they will complete the inquiry on which they are now engaged before reopening any case.

  Promotions of Postal Officials.
  MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the average service of officers in the Post Office is taken into account with their qualifications when questions of seniority duties and promotion are dealt with; and whether he will explain why several officers of long service and good manipulative, ability have been reduced to a lower round of duties and junior officers in service and salary substituted when a redistribution of duties recently took place at Leeds.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In dealing with questions of promotion, consideration is given to seniority as well as to qualifications; and these considerations are also taken into account in any redistribution of duties.

  School Accommodation at Westbury Leigh.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is now able to say whether he has directed the Wiltshire education authority to provide at once a temporary council school, in order to supply the deficiency of school places at Westbury Leigh; and whether he has declined to sanction the proposal to provide a second Church school for a population which is predominantly Nonconformists.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): It is not proposed to provide a second Church School but to enlarge the existing school by fifty-four places. The local education authority are unwilling to build a council school, and

  73
  as additional accommodation is required the Board have decided that, in view of Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, they have no alternative but to sanction the enlargement. I may add that the Board have satisfied themselves that there is sufficient accommodation in undenominational schools within easy reach for all children whose parents desire it.

  Medical Inspection of School Children.
  MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the President of the. Board of Education, if he will state what instructions are given to medical officers with regard to the medical examination of children in mixed schools, where only one room is available; and whether, owing to the natural objection entertained by parents, especially by those of the elder children, he will issue instructions that the boys and girls are not to be examined in the same room at the same time.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I do not think any objection can be raised to certain portions of the medical examination of boys and girls, such as measuring and weighing, being conducted in the same room, but it is obviously necessary that some of the more strictly medical parts of the inspection should take place either in separate rooms or at different times. I do not think any general instructions are needed, but any complaints which are brought to my notice will be inquired into.

  Deptford Cattle Market.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that, although on two market days during the past month there was a large number of cattle in the lairages at the Deptford Market, and that many English buyers were present, no markets were held; whether he is aware that the withholding of such cattle from sale was a breach of the regulations governing Deptford Market; and, if so, can he state what steps the Board propose to take in the matter.
  THE TREASURER OP THE HOUSE-HOLD (Sir EDWABD STRACHEY,): The Board are informed that no animals were exposed for sale at Deptford Market on five of the accustomed market days in June, but, so far as can be ascertained, it is not the case that many, or indeed any, English buyers were present on those days. No breach of the regulations is committed by the withholding of cattle from sale, and animals may be bought and sold on other than market days.
  MR. BOWERMAN: Am I to understand that American or other firms may come to this country and take possession of one of our markets, and refuse to I submit cattle for sale so that English traders shall not have the benefit of the market?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: American, no more than any other dealers, can be forced to sell cattle if they do not wish to do so, on a particular day.

  Superannuation.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors affected by the decision of the Government under The Superannuation Act, 1859; and why the Treasury have thought fit to ascertain the views of other Departments in regard to one class of Civil servants when the Treasury refuses to inquire as to the number of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who suffer undeserved loss by the decision of the Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN (for Mr. HOBHOUSE): My hon. friend has no information as to the first part of the hon. Member's Question; and the second part of it appears to raise questions of opinion rather than of fact.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the Secretary to the Treasury endeavour to ascertain the figures mentioned in the first part of the Question? Is it not the fact that recently the Treasury made inquiries in certain Government Departments as to the number of persons affected?
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he could only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer to a Question in February last on the same subject.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I shall repeat my Question.

  Girl Clerks in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of fact that the new conditions of employment for girl clerks in the Post Office were drawn up on similar lines to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants for the larger classes, he will consider the advisability of putting boy clerks, who are employed in several Government Departments and who do similar duties, under the same conditions of service as girl clerks in the Post Office.
  MR. BUCHANAN (for MR.HOBHOUSE): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. friend gave last Monday to a similar Question put by my hon. friend the Member for Exeter.

  Supplementary Estimates.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is proposed to present any further Supplementary Estimates before the conclusions of the days allotted for Committee of Supply.
  MR. BUCHANAN (for Mr. HOBHOUSE): The reply is in the affirmative.

  New Fishery Cruiser for Scotland.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what sum has been taken, and is now available, for building or otherwise providing for the new fishery cruiser for Scotland; and when this vessel will be available for service.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The sum now accumulated by the Fishery Board is sufficient for the purpose they have in view, but it is not advisable, in the public interest, that particulars should be published at this stage.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: When will it be possible to publish the particulars?
  MR. SINCLAIR: As soon as the arrangements are completed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: This matter has been going on for some months. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a more definite indication?
  MR. SINCLAIR: This is a business transaction, involving the expenditure of public money. We are endeavouring to secure the best terms we can.
  MR. WATT: When will the vessel be available for service?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot say.

  Ayrshire Potato Diggers.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the conditions under which the potato diggers in Ayrshire and the adjacent counties are housed and fed; whether he is aware that some 2,000 of these workers, male and female, are from Achill Island and neighbouring places in the West of Ireland, that the season begins in June and ends in August, and that the majority of these people are obliged to sleep in barns, byres, cart-sheds, and outhouses, without any provision whatever for the separation of the sexes, with little or no accommodation for cooking or sanitation; and whether, seeing that many of the workers are young girls and boys of from fourteen years of age and upwards, and that as many as twenty or thirty of these sleep together on hay and bits of sacking in an old barn, and that numbers of slum dwellers and tramps are engaged in this work, he will, in the interests of public decency and for the purpose of affording protection to the workers from Ireland, especially the young girls, have inquiries made with a view to the provision of proper accommodation for these workers.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has been directed to this matter. I am anxious to do what is possible to bring, about improvement, but it is right that

  77
  I should say that I must not be taken as endorsing in all particulars or as general the description of these conditions given by the hon. Member. The Local Government Board have held and just concluded an inquiry into the housing of potato diggers in Scotland with a view to the adoption of such improvements as are possible. I am informed that the inquiry has already resulted in some improvement, and I shall confer with the Board as to the adoption of measures to meet the evils referred to in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that labour is almost impossible to obtain on any terms whatever, and will he consider the advisability of providing allotments for the villagers so as to induce people to stay on the land?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is a matter which deserves consideration.
  MR. BYLES: Will the House have an opportunity of seeing the Local Government Board's Report?
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is published every year.

  Morphy Estate, Knocknagree, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have made any recent inquiries into the Morphy estate, Scrahan, Knocknagree, County Cork, in connection with the application of Patrick Guiney for reinstatement in his former holding; have they been made aware that the planter tenant has expressed his willingness to surrender the holding on certain reasonable terms; and, if so, will the Commissioners send their inspector to the locality with a view to expedite matters.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The Estates Commissioners have made inquiries into this case and are aware that the present occupier of the holding is prepared to surrender it to the evicted tenant if provided with an
  78
  equivalent holding elsewhere. The Commissioners will consider the question of providing the present occupier with such a holding in connection with the allotment of any untenanted land which they may acquire in the same county.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Was any pressure brought to bear on the planter tenant?
  MR. CHERRY: I am not aware of any.

  Morrogh Bernard Estate, Kells.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Memorial signed by the tenants on the Morrogh Bernard estate at Roads, near Kells, County Kerry, has been forwarded to the Estates Commissioners, setting out the circumstances under which they recently signed purchase agreements; and whether, in view of the statements therein contained and of the fact that some of the present rents are double the valuation, an inquiry will be held, and inspection made, before any sale is sanctioned.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received the Memorial in question, and will give it due, consideration in the event of proceedings being instituted before them for the sale of the estate referred to.

  Beardsley-Evans Estate, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners in respect to the sale of the Beardsley-Evans estate, near Charleville, County Cork, which is now in the Chief Receiver's Office, Four Courts, Dublin; whether he is aware that the receivers, Messrs. Kincaid, Dublin, entered into negotiations with the tenants headed by their clergyman, Rev. Father Blake, P.P., for the purchase of this property, but failed to proceed with the said negotiation without explanation; and whether, in view of the fact that the receivers are pressing for payment in full of accruing rents and in some cases payment of the hanging gale, contrary to the rules of the estate, and that the nominal owners receive little or no benefit owing to heavy

  79
  mortgage charges and receivers fees, the Commissioners will communicate with the Land Judge with a view to the purchase of the property in the joint interests of the owners and the tenants.
  MR. CHERRY: I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that no proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending in that Court. A receiver was appointed in a Chancery action, and the tenants, at one of his rent collections, made him a verbal offer for purchase which he was about to communicate to the Court when he received notice that the action had been dismissed. He denies having unduly pressed the tenants for rent. The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the receipt of any application in the matter, but will make inquiries on the subject.
  MR. FLYNN: As this is one of the class of estates the Land Judge has ex-pressed his anxiety to deal with, will the Estates Commissioners communicate with the Judge as soon as possible?
  MR. CHERRY: There are no proceedings by consent pending for the sale of this estate. A receiver was appointed in a Chancery action, but that action has been dismissed.

  Strokestown Cattle-drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Leiutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the stock belonging to a Mr. Richard Hague, at Greyfield, near Stokestown, County Roscommon, was driven off his farm on the night of Tuesday, 23rd June last; and will he say what arrests have been made and what sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. CHERRY: I am informed that some of Mr. Richard Hague's cattle were driven off his land between midnight on 20th June and seven o'clock on the following morning. The animals were recovered uninjured. The offenders were not discovered, and consequently no arrests have been possible.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: How far were these cattle driven?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot say, but they were recovered uninjured.

  Cattle-driving in West Meath and Longford—Judges' Remarks.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the address of Mr. Justice Gibson, at the opening of the West Meath Assizes at Mullingar, when he stated that there had been twenty-nine cases of cattle-driving, in none of which was anybody made amenable or prosecuted, and that the state of the county appeared to be far from satisfactory; to the statement of Mr. Justice Kenny, in addressing the grand jury at the opening of the assizes for the County Leitrim at Carrick-on-Shannon, that he could not congratulate the jury on the peaceable and orderly state of the county; to the remarks of Mr. Justice Madden, when opening the assizes for the County of Longford, when he stated that he had been supplied with official information showing that the crime of boycotting and cattle-driving existed in the county to an extent that led to the conclusion that its condition was other than satisfactory; and to the address of the Lord Chief Baron to the grand jury of County Clare, when he stated the number of outrages specially reported since March last, seventy-four of which were of an agrarian character, an increase of forty outrages as compared with the corresponding period of last year, that five persons were under constant police protection and sixty-five protected by patrol, an increase over those of last year, that there were thirty-two derelict evicted farms and forty-eight cattle-drives since last assizes; and will he say what steps the Government propose to take to restore law and order in the counties named.
  MR. CHERRY: I have seen a newspaper report of Mr. Justice Gibson's remarks to the effect mentioned in the Question. I am informed that in two of the cases of cattle-driving referred to in Westmeath offenders were arrested and bound to keep the peace. As regards the remarks attributed to the learned Judges at the three other Assizes mentioned I have nothing to add to the full Answers

  81
  which I gave yesterday to similar Questions put by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. In each of the counties named full measures within the ordinary law are being taken for the preservation of the peace and the punishment of offenders.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Do the Government pay any attention whatever to the weighty words which fall from the Judges who have to try these cases? Will they not take some other measures to stamp out this horrible state of lawlessness?
  MR. CHERRY: The Government pay every attention to the observations—weighty and other—of the learned Judges. They have taken every possible measure that comes within the ordinary law to stamp out lawlessness in Ireland.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in Ireland many persons deliberately putting themselves in the way of acquiring patrol protection from the police merely in order to supply hon. Gentlemen above the gangway with ammunition for firing in this House?
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask whether the Act which stands at present on the Statute-book for suppressing outrages of this kind is any part of the ordinary common law?
  MR. CHERRY: No, Sir.

  Cloonguish Grazing Lands.
  MR. J. PHILLIPS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have made any overtures or request to Colonel Sholto Douglas to sell the grazing lands known as the Scotch Quarters, Cloonguish, County Longford, for the purpose of increasing the uneconomic holdings on the part of the property sold to the tenants, as it was from, or on account of the evictions from, the Scotch Quarters that has made this division a congested district, and has caused so much unrest in this district of County Longford; and, if not, will he request them to do so.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have approached Colonel Douglas with a view to entering into negotiations for the purchase of certain untenanted lands stated to be in his possession, but have not yet received any reply.

  Guernon Estate, Durrus Peninsula.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Guernon estate, on the Durrus Peninsula, was offered for sale last February to the Congested Districts Board, and that the Board at their last meeting, owing to the want of funds, decided not to make an offer for the purchase of this estate; whether the Treasury will be able, before the Board's next meeting, to put them in a position to do so, and, if not, how long the delay will be allowed by the Treasury to continue; whether he is aware that in November, 1904, the Congested Districts Board purchased the estate of the representatives of D. O'Donovan in the Durrus Peninsula; and why this estate is not yet vested in the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. CHERRY: It is the fact that the Congested Districts Board have declined to negotiate for the purchase of the Guernon estate owing to the want of funds. The question of increasing the Board's funds for the purchase of estates cannot be dealt with apart from the legislation which it is proposed to introduce in the autumn as the result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion. The delay in the case of the O'Donovan estate is not due to any question of funds, but to a difficulty in regard to the vendor's title. It is expected that this difficulty will shortly be settled.

  Morragh Bernard Estate, Kerry.
  MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the Estates Commissioners have not dealt with the cases of Morty Buckley and Timothy Buckley, on the Morragh Bernard estate, County Kerry; and if he will state the cause of the delay in assisting these evicted tenants, who have

  83
  been restored to their farms by the landlord, and into the circumstances of whose position several different inspectors of the Estates Commissioners have inquired.
  MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member has already been informed that a purcase agreement in the case of Timothy Buckley has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners and that the Commissioners have sanctioned a free grant in the case. A purchase agreement signed by Mortley Buckley has now been lodged with the Commissioners, who are taking the necessary steps in that case also.
  MR. J. MURPHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the free grant will be given, seeing that these tenants have been reinstated for a considerable period and the Estate Commissioners have done nothing in the case?
  MR. CHERRY: It is a very difficult case, but there are thousands of similar ones pending.
  MR. J. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Estates Commissioners to have these cases dealt with immediately? There can be no difficulty in doing that.
  MR. CHERRY: But why should they not be dealt with in their order?

  Mount Shannon Estate, Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuten and of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the tenants who have been reinstated on the Mount I Shannon estate, County Limerick, and who were evicted tenants, have been processed for rates and taxes on all the land; whether he is aware that a large portion of this land has been thickly timbered and that this timber has been sold to a merchant who is having it cut down and removed; that the tenants allege that this land is useless to them at present; and, if so, whether something will be done to relieve the tenants from rates on this portion of the estate until the timber is removed and the land can be made use of by the tenants.
  MR. CHERRY: The tenant purchasers have been put in possession of the holdings on this estate and are liable for the rates and taxes from the date an which they received possession. There is no power to relieve them from that liability. The timber was not included in the resale to the tenants.
  MR. JOYCE: Is the Attorney-General aware of the fact that these evicted tenants are mostly in very straitened circumstances; that they have not been put in possession of the land, because it has been out of tenure and has been in possession of a timber merchant who bought the timber from the Estates Commissioners? Why should these poor people be liable for rates and taxes on land which they cannot make use of? I think it is pretty straight.
  MR. CHERRY: They have been formally put in possession, but unfortunately owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case they are not able to make use of it. The case is one of great difficulty, but they were put in possession by their own consent.
  MR. JOYCE: Why, if they are only formally in possession, should they be compelled to pay rates and taxes?
  MR. CHERRY: Because they are the rated occupiers of the land. The timber merchant is not in possession. He only goes on to the land to cut down the timber. He is not in occupation.
  MR. JOYCE: Well, I say it is all humbug their having to pay rates and taxes.

  Belfast Prison Committee.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the circumstances under which an order received from Dublin Castle by the Belfast Corporation, directing the latter to appoint six members to serve on the visiting committee of the Belfast Prison, was countermanded after the Corporation had gone to the trouble of selecting the gentlemen for the office and whether any further communication has been made to the Corporation in connection with the matter.
  MR. CHERRY: The Grand Jury of the County Borough of Belfast appoint annually six Justices to serve as members of the visiting committee of Belfast Prison. On 22nd June, the Belfast Corporation were, through an oversight, requested to make these appointments. The mistake was corrected by a letter addressed to the Town Clerk on 2nd July, but it appears that the Corporation had made the selections on that day. I am asked to express regret for any inconvenience which may have been caused to the Corporation.
  MR. SLOAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for this oversight?
  MR. CHERRY: One of the subordinate officials at Dublin Castle. I am sure the hon. Member will not press for his name to be given.

  Drogheda Evicted Tenant.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application of Michael Tiernan, Wood Mill, Townley Hall, Drogheda, to be reinstated in his former holding has yet been considered by the Estates Commissioners; and if it is proposed to give him an equivalent holding on the estate of R. B. Balfour, Townley Hall, Drogheda.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Michael Tiernan, but are not at present in a position to state what action they will take upon it.

  Kellet's Estate, County Meath.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the number of uneconomic holdings on Kellet's Estate, County Meath, and to the fact that the vendor has refused to sell any untenanted land except that of the worst quality, which the tenants have absolutely refused to accept for the enlargement of their holdings, the Estates Commissioners will sanction the advance of money for the purchase of the estate.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have instructed their inspector
  86
  to prepare a scheme for the allotment of the untenanted land which is proposed to be sold in this case, and until the Commissioners have received and considered the proposed scheme they cannot express any opinion upon the question raised by the hon. Member.

  Nobber Evicted Tenant.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application of Miss Margaret Clarke, Possextown, Nobber, County Meath, to be reinstated in her former holding has been considered by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member's similar Question on 1st April last.

  Navan Evicted Tenant.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Miss Norah Kieran, Leggah House, Navan, County Meath, to be reinstated in her former holding; and whether, in the event of the landlord refusing to put her in occupation of her old holding, they will exercise the powers vested in them to compulsorily acquire the land for the purpose of her reinstatement.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners are unable to reinstate the applicant in her former holding, but will consider the question of allotting her a farm on some untenanted land for the purchase of which they are negotiating.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last portion of the Question as to the exercise of compulsory powers?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot give any promise on their behalf. I do not think the Commissioners will. I hope the tenant will be willing to take another holding.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: She is disinclined to take any land except her old farm.
  MR. CHERRY: Then I am afraid she must go without a farm. I do not think the Estates Commissioners experience any great difficulty in getting people to settle on these untenanted lands.

  Ballinatona Lands.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a statement from Patrick J. Creedan, of Ballinatona, Millstreet; if so, what action is it proposed to take in the matter thereof; and will he say whether, in the opinion of the Commissioners, any of the lands of Ballinatona in the Land Judge's Court can be made available for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received the statement referred to in the Question. They understand that, consequent on the coming of age of the present owner, the proceedings in the Land Judge's Court are being continued in his name. When this has been done the Commissioners propose, if their offer for purchase be accepted, to allot portions of the land to evicted tenants.

  Sir George Colthurst's, Cork, Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report of the Inspector appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the estate, of Sir George Colthurst, County Cork, has been received by the Estates Commissioners; was this estate taken out of its order of priority, and, if so, will he explain the reason why; is there a field known as the village field, Ballyvourney, let on the grazing system, and, therefore, available for distribution; will he state what quantity of untenanted land on this estate may be acquired by the Commissioners for the benefit of the labourers and uneconomic holders; have the cases of the excluded tenants, Messrs. Henderson, Byrne, and Forrest, of Ardrum, Inniscarra, been fully investigated,
  88
  and, if so, with what result; and whether the tenancies of these tenants are exactly the same as that of Jeremiah Hegarty, whom the Estates Commissioners, after a public hearing, judicially decided was entitled to purchase as a bona fide tenant on the estate.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have not yet received their inspector's report on this case, and, therefore, have no present information upon the matters of detail referred to in the Question. The Commissioners, in pursuance of their powers under the Regulations, expedited the inspection of the case out of its order of priority, because they had intervened as conciliators between the landlord and tenants in pursuance of No. 8 of the Regulations.

  Lissarda Labourer's Cottage.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that proceedings were instituted some time ago by the Macroom Rural District Council against Mrs. Kate Foley, tenant of a labourer's cottage at Springhill, Lissarda; that the tenant offered to pay all liabilities and to sign a bond for rent when the cottage was put into proper repair; is it the duty of the district council to insist in such cases that the contractor performs his contract according to plans and specifications; and, seeing that Mrs. Foley complains of the defective condition of her dwelling-house, will he recommend that her complaint be attended to before further vexatious proceedings are taken against her.
  MR. CHERRY: The Local Government Board do not appear to have received any complaint in this matter, which is one that must be left in the hands of the rural district council. Assuming that the tenant has entered into the usual form of agreement, the rent must be paid unless it can be shown that the cottage is unfit for occupation, and the Board have no reason to suppose that this is the case. Any representations in the matter should be addressed to the rural district council.

  Falls Road, Belfast, Disturbances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were present on the Falls Road, Belfast, on 11th August, 1907, when the not Act was read and the military compelled to fire on the rioters; how many of these men were afterwards examined before the coroner and jury at the inquest held on the persons killed; what was the nature of their evidence; and is it the intention of the Government to have them examined before the Select Committee at present sitting.
  MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War has asked me to answer this Question. On the occasion referred to, which was 12th, not 11th, of August, 1907, three sergeants and about ten constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary were present at the point at which firing took place. Two of the sergeants were examined at the inquest, and their evidence was to the effect that a large mob of rioters were fiercely stoning the police and military, some of whom were struck by stones and knocked down before the firing took place. The question of the witnesses to be examined before the Select Committee was one for the decision of the Committee itself. I understand that the Committee has concluded the examination of witnesses, and has adjourned for the consideration of its Report.

  Irish Bad Debts.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how many loans advanced by the Treasury to public bodies or private persons in Ireland have been written off as bad debts within the past fifty years; and what is the aggregate amount of such bad debts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The only loans made by the Treasury in Ireland which have been written off in the last fifty years were the loans for Tithe Relief under the Act 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 100, amounting to £900,000, the whole of which amount was remitted in 1881 under the Act 44 and 45 Vict., c. 32.
  90
  The circumstances are explained in the schedule to that Act. The Departments which in modern times have been responsible for Government loans in Ireland are the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, and the Irish Land Commission. For particulars of the loans made by those Departments which have been remitted, I beg to refer the hon. Baronet to the Annual Account of the Local Loans Fund (House of Commons Paper No. 48 of the present session, pages 21–25).
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Have not the Government made a considerable profit on loans advanced to Ireland?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should be surprised to hear that the Treasury had made much profit.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a well-known fact that the Irish people have been very punctual in the repayment of loans, and that as far as land loans are concerned, although a large sum has been advanced, there are hardly any arrears at all?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I believe that is correct.

  Irish Expenditure.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure out of the Exchequer, or out of taxes raised by the authority of Parliament, upon purely Irish purposes in the year 1898–9; and what is estimated to be the corresponding figure in 1908–9.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The total expenditure upon purely Irish purposes in the year 1898–9 was £6,477,000. To enable an estimate to be made of the corresponding figure for the current year, I must ask the hon. Baronet to give longer notice.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a written reply, with all the figures, this day week?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman also be kind enough to furnish details so that we may know what are treated as purely Irish services?
  MB. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be glad to do so.

  New Issue of Irish Land Stock.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recent issue of Irish Land Stock was offered to the public at 89½ when the market price of previous issues was 92; whether the premium obtainable for the new issue shows that the price fixed was too low; and whether in those circumstances the Government will relieve Irish funds from the loss thus involved.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The price of issue of the stock was fixed in consultation with the usual advisers of His Majesty's Government in such matters. The fact that the issue has been a remarkable success and that the new stock commands a premium does not show that the price fixed was too low. The charge entailed by the issue of the stock at a discount will fall on the Ireland Development Grant, as provided by the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why was this money not obtained from the Commissioners of National Debt, as recommended in the Report of the Treasury Committee?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Because they had not got it, I assume.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Did not this Report suggest that the money required for land purchase in the next three years should be provided in this way? Did not the Committee know what they were about in making that recommendation?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: All I know is that the money was not available.
  MR. LONSDALE: On what day did the Treasury decide to make this issue?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was decided upon finally last week, a very short time before the issue.
  MR. LONSDALE: On Saturday?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; the decision was come to before Saturday.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Was the loan subscribed forty times over?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; somewhere about that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Ireland cannot be in a very bad state after all.

  Strangford Bar Whistling Buoy.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the whistling buoy the Irish Lights Commissioners have decided to place at Strangford Bar, County Down, is yet in position; and, if not, can he promise that it will be moored before the autumn, when rough weather is generally experienced in that locality.
  SIR H. KEARLEY: I can at present add nothing to the reply which my right hon. friend gave to this Question a week ago.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Can the hon. Gentleman state the price of these buoys?
  SIR H. KEARLEY: No, Sir; but I will inquire.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: And if he finds it to be reasonable will he, in view of the fact that stiff weather will shortly set in in that locality, see that a buoy is at once provided?
  SIR H. KEARLEY: The authorities are probably aware of the fact stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  Kenmare Tram Service.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted at the public meeting in Kenmare, County Kerry, on 29th June, protesting against the proposed

  93
  change in the railway time table, whereby intending passengers to Kenmare by the night train would be detained at Headford Junction for more than an hour; and whether he will make representations to the railway company with a view to securing an arrangement whereby this inconvenience and discomfort, and resulting interference with the business of the town of Kenmare, will be obviated.
  SIR H. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have not seen the resolution referred to, but they have communicated with the railway company, who state that the train service on the branch line between Headford Junction and Kenmare is arranged with a view to affording the best connections practicable, and that the alteration referred to by the hon. Member gives an additional connection from Rosslare and Waterford and other places on the route.

  Parliamentary Papers.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the excessive number of Parliamentary Papers sent to each Member of the House; and, if so, whether he will appoint a small Committee to look into this matter in order to economise the money of the country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LOED OF THE TREASUEY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I understand that the Select Committee on Official Publications has this matter under consideration, and if my hon. friend will communicate with them, I have no doubt that they will be glad to have the advantage of his views.

  Appointments of Lords-Lieutenant.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether Lord-Lieutenancies of counties are now given as reward for work in connection with the Volunteers and the new Territorial Army; and, if so, will he say how many Lords-Lieutenant were appointed for Scotland during 1907 and 1908, and how many of these were appointed on account of their services to the Volunteer movement.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. friend to the statement I
  94
  made yesterday, from which he will see that these appointments are not made on the grounds suggested.
  MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think the Answer I have given covers it.

  Legislative Machinery.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state when he proposes to place upon the Order Paper his proposals with regard to carrying over Bills from one session to another.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know to what proposals the hon. Baronet refers. The Government are not committed to take any action in the matter, which, however, in my opinion, deserves serious consideration.

  Finance Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be proceeded with.
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be taken on Tuesday; but I shall be making a full statement as to the business of the House to-morrow.

  Inter-Imperial Communication.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state when he expects to be in a position to announce the decision of the Government in reference to the scheme of inter-Imperial communication.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement by the conclusion of this portion of the session?
  MR. ASQUITH: The matter is now under consideration by a Committee who have not yet reported.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. WALTER LONGasked as to the course of business.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that to-morrow, after disposal of the Motion for suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, a number of small Bills would be taken, including the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Bill, Patents and Designs Bill, Tuberculosis (Ireland) Prevention Bill, and the Housing of Working Classes (Ireland) Bill. On Monday he proposed to take Navy Votes in Committee of Supply; on Tuesday and Wednesday, Committee on the Finance Bill; and on Thursday, Supply again, the Post Office Vote, and, should discussion on this close at ten o'clock the Scottish Votes.
MR. WALTER LONG: When is it proposed to take the other Army Votes?
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether there would be any discussion on the Treasury Vote. He added that on that it was desired to discuss a question of some interest with regard to the settlement of disputes on wages questions in the Civil Service.
MR. ASQUITHcould hold out no hope of such a discussion, but a discussion could be raised on the Appropriation Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman knew that the Treasury Vote had not been discussed during the present Parliament.
MR. ASQUITH: Nor do I think it was during the last Parliament.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I What time will be given for the Army Votes?
MR. ASQUITHsaid he hoped half a day would be given for Army Votes.
MR. JAMES HOPE: What will be the business for to-morrow week?
MR. ASQUITHsaid that he would I probably propose a Procedure Motion in
96
regard to the remaining stages of the Licensing Bill.
MR. CATHCART WASONasked as to the Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Order Confirmation Bill. He understood it was to come on at half-past ten, but that there could not by any possibility be a discussion. As he had been bitterly attacked with regard to it he thought he ought to have some opportunity of replying, otherwise he might have to raise it as a question of privilege.
*MR. SPEAKER: If a Motion is made with regard to this Bill from the Treasury Bench the hon. Member will have his opportunity.
MR. CATHCART WASON: But suppose no Motion is made?
*MR. SPEAKER: Then the Bill would be put down for another day.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
MR. HAROLD COXasked as to the publication with the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday last of the Answers given to Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, although starred Questions, were issued as if unstarred. He wished to know by what authority a Minister imposed that additional charge on the public.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid it would be inconvenient if all Ministers adopted the practice of issuing with the Votes Answers to Questions addressed to them verbally. But he did not think that was the practice. His attention had not been called to this particular matter, but it was sometimes convenient that where an Answer contained a number of figures it should be handed in at the Table.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: Might not a good deal of the cost of printing be saved if copies of complicated Answers were placed in the Library for reference?
*MR. SPEAKER: It may be convenient to hon. Members to have them printed with the Votes in case they wish to forward

97
copies to those at whose instance the Question is put.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I explain that the reason these Questions were handed in was that they contained a good many figures. The Answers were too long to read to the House, and I thought it better to hand them in.
MR. HAROLD COX: I was notreferring to Answers of that nature.
MR. R. DUNCANasked to whom he should apply in the event of a Return promised not being printed.
*MR. SPEAKER: If the Return has been ordered by the House, and the hon. Member will address his remonstrance to me, I will inquire of the printer and get it as quickly as possible.
MR. R. DUNCAN: But I decline to badger you, Sir.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 223.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed, [No. 224.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]

REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 309.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Second Report brought up, and read.
Report, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 311.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLTAM BRAMPTOX GUEDON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Handloom Weaving (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Attorney-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Birrell, Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee A. the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Handloom Weaving (Ireland) Bill); Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh. Mr. Crean, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Condon, Sir Walter Nugent, Mr. Thomas Lorimer Corbett, Mr. MacCaw, Mr. Sloan. Mr. Glendinning, Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Sears, Mr. Jackson, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Grayson, and Mr. Russell.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee

99
B (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Bill): Mr. Paulton; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Hobhouse.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Soames, Mr. Walker, Mr. Hastings Duncan, Mr. Vivian, Mr. Cave, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Colonel Sir Ivor Herbert; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Henry, Mr. Hommerde, Mr. Beck, Mr. Albert Stanley, Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Bowles, and Mr. Ellis Davies.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee C. the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Watt, Sir Clifford Cory, Mr. Walton, Mr. Lupton, Mr. Markham, Mr. James Mason, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. McArthur, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Thomas Richards, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Glover, and Mr. Keir Hardie.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND).
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SHAW,): The Bill which I have now the honour of asking the House to allow me to introduce is substantially the same Bill as that which was read a first time and circulated last session. I was anxious that the opinion of Scotland should be obtained upon that measure, and specially requested that the important professional bodies of the country should consider it in detail and formulate their opinions regarding it. I have to acknowledge very gratefully the helpful co-operation of all these public bodies, and I desire to explain to the House that I have been able to give effect to various amendments on points of detail, all of which, however, have been forwarded to me with expres-
  100
  sions of marked approval of the substance and urgency of the measure itself. It is now twenty-one years since the present Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Kingsburgh, succeeded in carrying into law a great and much needed amendment of the criminal procedure in the Supreme Courts of Scotland, and in cutting down large masses of useless formalities, and introducing businesslike methods of accuracy and precision. There was thus effected a very notable judicial reform in Scotland, and reform on similar lines and applicable to all the Courts of summary jurisdiction throughout the country is for some time overdue. Advantage has accordingly been taken of this opportunity of removing many archaic and complex forms by the substitution of others on the lines of the Act of 1887. When I explain to the House further that the proceedings of these inferior Courts are regulated by no fewer than four general statutes, viz.:—The Summary Procedure Act, 1864; the Summary Prosecutions Appeals Act, 1875; the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1881; the Burgh Police Act, 1892; not to speak of other local and municipal Acts, it will be at once seen that the necessity for simplifying and codifying the whole mass of this legislation is manifest; and this object, I trust, is attained in the measure. One figure which I venture to give will illustrate to the House the practical need to which I allude. The three great Burgh Statutes which contain procedure clauses are the General Act of 1892, and the main Municipal Statutes applicable to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Taken together, these statutes contain no fewer than 1303 clauses. The codes of procedure in various respects are in conflict, and I think both the magistracy and the public will be thankful to have a harmonised and substituted code provided in a single Act. I cannot, of course, in introducing a Bill give details as to all those items of substantive reform which it contains. For instance, the limit of sentence in the case of Sheriff Summary trial has been raised from two to six months in accord with principles given effect to in various special statutes. Power has been given to accept admissions of facts and documents, proof of which, although they were mere matters of form, has hitherto been necessitated

  101
  because the case was a criminal and not a civil one. These two instances may indicate to the House that not a little has been done in a direction which I trust the House will highly favour, namely, the avoiding of delay over the cases of untried prisoners. I give these as illustrations of the type of business- like reform which the Bill is meant to favour. I have to explain further, however, that there has arisen in the course of years in Scotland a body of legal decisions on points of legal technique the result of which has put a premium upon the ingenuity of the finder of flaws and a real obstacle in the way of administration of justice by summary Courts with any sense of security. The instances are numerous, and one of them, which is to hand, I may cite. A prisoner was convicted of two separate offences—a somewhat brutal assault and also a breach of the peace. He pleaded guilty to both, but because the clerk entered the conviction as of a "crime" instead of the plural "crimes" the Court held that the conviction was bad, and the man, a criminal on two counts by his own confession, was on account of this slip sent home to his friends and his relations; a slip of grammar or the pen had let him prematurely loose upon society. The Bill accordingly endeavours to put a stop to such things by giving ampler powers to the High Court to prevent miscarriages of justice, and to see that unless the accused has been misled or prejudiced thereby, such flaws shall not invalidate the proceedings. In accomplishing such a work of codifying and simplifying the law it has been necessary to frame a measure of some bulk. It contains seventy-seven clauses, and I have adopted the procedure of scheduling not only convenient forms of complaint, such as I have referred to, but also the sections of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1887, so as to avoid as much as may be the awkwardness of legislation by reference. In regard to such measures I think one fact is too often forgotten, viz., the debt of gratitude in which the whole country stands to the Judges of these inferior Courts. I do not refer merely to sheriffs, but to that large body of painstaking magis-
  102
  trates who, without remuneration, from day to day and week to week, perform many an irksome judicial duty. And if in addition to satisfying the more abstract demand for a less, complex judicial code the measure should succeed in lightening and simplifying the task of the magistracy throughout Scotland, such a work is well worthy of the labour of Parliament. I add in conclusion that the Bill is not inconsistent with that general body of humane legislation as to children, the probation of offenders and the like—which has recently appeared or will shortly appear upon the Statute-book. And from the Scottish point of view this measure will form a legislative complement to the Sheriff Courts Bill which, with the assent and co-operation of all parties in the House, was last year passed into law. May I bespeak a similar assent and co-operation in this instance? Without these, for it is in no respect a party measure, the Bill cannot this year reach the Statute-book, but with these I think the House may rest assured that the passage of this Bill into law will substantially promote the prompt, effective, and sound administration of justice.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate and amend the Law relating to Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Procedure in Scotland"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  EARL WINTERTONdid not think this was the Bill that ought to be brought forward in the way it had been. It was a Bill of great complexity; it largely increased the powers of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, as the Lord-Advocate had stated, and contained seventy-seven clauses. Leave to bring in Bills of less complexity had been refused on many occasions, and he thought the Government should not bring in so complicated a measure at this period of the session, when there was no time to consider its very numerous clauses. He would divide the House against it if he was the only one who went into the "No" Lobby.
  Question put.
  The House divided, Ayes, 261; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 181).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkBg'hs)

  Agnew, George William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

  Baring, Godfrey Isle of Wight)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Killop, W.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Gulland, John W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Boland, John

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Halpin, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

  Branch, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Menzies, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Middlebrook, William

  Bright, J. A.

  Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bryee, J. Annan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Myer, Horatio

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Channing, Sir Friancis Allston

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholls, George

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clough, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, Partick (Kilkenny)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Cox, Harold

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crean, Eugene

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John(Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jowett F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Joyce Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kavanagh Walter M.

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kearley Sir Hudson E.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kincaid-Smith Captain

  Phillips John (Longford, S.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh A.(Donegal, W.)

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lavland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Duckworth, James

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Llovd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rees, J. D.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lundon, W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Richardson, A.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lynch, H. B.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Robinson, S.

  Steadman, W. C.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Straehey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Russell, T. W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Seddon, J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Seely, Colonel

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Toulmin, George

  Winfrey, R.

  Sheehy, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Walters, John Tudor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wardle, George J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wason,Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Snowden, P.

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Watt, Henry A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex F.

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Gordon, J.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Barrie, H T (Londonderry, N.)

  Hope, JamesFitzalan(Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Beaeh, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker,Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Clark, George Smith

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Earl Winterton and Mr. Bowles.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Craik, SirHenry

  Nield, Herbert

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Renton, Leslie

  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord-Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate and amend the Law relating to Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Procedure in Scotland." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 312.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Old-Age Pensions Bill have precedence this day of the business of Supply.—(Mr. Asquith.)

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for the Third Heading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. BOWLES: In rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I am of course well aware that under normal circumstances, and in a normal case, to ask the House of Commons to reject a Bill which has been considered through all its successive stages, would be no doubt a rather strong demand. But I have no doubt in making this Motion, that both I who make it, and so many of my hon. friends who may be good enough to support it, will be represented throughout the country as having shown a callous and culpable indifference to the sufferings of the

  107
  poor, and as being opposed to giving any old-age pensions whatever. Such a charge as that, wherever made, would be untrue and unjust. For my part, I am not opposed to, on the contrary I should cordially welcome, any scheme which, whether by way of old-age pensions or otherwise, would really, effectively, and with justice, mitigate in some degree the sufferings, privations, and misery in which, no doubt often undeservedly, many of our fellow countrymen live at the end of their lives. It is fair, however, to remember that, in this country at any rate, the charge of indifference to the sufferings of the poor cannot be made at this time, or any other time, against any Party, or against any section whatever of the community. For something like 300 years, longer I believe than any civilised European country, we in England have had a regular and practical system of law dealing with poverty on recognised principles. Everybody, I believe, in every quarter of the House, will cordially agree that the time has come when that system of law ought to be reconsidered and largely amended. It is an important element, I think, in the consideration of this matter—it has been recognised by right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and in all quarters of the country—that a large and important Commission has in fact been appointed, which is analogous in many respects to the great Poor Law Commission of 1834, although it has not, I think, to deal with anything like so urgent a proposition as that which confronted them. It has been sitting now for some years, and the Report is expected within a short time. All that has been done, and all that has been regarded as a necessary and inevitable preliminary step in dealing with the problem of poverty in old-age. For my part I, as I am sure do all my hon. friends, rejoice that the Commission has been appointed, because it appears to me that, whatever else may be in doubt in considering this matter, this, at any rate, is clear, that the problem of poverty, of which this Bill deals with only a part, and a relatively inconsiderable part, is really one of the problems which cannot be divided into innumerable sections. It presents to us questions of enormous and sometimes insuperable complexity, and if ever it can be said of any problem in this world, it certainly can be said of this one,
  108
  that it can only be properly, finally, and justly dealt with after the most full and serious consideration on the part of the responsible Government, by a Bill which has received a most detailed and careful discussion in the House of Commons, and, indeed, I should say, without any doubt, in both Houses of Parliament. And my root complaint against this Bill is exactly that, while on the one hand we will assume that it deals with a relatively small corner of the whole vast and growing problem, it does so in a way which has never been considered by His Majesty's Government at any stage, and which has never been allowed to be even discussed, even considered, as to the great majority of its provisions, by this House, with a view to amendment. No member of the Government will have the courage to say that when the Bill was introduced he had fully considered it in all its bearings, or had any notion of what its real effect on the country would be. No one will make that assertion. If he does, I think there would be no difficulty in controverting him by reference to even the action which the Government have taken themselves at almost every stage. I am equally certain, and I do not think it can be denied, that there is no hon. Member in any quarter of the House who is not perfectly well aware that if this measure had been allowed to be fully and freely debated, it would have been blown into pieces line by line, and what the Government would have had to do—and what they have done to some extent in the ridiculous and truncated debates which they allowed—would have been to abandon the Bill. Of that there can be not the slightest question. It appears to me, as a humble student of these matters, that if anything has been made clear in the course of these debates it is that if you are to have a scheme of old-age pensions at all, there are only two intelligible, conceivable, or rational principles on which it can be founded. Either you must have a scheme based on the principle of contribution, or you must have a universal scheme. For my part I am very strongly in favour of, indeed I have always supported, a scheme based on the principle of contribution. I believe that such a scheme, and such a scheme alone, can deal with the real necessities of the case, a scheme which would enable a man to have his pension not at a time or age

  109
  arbitrarily fixed, but at a time when he is infirm through illness, accident or other cause—in fact, a scheme which would give him the pension when he needs help. But this Government, characteristically, have chosen neither of these principles, and the result is that we have had thrown at our heads a Bill which probably inflicts more injustices and more cruelties, which probably involves more grotesque and inexplicable contradictions in itself, and opens up a wider field for disputes, litigation, and grievances and sore disappointments among the great mass of the people, than probably any Bill of its length that has ever been devised. This Bill proceeds on the principle, so far as it affects to proceed on any principle at all, that the old-age pension is to be regarded as a matter, not of charity, not of compassion, not of pity, but of right. It is to be regarded not as a dole but as a debt. The theory is that everybody in this country who has shown reasonable care and industry, and who has attained to the age of seventy, is owed money by his country. By the more fact of his industry the country has contracted an obligation towards him and owes him an ample sum. Accordingly the first clause of this Bill is described in the note as giving the right to receive an old-age pension. This right has been loudly insisted upon in this House, and no doubt loudly insisted upon in the country. I have no doubt that many hundreds of persons up and down the country, who believe what they have been told in that respect, and who were preparing to put in claims, think that the old-age pension will become theirs as a right the moment the Bill becomes law. Those people will have a sudden and rude awakening. This Bill confers no legal right to the pension; it will be competent to no man or woman to go into a Court of law and enforce the claim for an old-age pension under this Bill. It is a remarkable thing that the only kind of legal right which the Bill really does give is that the Treasury will have the absolute statutory right to go into Court and recover from the old person, or from those on whom he is dependent and who may have anything to do with the matter, any sum that may have been paid to that old person improperly by way of old-age pension. The whole thing is in the hands of the pension
  110
  officer and the local pension committee. And bow is it possible to describe as a right that which it is in the power and in the duty of two authorities—both perfectly new and unknown to this country before this Bill was introduced—of their own motion to decide whether or not this, though called a right, is to be allowed to be enjoyed by these wretched men? What is given by the Bill is not a pension but an inquiry into character, and I ask the House to pause long before they allow that to go forth to the country. The right which the Bill gives is the right to these poor old people to lay bare the whole of the intimate details of their lives, every circumstance, their whole history, to submit to a personal examination of the whole of their long, laborious, and obscure career from year to year, at the hands of a small local committee, in the hope that they may be able to persuade them of what it would be perfectly impossible in the majority of cases even to begin to prove it you begin with the small artificially selected and arbitrarily chosen class which for some reason has always been singled out by the Government to receive public charity. If the applicant succeeds, his position will be that of a sort of ticket-of-leave man under the surveillance of the local Exciseman, whose duty it will inevitably be to see that he continues to fulfil the conditions day by day and week by week. On the other hand he may fail to convince the local Exciseman that he has fulfilled the conditions, and I firmly believe in the vast majority of cases he will fail, certainly in the towns. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen contemplate with equanimity the spectacle of an old man, in whom they have raised hopes, whom they have told he has a right to a pension, who, having submitted to this long and degrading inquiry at the hands of a local committee, finds all his hopes broken and that he is open to the reproach of having tried to get money out of the public to which he was not entitled, and perhaps also that the most intimate and most carefully guarded secrets of his life have been exposed to the not too sympathetic gaze of the local officer and the local committee. What is the procedure by which it is attempted to make this ludicrous distinction? The only excuse which any Government can offer to the House of Commons, to the country or even to

  111
  themselves, for introducing such a procedure is that they have never had the time or the inclination seriously to consider it. Let the House consider for a moment the practical working of the scheme. Here is an old person believed to be seventy years of age, who has led a reasonably industrious life, and has been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that he has an absolute right to a pension. He makes his claim and some considerable time after the setting up of this machinery the pension officer arrives, very busy, his pocket bursting with birth and marriage certificates, and begins a most fantastic inquiry. He sits down in this wretched old person's room and proceeds to discover in the first place whether he is seventy years of age. We have asked the Government very politely and with great clearness what notion they themselves have formed of how in the ordinary course the old man is to be able to assure the pension officer that he has attained the age of seventy. They have not the faintest notion. He next inquires whether this old person has or has not resided for twenty years in the United Kingdom. That would exclude vast numbers of persons whom the Government do not desire to exclude—sailors and persons who might have gone abroad for any reason. The Attorney-General says, "That is all right. We will define residence to mean domicile." But he cannot do anything of the kind. Then the pension officer has to discover whether or not since January, 1908, the applicant has had an allowance—a few shillings during a week or two he has been out of work—from the guardians, and he then inquires into the habits of this unfortunate man during the whole of his life. He has to discover whether habitually he has worked according to his ability, his opportunity, and his need. It is made a great point by the Government that there is no character test in the Bill, that it is a matter of right and a reward for the industrious citizen, and that there is only an inquiry as to whether during the whole of the person's life he has or has not made the best use of his opportunity. Is there any ground for such a provision as that? The only gratification I have on considering it is that certainly if it were applied to any single member of the Government it would disqualify him for ever from receiving a
  112
  pension. In the case of a woman this wretched officer will have to inquire and establish that she has habitually been a good housewife and has done her housework well for the benefit of those dependent upon her. That is a pure character test — it can be nothing else — and if the Government really believe what they asseverate so loudly, that there is no character test in the Bill, it can only be because they have not considered for a moment the meaning of the words which they employ. Industry is to be presumed if the applicant has paid into a trade union or friendly society continuously between the ages of fifty and sixty. These ten years are arbitrarily selected I suppose because they are the years during which it is most difficult for the applicant to continue his subscription. A man may have paid into a friendly society all his life up to the age of fifty-nine: it is no good. He may have paid from fifty-one to seventy. Industry in his case is not to be supposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather moved in this matter, I understand, by the representations of the great friendly societies, who expressed very rightly, and with good reason, their apprehension as to the effect of the Bill upon their interests. He told them that they need not be alarmed, and that on the contrary the Bill would do them a great service, because they would be able to write on the head of their application form "Membership of this society is a guarantee for an old-age pension." The right hon. Gentleman of course believed what he said, but nobody who reads the Bill can fail to see at once that that is doubly misleading, and that any friendly society which took the Chancellor's advice would put itself in a very awkward position if anybody on the faith of that statement chose to begin payments to the society. When the friendly societies begin to read the Bill, they will see that they will have to write in large red letters on their application forms to the young men of the locality, "Join our society at the age of fifty and you will be presumed to have been industrious up to that time. All payments made to our society before the age of fifty will be useless for that purpose, and will probably result in your having made so good a provision for your old age yourself that you will be disqualified for an old-age pension altogether." Finally,

  113
  the pension officer has to assure himself of the whole financial position—past, present, and future—of this wretched man. He has to have an absolute statement of the whole of the income which he has actually received last year in cash; every Christmas-box or charitable donation, all payments he may have received from his sons or his daughters or those who may desire to help him in his old age, will be brought up against him in order to defeat his claim. It is my firm belief that if Gentlemen below the gangway really understood the Bill they would not support it. The pension officer will also have to calculate the yield which any property the man possesses might be made to give if he were a skilled financier and investor, such as very few of us are or can hope to be. Finally, there is the ridiculous fact that if at the age of seventy a man inherits £800 and chooses to invest it in Consols so that it will bring in £20 a year he is entitled to a full pension, whereas if he inherits £200, and buys a Government annuity of £31 10s, he will be entitled to no pension at all.
  MR. CROOKS: I think he would be a fool to leave it in Consols when he could buy an annuity.
  MR. BOWLES: That is because the hon. Member does not approve the system of depriving one's self of present advantages in order to be able to leave a little something for those who come after him. This Bill is represented as an endowment of the poor at the expense of the well-to-do. It is quite clear, unless this particular point is escaped somehow, that it will in a great many cases, in my belief, work out as an endowment of the well-to-do at the expense of the very poor. All these questions are to be put and answered. It is inevitable that the Bill will work with the most complete inequality in various localities. In one district you may have a strict pension officer and in another one who is less strict, and you have not the slightest guarantee that a man who has been refused a pension in one district will not succeed in getting it in another district. It seems to me that the inquiry provided for in the Bill is a most degrading and humiliating ordeal to put an old person through. Such an inquiry will be resented by all those who desire to
  114
  preserve some spirit of independence and self-respect. In the country districts the Exciseman will have every single interest against him, for the landlord, the squire, the guardians, and the employers wiil form one gigantic conspiracy against this unfortunite Imperial officer, and the burden placed upon that man is more than he ought to be expected to bear. This Bill inevitably creates two new classes. In every village and town, on the one hand, you will have docketed the recipients of State charity, prevented by law from receiving any help from their sons or daughters, and they will be under the daily and weekly surveillance and control in every respect of a public official lingering out a subsidised old age with one eye upon the local post office and the other upon the Excise officer. On the other hand you will have a much larger army of persons who, after having submitted to this degrading and extremely painful inquiry, have failed to establish their claim. They will be thrown back upon the Poor Law where they will be deprived of the satisfaction of voting Tory for the rest of their lives. A scheme such as that is nothing else than an extension of outdoor relief on the part of the Poor Law, and no amount of rhetoric, no eloquent phrases, no hopes or wishes held out can make it anything else. It is pretended that this pension scheme has been carefully kept separate from the Poor Law. But no such separation is possible; and that seems to have been admitted, because as the Bill now stands, on the 1st of January, 1910, every single pauper will be thrown upon the Exchequer unless we amend the Poor Law. This fact alone justifies my Motion. It is admitted that the Poor Law must be amended and there is now a Commission sitting dealing with the whole question. We are told that on the Report of that Commission it may be found necessary to recast the whole of our Poor Law, and yet, in advance of the findings of that Commission, from motives which I do not think it would be offensive to say are motives prompted by mere party popularity, the Government, without the slightest warrant from anybody, bring forth this ill-considered scheme, which pre-judges the Report of the Commission now sitting and the action which the House will have to take upon it. Under these circumstances I do not wonder that when the

  115
  Cabinet sat round the table and considered this project as the Bill was first introduced into the House, they came to the conclusion that before the Second Reading was passed the House should be refused any opportunity to discuss it. Whether it is right or wrong it is a tremendous revolution in our procedure for the Government before the Second Reading of a Bill to draft and hand in a long Resolution confining the Committee stage to five days. We are now getting accustomed to the profound and avowed contempt with which the Government are pleased to treat the House. It seems to me that in this Bill they have passed even their own limit. It is not too much to say that in dealing with this Bill the House of Commons, as such, has been annihilated and treated as though it did not exist at all. I do not wish to exaggerate, but it is not too much to say that the debate upon this Bill has been unduly restricted. The Finance Bill of 1894, which made many important changes, was discussed for three months. But the Bill we are now considering is a far more important measure, and it appears to me that one session would not have been too much to devote to a Bill of this gigantic character. If the House of Commons is allowed to debate any Bill, however ridiculous it may be, it always, as a matter of fact, has been found capable of making that Bill a workable and a lasting measure. The Finance Act of 1894 raised subjects of great contention, but it has lasted to this day almost unamended. When the House debates under those circumstances, and when a measure is thoroughly discussed, the country and all parties are willing to abide by the decision. On the other hand surely hon. Members opposite must have seen that it always has been found that when closure is applied and debate forbidden the result is that you have an Act of Parliament which is not lasting, which does not settle the question at all, and which merely leads to trouble, difficulties, disappointment, and delusion, and necessitates more legislation upon the same subject, involving a further call upon the time of the House. The Government have stifled all discussion upon this gigantic Bill. Finally this Bill is said to be a financial and money Bill. It would be impossible to deny that it has a financial side, but I
  116
  doubt very much myself whether in the opinion of a single hon. Member opposite, or in the opinion of any right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench, the financial side of the Bill is regarded as creditable to the Government or to this House. We have been told that all the estimates founded upon this Bill are purely conjectural. Whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his mouth in the discussion it generally involved an increase of anything from £500,000 to £1,000,000 in the cost of the scheme. I believe it to be a very mild estimate to say that the cost of the Bill will in the end approach a good deal nearer £10,000,000 than £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. Now £10,000,000 is a considerable sum, in fact it represents 4d. upon the income-tax, and remember, this is a proposal made by a Government which is pledged up to the eyes to the most vigilant retrenchment and economy. This is a scheme to which they were not pledged, and it will involve within the next few years not retrenchment or economy, but an additional expenditure of something like £10,000,000 per annum. It is a little surprising to me that a Government pledged to economy should come to this House and wantonly break those pledges in this way with their eyes wide open, and without any direct authority from anybody. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."] The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he has not the faintest conception where the money required for this scheme will come from. He has no nest egg, and therefore by the admission of the Government, so far from retrenchment or economy being possible, increased taxation of the heaviest kind is absolutely inevitable if this pension scheme is to be carried out. There are other considerations as to which I shall say nothing at the present moment. One of the most serious objections to this measure to my mind is the effect it will certainly have upon the purity and independence of public life in this country. I do not see how it is possible for anybody to suppose that once this system has been started every candidate at an election will not try to outbid his opponent. However, I put my objections to the measure upon much broader and more general grounds. The Bill imposes a degrading and humiliating ordeal upon people who

  117
  deserve better treatment. It is a measure which has been entirely unconsidered by the Government, it has never been considered by the country, and the Government have not allowed it to be considered by the House of Commons. Whenever the measure has been attempted to be discussed it has soon been shown to be utterly unworkable. From the very nature of the case it cannot be regarded as a final scheme because it prejudges in an injurious way the consideration of the whole question. It lays for over upon the whole of the taxpayers of this country a burden the limits of which are utterly unknown. For my part, with great confidence as to the reasonableness and the justice of my proposition, I earnestly invite the House to reject the Bill. I beg to move.
  *SIR HENRY CRAIK: I rise to second the rejection of the Bill. It has been frequently said that those who are prepared to support the whole principle of the Bill are a negligible quantity. But looking beyond this House, and to those who have dealt longest with this question of old-age pensions—those who have spent their lives trying to devise some scheme for making old age easier than before—do not hon. Members see that the problem is one of difficulty and doubt, and that among those who are most capable of coming to a judgment on the proposals of this Bill you will not find that uniformity in favour of the measure which its supporters boast is to be found for it in this House? If that is a correct description of this House, then I am afraid the only conclusion we can draw is that the House does not represent the better part of the country—[Laughter, and cries of "Oh"]— or the more thinking part of the country. If my hon. friend below the gangway is content to say that no Member is worthy to represent his fellow citizens in this House, and is not worthy of being listened to by his fellow citizens if he entertains doubts as to the expediency of this Bill—if the hon. Member is prepared to say that the whole nation is at one, and that those who think otherwise are not worthy of representation in this House, I must take leave to differ from him. The hon. Member for Norwood has so completely disposed of the details
  118
  involved in the working of the Bill, he his shown so amply and felicitously what doubts, difficulties, embarrassments, and harassments will surround its working, how doubtful the action of these local distributors will be, how difficult and how invidious the action of those who administer the scheme, how harassed those will be who look forward in their old age to having qualified for this very doubtful good by having fulfilled all the conditions, that I do not intend to enter upon that part of the question. I wish rather to deal with the principles which underlie this Bill. There are clearly two lines of action which might have been chosen. Those who have speculated on this question have put forward only two schemes which they consider fit to work, namely, a contributory scheme and a universal scheme. The Prime Minister set aside in a few words the contributory scheme in introducing the Budget, though the words which he then used have not received the slightest confirmation as the discussion of this Bill went on. A contributory scheme, the Prime Minister said, could not come into operation until after a long interval, and would be ludicrously inadequate and unjust, and yet he has never from that day to this made the slightest reference to the corrections of his reading of the German contributory scheme which were so ably put forward by the hon. Member for Preston. In fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in express words set aside the whole of the argument of the Prime Minister; he argued gravely that because all citizens more or less contributed to the taxes, therefore this was a contributory scheme, and that he could defend it as such. I would like the House to note another peculiar symptom in the passage of this Bill. If I am not mistaken, hon. Members below the gangway have in their constituencies frequently indicated—I understand it was part of the platform on which they stood—that the old-age pension scheme ought to be universal. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] Yes, but what are we to think of an alliance struck between the Treasury and hon. Members below the gangway, who hold diametrically opposite views, and yet who kept carefully silent on this principle and went into the lobby in support of the Bill? I myself on the first clause of the Bill moved an Amendment which would not have bound

  119
  us with regard to any limitations, but which would simply have left our hands freer to prevent those limitations continuing during the whole course of the tenure of a pension, and what was the result? It did not suit the Treasury bench that such a principle should be added. It was contrary to the interests of their Bill, and I had not one word of support from hon. Members below the gangway, although I was speaking in favour of proposals which they have always advocated. A Bill which is based on what I shall not scruple to describe as an unsound and dishonest alliance as this Bill is——
  MR. CROOKS: If you want our support, it will not be got by calling us dishonest.
  *SIR HENRY CRAIK: I am speaking of the alliance between two Parties who hold totally different principles, who join in support of a Bill which only represents one set of those principles and flouts the other set. The hon. Member will not think that I am imputing anything dishonourable to himself in describing that as a dishonest alliance and not a sincere one. But as the hon. Member for Norwood has so fully dealt with the details of the Bill and shown how unworkable they are, I wish to call the attention of the House to one or two general principles which it contains. Is it consistent with the previous action of Parliament? Parliament moves forward according to certain principles, and at all events the Party to which the present Government belongs claims to act upon certain principles, and to develop these on some consistent grounds. It was the Liberal Party which seventy years ago re-cast the Poor Law in the interest of the poorer classes and society generally. No Member of the House would deny that since the Act of 1834 was passed the most enlightened, the most advanced, those most interested in raising the position of the poor in this country, have tried to administer the law according to the principles embodied in that Act. That is a common-place of those who have studied the economics of this country. In the last seventy years new conditions and changed problems have come up, and a Commission has been appointed whose investigations
  120
  are to be the basis for a revisal of the Act of 1834, to as certain whether the principles which were then established require modification, which must be based on a broad survey of the whole matter. What are you doing now? That Commission is on the eve of reporting, and according to your own confession you must, when it has reported, deal with the whole question on some sound principle. You thrust into this troubled and vexed area a new principle never established before in this country, which is variously described by those below the gangway as the right of every citizen to reward for work done for his country, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War as a mere extension of the Poor Law principle. You place this scheme before the country on the eve of changes so stupendous as those which are to be undertaken when the Commission has reported. We have been tired to death by the constant reiteration of an example which has been held up to us as the one thing which we must follow, namely, the example of New Zealand, which has a territory as large as Great Britain and a population about the size of a provincial town. Is that to be the sort of example we are to follow? Does the action of that Colony embody the wisdom which is to guide this country in what it is to do in meeting the needs of an old civilisation based upon old traditions? Are we to take the example of this Colony which has none of the vast and difficult problems which have to be dealt with in such a country as this? Are we to have this thing foisted upon us, breaking in upon the development of our Poor Law which has been developed from age to age on a consistent principle? But there is another proof of inconsistency of principle in this matter. I have had myself a good deal of experience in the getting hold of charitable endowments to be used for education. The Party opposite have been never tired for the last generation in telling us of the absolute wickedness and degradation of those doles and pensions given out of charity, and that the proper thing is to take these away and employ them on education. Act of Parliament after Act of Parliament may be credited to the Party opposite which has expressly for its object the destruction and the confiscation of those charitable endowments on the ground that they were

  121
  injurious to the poor, that they bred poverty rather than relieved it, and effecting the transference of those charitable endowments to educational purposes. I think the Party opposite sometimes proceeded with extreme rigour, and almost tyrannical urgency. But it is certainly not for that Party which has cut down in many cases the pensions of the poor to plead that they are acting consistently in proposing the re-establishment of a vast system of doles which differ only from the Poor Law in the fact that they are subject to certain very harassing conditions from which the Poor Law is exempt. I would like some hon. Members of the Party opposite who have made them selves prominent in diverting these charitable endowments to tell us how they reconcile their action in recent years with the present Bill. There is another consideration I ask the House to remember. Do you think that if you establish pensions of this sort of £13 a year, which will raise the income of some 600,000 or 700,000 persons up to the level of about £30 per annum—that you can do that without serious injury to a vast number of people who have themselves saved only a little more than that sum? Is it not one of the plainest inferences of political economy that if you vastly increase the number of those people who hold a certain income, you reduce inevitably the buying power of that income? Do you think that men who by painful effort have collected for their old age a provision of £30, £35, or £40 a year—I know many such whom I am proud to consider friends of mine, who strongly prize and value their independence—will not be injured by this Bill? What hon. Member will venture to gainsay my proposition that the provision which these men have made for their old age will be proportionally lowered in its buying value by the vast number whom you bring up to the level to which they have attained? If you once establish 700,000 or 800,000 people who are prepared to bid against those who previously had all they required in the way of decent lodging, do you think that the price of that lodging will not rise? By refraining from giving any benefit to this enormous class of thrifty persons who have made their own provision for old age, you are not only depriving them of that benefit,
  122
  but you are unquestionably handicapping them by proportionally lowering the purchasing value of their means. I ask the House to look at the fact that this Bill is not merely not the beneficial Bill you pretend it is; but that it will inflict upon a vast number of people an injury the extent of which you can hardly guess. I will not deal with the question of finance. That duty has been undertaken by the hon. Member for Norwood. I was, however, struck in this respect with another curious symptom of the strange alliance between the Treasury Bench and hon. Members below the gangway. I would not myself say that the resources of this great country are unequal to meet any real unanswerable need or that our national resources are so limited that our hands must be tied in dealing with what should be a great national system of old-age pensions; but we were told time after time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sole necessity for modifying the Bill was that he could not find the money. That this country could not find the necessary additional £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000! That was a reasonable excuse, perhaps, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make, but what I am astonished at is that the champions of the working classes followed the right hon. Gentleman into the lobby and assented to that principle. They did not raise their voices in aid of the proposals to increase the benefits granted by the Bill.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We had not the opportunity.
  *SIR HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member admits the restrictions imposed on discussion by the Treasury Bench. The evil of these restrictions is now seen. Hon. Members now admit that they had many points to make, if they had had the chance to expose the merciless side of the Bill, and to minimise the restrictions upon the grant of a pension, but that they were not allowed to do so. Those who were in honest alliance with them told them to hold their tongues, and they obeyed. I have attacked this Bill because, instead of a kindness, it inflicts upon many of the poorer classes of this country a very serious injury; because it handicaps those who have made thrift the object of their life, and were proud of that thrift;

  123
  and because those who draw a miserable pittance from this Bill will find their lives subjected to new and harrassing conditions and disagreeable inspection of which they have enough already. Still more, I object to the Third Reading of this Bill, because I believe it is the beginning of a course of legislative action which will more and more taint the fountain of politics in this country. I do not think we have to go beyond the discussions that have taken place in the House to see that there will be in the future—it requires no prophet's vision to see it—a rush to go one better than the opposite Party, to bait the hook a little more strongly in the hope of catching plausibly a little more support. I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' in order to insert the words 'upon this day three in onths.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
  *SIR HENRY NORMAN: I have heard over a considerable period of years many grave measures introduced into this House, and, on the eve of passing through, their rejection moved by some member of the party in opposition; but I cannot recall an example when the seriousness and indeed solemnity of the subject was in such marked and painful contrast to what the hon. Member for Norwood must forgive me if I call the flippancy of the speech in which he moved the rejection of this Old-Age Pensions Bill. The hon. Member said that he would be probably charged with indifference and callousness to the sufferings of the poor. I do not suppose that anyone who knows the hon. Member would charge him with callousness, but I think it is quite easy to imagine what will be said in the House and what will be thought in the country if he and his friends really go into the lobby against the Bill. He said that the debates were ridiculous and truncated. It may be fairly retorted that if they are ridiculous they have been made so by such criticism as he and his friends on the Opposition benches have made; if they have been truncated, it h because the time allotted to them has been occupied by obstruction—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh,
  124
  oh."] Well, if there are objections to the use of the phrase I will alter it. If these debates have been truncated it is largely because the time has been needlessly cut short by discussions on entirely frivolous and formal points. It will also be said here and outside that for twenty years during which the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs were in power, often with large surpluses, they made no effort to solve in this House the question of the aged poor. During ten years formal promises were given by the party opposite to deal with the subject, and nothing was done. An hon. friend of mine said of another Bill that such criticism as comes from your side is the old story—" Not thus," and "Not now." But that "now" of the Unionist party on the question of old-age pensions lasted for twenty years, and the "Not thus," is this Bill which is on the eve of passing into law. The hon. Member said that it had been introduced by the Government, and they were prepared to spend nine or ten millions of money on it, merely in order to be able to say that they had dealt with the question. I think I shall have the support of both sides of the House when I say that that is a kind of criticism which Members of the House of Commons do not regard with approval. The hon. Member said that the subject had not been dealt with fully, finally, and justly. That is quite true; it has not been dealt with finally and fully, nor does the Bill meet all the demands of abstract justice. If it has not been dealt with finally, at least it has been dealt with temporarily. If it has not been dealt with fully, an honest attempt has been made to deal with it partially. If not perfectly satisfactory at all points, at any rate it is such an instalment as was possible to the Government and party which has undertaken it. If the case against the Bill is all that is said by the hon. Member for Norwood, then there is no need for much to be said in its defence. The hon. Gentleman's ability is well-known, and his eloquence not infrequent, but if all that can be produced against the Bill is his thin stream of feeble argumentation, punctuated by his own gay laughter, then the Bill must rest on a firmer foundation even than I had thought. I am tempted to regret that these benches, which are now so

  125
  partially peopled by Members of the House of Commons, are not crowded with old men and women who are to be pro vided with these old-age pensions, so that they might have heard what the hon. Gentleman and his seconder said, and have seen for themselves the attitude of the Unionist Party towards this great hope which has come to them in the evening of their days. Everyone on this side of the House saying a few words on this Bill at this stage will, I am sure, wish to give expression to his admiration and gratitude to the Government which has at last attempted to deal with this matter. After all the examples of promises not kept, hopes held out and not fulfilled for so many years, this pledge honestly given and honourably kept, will, I am certain, assure to the Prime Minister the added loyalty of his supporters, and I am confident the gratitude of the large majority of his fellow citizens. Having said this, and having supported the Bill through every stage, I may now frankly refer to one or two matters of detail, and here, if I may refer once more to the Member for Norwood, I may say that with regard to one of the questions he raised, the aspect of the Bill as it affects annuities, his figures were wrong. A careful study of the Bill reveals a number of anomalies doubtless inevitable, but certainly startling. I do not believe it is possible in a Bill dealing with this subject for the first time, and entering so far into the land of the unknown, to escape all anomalies, to avoid all absurdities, or to prevent all hard cases. One of these anomalies I call attention to, which I think is not unamusing. I do so in no carping spirit, but because it leads up to a point upon which the Government must be prepared to act administratively before the 1st of January next. A man who has £739 invested in Consols will receive a pension of 5s. a week, and a man who has nothing invested in Consols will also receive a pension of 5s. a week. This raises the much-debated question of thrift, and I may say here that I hear with impatience such utterances as those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon on this question. For us, with our smart clothes, our luxurious houses, and our motorcars, to preach thrift to a man whois bringing up his family respectably, or trying to, on £1 a week, seems to me to be not only bad taste, but a positive affront. I by no means join
  126
  in deprecating the saving for investment criticised by my hon. friend the Member for Tyneside, believing his view to be based upon an economic fallacy, but I have not been able to bring myself to a definite conviction on the question of thrift as it applies to this Bill. Should a man with £739 invested in Consols receive more because he has been thrifty, or should the poor man who has nothing receive more because his need is the greater? It seems obvious that the two do not occupy the same position towards the State. I incline to think; the man of seventy years of age, who has nothing, deserves more as his need is more. But the anomaly grows greater the more we look at it. The man with £739 invested in Consols will receive 5s. a week, the man with £831 invested 4s., the man with £915, 3s., the man with £1,016, 2s., and the man with £1,108, Is. a week. My own view has rather been that I preferred the Bill in its original form than the Bill including this sliding scale. But let me carry this a little further. A man and his wife, bath over seventy years of age, living together, can be possessed of £1,478 8s. invested in Consols, and receive 10s. a week from the State, and they can actually have £2,217 12s. in Consols and receive 2s. a week from the State. Out of this situation arises a curious and not uninteresting conundrum. This old couple satisfy the pension officer that they have £2,217 in Consols which bring in 12s. a week, and they are therefore entitled to a pension of 2s. But during the first year they spend £184 16s. of their capital, thus adding £3 11s. per week to their income, making it about £4 2s. in all. By doing so they have retrospectively and in anticipation disqualified themselves for a pension, both for that which they had, and that for next year. But at the end of the year they have only £1,016 invested in Consols, bringing in 11s. 1d. a week, and they become entitled therefore to 4s. a week pension. What is the State going to do about it? Is it going to say, "If you keep your capital intact we will give you a pension, but if you spend any of it we will not give you any more, and will take back what we gave you before?" Supposing this old couple have a royal good time with their £2,217 until all is gone, and they become destitute, will the State pension them if their lives have been

  127
  exemplary? If the State pensions them after thus squandering their money, obviously it does it at the expense of other taxpayers. If, on the other hand, it does not pension them, then the scheme for which we have voted is a contributory and not a non-contributory one. I venture to recommend the puzzle to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that is not all. A man of seventy with £739 4s. invested in Consols is entitled to 5s. a week. But for £269 8s. 3d. he can purchase himself a Post Office annuity of 13s., and still have £459 invested, which will bring him in £13 17s. a year, which raises his income to 18s. 4d. a week. Will the State give a pension to a man who has thus sufficient means to ensure himself 18s. 4d. a week, and in addition has an invested capital of £450; or if not, will the State compel every man who has money invested to buy himself an annuity and thus disqualify himself for a pension? This question requires a mostserious answer. As the Bill stands, a man of seventy, with £247 1s. 11d. can purchase an annuity of 12s. and receive. 1s. a week from the State. But if he is an old man of unscrupulous character he can do what he likes with £80 of it. He can invest it in a horse race and if he loses he will be no worse off than before. The point is one which I put forward in all seriousness on this question of purchasable annuities, and it must be decided before 1st January next. Is the man who can purchase an annuity to be compelled by the State to do so, or not? That is the question. Leaving these details of the Bill, I return for an instant only to its principles. I welcome the Bill most cordially, and I am proud to march in the ranks of the party which has put this landmark into our political history, but my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think my tribute less cordial because I welcome the Bill as an instalment, as one story of an edifice, one movement in a great campaign. This is clearly a problem which cannot be dealt with completely until the Poor Law Commission reports. Very few Governments would have had the courage to tackle this question, and relieve the aged poor, without waiting for the Report. A man getting outdoor relief in his need, owing to his worthiness, is penalised, and if it be for only two or three years, to a man of seventy that may mean for the rest of
  128
  his life. That is one shortcoming of the Bill, but there is another as to which there is no comfort in the shape of a time limit. The old age of a worker is not to be measured by years. The agricultural labourer may be a hale and hearty man at seventy, but the man who works in a steel works or in a chemical factory may be old at fifty. Against accident the worker has been insured by the action also of this Government; but against old age, except in the matter of years, he was not. Old age comes on a host of workers much earlier, except in the years by which it is measured, than seventy, and great pressure will be brought to bear on the Government perhaps to increase the pension but certainly to lower the age. But no extension of the Bill on its present lines can meet the whole of the cases. It is quite impossible for the State to find enough money to take charge of all that ought to be done in this way. If the Bill were extended to give every man a pension of 10s. a week at sixty, a great army of workers would still be left out of its scope. The goal will never be reached until the workers are secured against the disability of old age at whatever time and from whatever cause it arises. It would pass the wit of man, even the wit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, in this matter, passes the wit of many, to deal with it except by a contributory system—not to supersede, but to supplement this system. To regard the Bill, however it may be extended in the future, as a final one, seems to me to be the counsel of despair. It shows a willingness to stereotype the economic system under which the worker does not get a sufficient share of the proceeds of his own labour to enable him to make provision for his old age. I hold personally that the worker should receive such a share of what he himself produces that he will be able to provide for himself; in other words, that he should be paid higher wages. Then his own contribution and his employers' contribution, with the assistance of the State, all of which he will justly deserve, will provide him a pension whenever he becomes old. We look forward, and I do not think, knowing him as we do, that we shall look in vain, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer formulating in due course, and submitting to this House, such a scheme supplementing the present Bill, as will have the result that, while every worker shall have

  129
  a final refuge under this Bill, other workers in ever-increasing numbers may be able, with assistance justly due to them, to secure a refuge from the sorrows and humiliations of poverty, whenever and from whatever cause actual old age shall come upon them. I have criticised the Bill; I have ventured to put a small number of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have expressed a hope. Let my last word, as was my first, be an expression of the pride that I am sure we all feel, that in connection with this scheme we have been allowed to take our part, even in the humblest way, in the great work which the Government has so nobly taken in hand, of putting on the Statute Book a measure which will be held in grateful memory as long as our political records shall endure.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I sincerely hope that the Government themselves will find in the course of this debate some supporter whose support will be of a little more valuable character than that which they have received from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The hon. Member, is of course entitled to give the opinion—it is very kind of him to do so—which he and his friends hold of their opponents. I do not know, after a somewhat long electoral experience, that I should be inclined to attach very much importance to the opinion which hon. Gentlemen opposite hold of their opponents, but it is always useful to know it in advance, because it enables us to make our preparations. When we know what he and his hon. friends will say about us in the country, we shall naturally be better able to meet those statements when they are made. The hon. Gentleman wandered away into the region of prophecy. I should have thought that he was sufficiently astute-minded to realise that there have been certain indications of what the people outside the House think, and on the whole I am more inclined to trust the evidence of the electors when a direct appeal is made to them, than the experience of a Member of the House who in the earlier part of his remarks sought more to disparage the Opposition than to argue in favour of the Bill. It is absurd to try to establish the proposition that if a scheme is submitted of which you do not approve altogether,
  130
  or of which you strongly disapprove, you are to be compelled to vote for it; and that you cannot even criticise it without laying yourselves open to the charge of being altogether hostile to the measure. What was the line that the hon. Gentleman took upon a previous occasion in this House, when many of the Gentlemen opposite sat on this side of the House? I have a very lively recollection of the action taken by those who were then His Majesty's Opposition when discussing the question I of the machinery for dealing with the unemployed. All the arguments on which the hon. Gentleman now pours such I contempt were used with the greatest freedom by the then Opposition, though not by members on the Labour benches. The whole Liberal Party used these very arguments on which they now pour such ridicule. They said they wore in favour of machinery for dealing with the unemployed, but not now; that this was the worst thing they could possibly do, and that they would do their best to prevent legislation of that kind from passing. Not so the Labour Party, who, although they disapproved of it, would not vote against it, because they believed it was something which might be made useful. It is ridiculous of the hon. Gentleman to argue, either as to his own Party, or on the merits of the question, that those who criticise the Bill, or even those, who like my hon. friends behind me, have announced throughout their opposition to the measure, or those who object to its form and its details, are therefore altogether opposed to the granting of pensions. For my part, I anticipate with absolute equanimity the levelling of these charges by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if I wanted consolation I should find it in this conviction, which I hold very strongly, that long before the time comes for hon. Gentlemen to begin to level those charges against us, they will themselves be as busily concerned, as they desire to see us, in defending themselves against the charges which can be brought against them in relation to some of the ridiculous provisions of this measure. The hon. Gentleman, after his repeated references to the Opposition, passed to the Bill, and then he became really interesting. He said he was now coming to the Bill, and he poured blessings on the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which

  131
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hind as agreeable as blessings can be when they are given in that way, because the blessing of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway took the form which is very prevalent in this country; it was much more gratitude for favours to come than for those already received. The hon. Gentleman said it was only an instalment, a step in the right direction, one story of a mighty edifice which the Goverment had got to build; and then he wont on to indicate to the Government what kind of edifice it should be, and I wish joy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Minister in charge who attempts to carry out the programme of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. I think it will take them all their time, and all the wit which the hon. Member very rightly attributed to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to deal with the Bill, and the rest of his remarks were criticisms of a most destructive character. I have sat through the whole of these debates from the very beginning up to the present time. I think I have heard nearly all the speeches through the Second Heading, Committee, and Report stages, and I have heard no speech more destructive of the Bill in its application to the cause of old-age pensions than that delivered by the hon. Gentleman. Let it be remarked that the speech was delivered when it was too late even for the Government to give effect to the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, or to amend the Bill in the directions which he indicated. I do not hesitate to say that if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman be that the Government are to carry out the alterations by means of regulations—and I only assume that because he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board would have to deal with this question before the 1st of January next—if the suggestion is deliberately made that this Bill is to be altered, in regard to the principles which underlie it, by means of regulations of Departments, I am quite satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board will repudiate any such suggestion as being one which they could not possibly in any event have anything to do with.
  *SIR H. NORMAN: I made no such suggestion whatever. I only mentioned that possibly the Government might take up that attitude, and instruct the pension officers as to what they had to do under this Bill.
  MR.WALTER LONG: But the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman pointed out are inherent in the provisions of the Bill passed through Parliament, and the suggestion which he has just made is that the Government are to give instructions to the pension officers to avoid those difficulties. But, then, they would be instructions to evade the law which Parliament had made.
  *SIR H. NORMAN: I have not suggested that they should do anything of the kind. The Government would have to state what their attitude was. If one class of action is contrary to the principles of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and possibly he is right, then of course the Government need not instruct the officers in that sense. I am not suggesting that any instructions should be given which were opposed to the principle of the Bill, but only that they should state what was to be done under certain circumstances.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but if that is all his suggestion amounts to, then for the life of me I cannot see why he made his speech on this stage of the Bill at all, because the suggestion he made was that you are to point out the difficulties which have already been pointed out, both in Committee and on Report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has frankly admitted that these inconsistencies do exist. He says—''Well now, we cannot help some of these difficulties, and we must put up with them." If the hon. Gentleman did not mean to suggest that they should be overcome by regulations, then I can only say that his speech amounts to wholesale criticism of the Bill, made at a time when it is too late to give effect to it, and when the Government themselves could not fill up the cracks which the hon. Gentleman has pointed out as existing in the measure. My hon. friend the Member for Norwood, who has

  133
  moved the rejection of the Bill, holds strongly, and has said repeatedly during the debates, that the provisions of this Bill are so unsatisfactory that he is not prepared to support them. It is suggested that we are not prepared to make these statements in our constituencies. It is rather absurd to make this suggestion now that we have gone through something like three months' debates on the Bill, and after speeches like that made by my hon. friend have been delivered, not only in this House, but throughout the country. I can safely state that I have not said a word of criticism on this Bill, which I have been compelled to criticise a good deal, that I have not said on one or two occasions when I have had an opportunity of speaking in the country, and that I am not prepared to repeat at any meeting which I may be called upon to attend at any time. The hon. Gentleman said he would like to see a contributory scheme. When this Bill was going through the Second Reading stage I ventured to put before the House what I believed to be the ideal and best way to deal with the question. I am not going to repeat it now, but I simply reaffirm my view—that is, a contributory scheme with the aid of friendly societies plus a scheme like the one we are now considering. If you had a contributory scheme as a foundation for your proposals for the future all you would need would be a scheme to bridge over the time between the present and the coming into operation of the contributory scheme, and that would have necessitated none of those restrictions which you have put into the Bill, and which will, I am convinced, prove great stumbling-blocks to the administration of this measure. I did not oppose the Second Reading, and I am not going to oppose the Third Reading. I make a present to Gentlemen opposite of the argument—a perfectly fair one in party warfare—that we could not oppose the Bill and then face our constituents. I believe there are in this Bill a great many grave inconsistencies and many clauses which will prove stumbling-blocks rather than advantages to those who are to get pensions. But I have no hesitation in voting for it, because I believe these limitations to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton has drawn attention will be swept away wholesale by those who administer the Act locally. If you had a contributory
  134
  scheme and a scheme bridging over the intervening period none of those difficulties would arise, and you would then give in reality what you are only now giving in form, namely, a pension to everybody as a right, upon attaining a certain age, and not as a result of fulfilling certain arbitrary conditions. The hon. Gentleman dealt in scathing terms with the suggestion of people having sums of money in stockings or hidden away in some remote chimney corner, but I do not think that the House need trouble itself very much about it if here and there a man is given a pension who happens to have a few shillings saved up in a corner. The most effective and damaging criticism of the Bill—and I do not urge it from any party point of view, but because I believe now is the time to lay down clearly what we think ought to be the guiding principles in a measure of this kind—is that instead of going upon contributory lines you are really extending and generally applying what is known as the charity organisation work throughout the country. The Charity Organisation Society has done noble work and I should be the last to say a word against it. On the other hand, it might have done even more had it not been for the almost inevitable fact that people resent bitterly, and resist if they can, any demand made by its officers, and agents to inquire into their past lives; the poor hate nothing so much as this. I regret more than I can describe that it has been necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to put in this Bill a clause which casts upon the pension officer, and therefore to some extent upon the pension committee, the duty of making this inquiry, which in some cases will result undoubtedly in the disclosure of unfortunate circumstances long ago forgotten. And after all, are not these pension officers and committees placed in positions which the ordinary individual is hardly competent to fill? They are asked to say, in the case of a man who has done his best according to his needs and his opportunities, whether his life has been generally satisfactory, and how far he has conformed to the pension officers' and pension committees' idea of what is right. Are there many men in this House who would like to perform the duty which we thrust upon the pension officers? We may be the most faithful watch dogs of public expenditure—we are fruitful in speeches

  135
  on the subject, though I do not think we do much in actual action—but outside this House we know perfectly well that the ordinary man takes very little interest in the amount of public expenditure either under the head of taxes or of rates. We may make eloquent speeches to them from our respective points of view, but the response is not a very practical one. The pension officer will not be in any way liable for the expenditure, and your control over him is of the slenderest kind. He is employed by the Inland Revenue Department, but his connection with the Treasury is of the remotest description. All he knows of his real masters is his communication with the supervisor at the head of his district. The pension committee can have no earthly object in restricting the grant of these pensions. What will they do? Will they not take the view that these conditions if they are strictly interpreted will be harsh and cruel, and say, "It is our business not to put strict interpretation upon them, but to treat these cases in the most generous way. What business is it of ours that thirty years ago this man did not make as big an effort as he ought to have made to earn a living for himself, or did not, join a friendly society and make provision for his old age, or got into bad society and adopted loose and intemperate habits? All we know is that for ten years he has been working hard, and is now a poor man and cannot maintain himself." If Parliament meant these things to be done they should have laid the performance of them on other shoulders. I feel confident that all these restrictions, which I believe are unwise restrictions which it would be practically impossible for the local committees or the pension officers to carry out, will be swept away, and the result will be that practically the people who attain the age and fulfil the general conditions will in every case get their pensions. I do not regret it. That is what would have happened under a scheme which formed part of a contributory scheme. It is what would happen under a contributory scheme where every man's right to a pension depended solely on his contributions to the general fund. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said we had been in office for 20 years, and had had abundant surpluses, but had not dealt with this question. I admit that that charge can be brought against us, but during the
  136
  whole time I was at the Local Government Board I never found any scheme put before me which would stand these tests and limitations; I felt convinced that they would be swept away; and I believe the result of this measure will be that before it has been three years in operation the expenditure under it will be nearly double the amount the Government have estimated. Then what about the effect of the Bill upon Poor Law Reform? I have been ever since I entered the House a very ardent supporter of a reform of the Poor Law, and I frankly admit that the present Government appear in a new form in regard to this question, because in past days we found it very difficult to enlist their sympathy. But undoubtedly this measure will indirectly, but to an increasing amount, relieve local expenditure by casting on the taxes what has hitherto been borne by the rates. That is altogether satisfactory, and as a local taxation reformer I welcome it. But that is not all. If the matter ended there I should be content. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway said he thought the Government were brave to step in and deal with this question now before the Report of the Commission. It would be grossly impertinent for me to suggest that it has been said that some people step in where others fear to tread. It may have-been brave to step in, but I think it was rather like rashness. After all, what is the Royal Commission going to report upon but the very question with which you are dealing in this Bill? In the rural and urban districts the operation of this measure and the form of the Poor Law maintained must vary. The classes of people that you have in the workhouses and infirmaries are totally different. In the rural districts the workhouses practically contain nobody but those who are infirm or so broken in health that they cannot be looked after outside. The average country workhouse is really an infirmary and not a workhouse at all, and as a matter of fact we know that four out of five of the people who are given relief in rural districts are given it in their own homes. That means that you have got now throughout the country a large number of people who get sums varying from 3s. to 5s. a week as outdoor relief. Undoubtedly these people will pass from the Poor Law on to the pension

  137
  list, and to that extent it will be a relief to local charges. But the hon. Member takes comfort from the knowledge that under this Bill there must be an amending Bill before 1st January, 1910. Poor Law reform was very difficult before, but it has been made much more difficult by the way this Bill has been framed. In the future you will have these old people coming on the pension list by troops. Boards of guardians will be compelled, because they have no alternative, to grant relief which will disqualify a person after the 1st January, 1910. They will consequently strain every effort to make some other provision so that they may not be disqualified. Consequently you will have these old men and women receiving pension relief almost universally. The Royal Commission was appointed to inform the House how it was possible to discriminate between these cases. It is well known that in many cases people remain out of the workhouse and in their own houses. Those people, often suffering from infirmities, will become pensioners, and it will be difficult for any Government to go back from that form of relief, and divide into the two classes in which they will probably be divided by the recommendation of the Poor Law Commission. Then there is the effect which this Bill will have upon the question of Poor Law reform. I profoundly regret that the Government thought it necessary to restrict our debates on this measure by the closure I am certain there is no one who has studied Poor Law questions who will deny that since the great Poor Law Reform Act of 1834 no Bill of more lasting importance to social reform in this; country has over been brought before Parliament than the one the Third Reading of which we are now considering. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who, if they were in the Palace of Truth, and had the obligation of party discipline removed, would be ready to admit that there are many suggestions they would have been glad to make while this Bill was passing through Parliament, and who would agree that their experience and knowledge would have helped the Government to make this a more complete measure. They must feel as I feel that many parts of this measure have been dangerously hurried through. In a Bill which so
  138
  closely affects the lives and happiness of millions of our fellow subjects, and will throw duties of the most difficult and responsible character on those who have to administer it, it is a remarkable fact that in many parts it will receive its final assent without any discussion in the House of Commons, and even with important parts not discussed. I take note of the extraordinary change made on the Motion of a private Member which, for the first time, enabled the Government to do what, so far, no other Government has ever done before, namely, not merely to pledge the finances of their possible successors, but also the time and arrangements of their possible successors. That is a reek-less as well as a novel proceeding. This Bill is full of weak points, but I think they will be overcome by the commonsense of those who have to administer the Act, and in that way they will be swept away. I profoundly regret that the Government did not see their way to introduce a contributory scheme in conjunction with this one, for that would have laid the foundations more securely. The Bill, as it stands, in my humble opinion, is very crude, but I shall certainly do nothing to risk its passage through Parliament, although I shall watch its workings not only with interest but with anxiety. For my own part, however, I shall do my best to help the Act when it has been passed to work satisfactorily. I look upon the future with great anxiety, because I believe this Bill will create new troubles and add new difficulties to those already existing in the Poor Law. I am confident that the Government in the near future will have to legislate again on this subject, because without fresh legislation you will have complications arising so serious that it will be difficult for either the guardians or the pension committees to do their work properly. Many of us feel very deeply the truth of our criticisms, and we also feel that great hopes and expectations have been raised in the hearts of thousands of people. I firmly realise that Parliament without restriction of party has made to those people a promise that the darkness of their lives shall be brightened, and it would be a most serious step to do anything now to retard the fulfilment of that hope, even though we may entertain a strong conviction that this same privilege and blessing might have been conferred, in a more satisfactory manner.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTERMAN,): I need hardly say that I welcome the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to support this Bill on its Third Reading. May I also say that we all recognise the independence of the position he has taken up as being free from any question either of catching or losing votes in the country. I had the pleasure of hearing all the speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in the discussions on this Bill, and I have no hesitation in saying that he has always taken a perfectly consistent position from the beginning, criticising certain principles, with some of which criticisms I find myself to a certain extent in agreement. I am therefore glad that at the end of the discussion the right hon. gentleman is able to give us an assurance that the Bill must go through this time, and that he will do everything in his power to see that it is made an effective provision for carrying out the intentions of the Government and of Parliament. I do not feel so much resentment as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton at the last rally of the guerilla chiefs, the Member for Norwood and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, in their final attempt at the destruction of what they believe to be pernicious. Having been defeated in their attack on the main army, they are now engaged in the more congenial work of attempting the cutting off of convoys, the destruction of stragglers, and all those other efforts of resistance which are sometimes called insensate and sometimes patriotic. I have derived considerable benefit from the condemnation of their strategy, although there has been agreement with some of the statements they had made. However, I should like to follow in the main the example which has been set by the right hon. Member for South Dublin, and deal with the Bill as a whole, the details of which have been passed. Under these circumstances I do not think I am called upon to say much. I do not know that it would be suitable to my position to say much concerning one or two points. There is the accusation of the incomplete thinking out of this measure by the Government, but I think that that argument is considered as part of the recognised apparatus of opposition. Then there
  140
  is the long controversy as to whether enough debate has been given to the measure. Of course that is another of the usual complaints made by the Opposition, because they always try to get measures fully discussed. Those are questions which I think may very well be left on one side, and the discussion now ought really to be concentrated upon the question as to whether this Bill in the final form in which it is presented is a measure which will be effective in its operations in the country. I may possibly carry the House with me if I venture to omit any detailed answer to the very interesting and amusing conundrums put to me by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. On all these questions I should be inclined, while freely acknowledging that when you draw a monetary limit you must have anomalies, to ask if the legitimate method of treating them in practical affairs is not to accept the common-sense point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, and say that we are not familiar with the stockings in which £800 are gathered together, or the agricultural labourers who are confronted with the problem as to whether they wish to put £1,200 in Consols or whether they prefer to purchase an annuity. This leads me to the reiteration of a statement which I made half-way through the discussion in Committee, and which I think I can now make as a sort of friendly challenge. I have heard with interest the repeated attacks made upon the machinery of the Bill but I have heard no attack—and those who have studied this question will agree—upon the provisions of the Bill which are not inevitable attacks upon all limited schemes of old age pensions.
  LORD R. CECIL: Hear, hear.
  MR. MASTERMAN: I carry the noble Lord with me in that conclusion, and I come back to the ultimate test of the matter. That test is whether, of all the various alternatives offered to us, we can reasonably expect the House and the country to declare that we have chosen the most possible and the most desirable solution. We could have left the whole thing alone. That is the desire of the noble Lord.
  LORD R. CECIL: No.
  MR. MASTERMAN: Well, I may consider it as a possible alternative. Those who have spoken in favour of a contributory scheme—and I do not think they have really examined the proposal in its full implication—and who have opposed this Bill so strongly, are equally opposed to a universal scheme, and in voting against this Bill they cannot be altogether exonerated from the charge of at least desiring the delay, if not the complete refusal, of any scheme. The noble Lord has pleaded for delay in the matter until we have received the Poor Law Commision Report. It was impossible for us to leave the subject alone. The country has been tantalised, bewildered, and befooled, consciously or unconsciously, and is steeped in the promises which were made at the last general election, and which had occupied the attention of the people in the intervening time, So far from rushing to the scheme, the Government in the first session of this Parliament virtually promised in the first Budget introduced by the Prime Minister to deal with the question of old-age pensions; in the second Budget a definite and specific promise was given that this was a matter to which the attention of the House this session would be called, and for eighteen months every Member of Parliament and a majority of people outside have recognised that it was to be dealt with on some expansive scale. We might have sought a contributory scheme. That I agree is an alternative. I have been one of those who in the frugal study of this and other social questions have desired to find some satisfactory contributory scheme. Commissions and committees for the last ten years have been seeking a satisfactory scheme which would be congenial to the country and practically workable, and they have all failed. It is the failure to find any contributory scheme which will be just to the poorest of the community, and at the same time easy in practical working, which has driven a large number, against their first desire, to the conclusion that they must, either willingly or reluctantly, rule out the question of contribution. We have heard a great deal of a contributory scheme which would aid in the promotion of thrift. The hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities said that we had utterly misrepresented the German scheme. That is not a scheme for the promotion of thrift. The most that can be said of the German
  142
  scheme is that it insists on compulsory thrift, and, in my opinion, that is no more thrift than compulsory religion i is religion. Deductions made by the employer from the wages of the employed cannot in any rational sense of the word be interpreted as a means of encouraging the virtue of thrift. Moreover, the contributory scheme which is now in force in the German Empire requires inevitably for its satisfactory development a system of regulation and a system of regimentation which, however desirable in itself, is utterly alien to the traditions of this country, and would be equally repugnant, I believe, to employer and employed. Nor can the noble Lord and those who think with him get out of what seems to me an insoluble difficulty, and that is a contributory scheme where a less amount of pension is offered for a less amount of contribution, or no amount of pension for no contribution. Without a shadow of doubt you would be extracting taxes from the poorest class to benefit classes who are well to do. Never in any of these debates have I heard an answer to that. If you rule out inaction, and if I you rule out a contributory scheme, then you have nothing left but one of two courses. One is to adopt a universal scheme of old-age pensions. It would be impossible for me with my record of a, chequered past, however much my published writings may have received well deserved oblivion, to declare that I prefer a partial to a universal scheme of old-age pensions. I know only one argument against a universal scheme of old-age pensions, and that is that the lowest estimate of the cost would be £25,000,000, and that the cost, even if we make all the allowances which the right hon. Gentleman and myself desire in connection with the Poor Law, must amount to something like £16,000,000 or £17,000,000. By excluding all alternatives we are driven to establish certain limitations which we acknowledge are illogical, against which strong batteries of reasons can be advanced, and on the border-lines of which anomalies are left, but we only declare, laying all our cards plainly on the table, and acknowledging these anomalies and these limitations,, that it is better that we should go for- ward with the money at our disposal than that we should do nothing at all. That leads me back to the real method of judging of this Old Age

  143
  Pensions Bill. The spending departments of the country—one of which I have for the moment the honour to represent in this House this afternoon—are pressing the Treasury for as much money as it can see its way to give, and which we reckon we have a right to demand; and in the consideration of this scheme the question is not whether the Treasury ought to be able to promise more money—that is a question of finance —but whether, the Treasury having declared that it sees its way to furnish this particular amount, we are making it go as far as possible in the promotion of the social amelioration and welfare of' the classes we desire to assist through some such pension scheme as this. There have been repeated this afternoon some of the criticisms of the limitations which are inevitable if the £16,000,000 to £25,000,000 required for a complete scheme is to be reduced to £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, which is the only amount the Treasury see fit to provide. There was the Amendment proposed by my hon. friend in favour of the reduction of the age limit. We are all in favour academically of a reduction in the age limit. We do not wish to deprive old men and old women at the age of sixty or sixty-five of pensions, and, instead of giving pensions then, to leave them till they reach the age of seventy, but for the fact that we have not the money to do it. There is the question of the income limit, and the anomaly which immediately arises, as was pointed out by my hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton. I disagree with one of his statements as to the superiority of the fixed limit over the sliding scale. Our sliding scale has been criticised, but I think it is the one almost universally adopted, because it gives an advantage to thrift—at least it does not penalise thrift — whereas any scheme which starts at a fixed limit makes it absolutely desirable for men and women who have saved a certain amount to fling their money down drains, or get some one to relieve them of it like the millionaire in a certain popular play, so that by getting rid of 1s. they might get 5s. a week extra. That is the reason for making a sliding scale. There is the pauper limit, which, in the general view of the House—though there is a division of opinion on its merits —is to be reconsidered, and probably abandoned, in the immediate future. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  144
  for South Dublin as to the importance of the Poor Law considerations which he put before the House, and it would be tempting to offer some observations on them were it not that I desire to confine myself for the moment entirely to the Bill; but I may say one thing. I think he will agree with me that the question of old-age pensions was outside the scope of the reference to the Poor Law Commission. It is a question of policy far more than of actual facts, and if the report of the Poor Law Commission had been on the question of policy against giving pensions, I do not think it would have influenced the Government in going forward with this question. I agree that there will have to be careful consideration both of local finance and of discrimination directly we come to deal with the Report of the Commission as a whole, and as one who wishes to see the immediate treatment of the Poor Law, and has feared that it might be squeezed out in the natural pressure of business in favour of other and more popular questions—more popular with the electors—I rejoice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has bound himself down to so rigorous a time-limit. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin that in his appeal for discrimination in regard to the pauper clause in the Bill, which he says will be necessary directly the paupers are considered as a whole, he is back again to the inevitable closed circle of tests and inquiries which in the earlier part of his speech he denounced in such unmeasured terms with the entire agreement of the House. No one wants tests and inquiries. We would like the tests and inquiries which are applied to be automatic, and we would like the inquiries to be conducted certainly in a different fashion from that spectre which he held out to the House amid universal disapprobation. But whatever scheme is established I do not quite see how the question of age which the hon. Member for Norwood raised is to be got rid of. Whatever limitations are established—whether it is any kind of industrial test, the working of which in practice we shall have to watch most carefully, or whether it be the test of income, immediately you leave your universal system and make your age limit, you must have some kind of inquiry, some kind of inquisition, some kind of

  145
  machinery, provided for the carrying out of this work, and I believe I can say sincerely that you must get back practically to the same kind of machinery which is established in this Bill. That leads me to the reiteration of the criticism of a few days back admirably expressed by the hon. Member for Norwood, concerning the machinery which is being set up in connection with these pensions. The machinery is the obvious machinery which, on first consideration, you would come to in connection with the matter, and which, I am confident, you would come to on the last consideration also. There was an impression a few days back that we had devised some specially difficult apparatus to be conducted by specially inefficient pension officers in order to extort large amounts from the Treasury, or to impose unnatural conditions on the old people demanding pensions. There as to be an Imperial officer for the protection of the Treasury in the giving out of public money, a local pension com mittee appointed under the widest possible conditions, and finally a court of appeal in the Local Government Board That is the minimum of simple machinery which any pension scheme can provide for dealing with this particular question. Of course, if you assume that every Imperial pension officer is a knave, that every pension committee is made up of fools, and that every Court of Appeal in a Government Department is both inert and corrupt, then you may make a collapse of any pension scheme whatever. But 'that is not an argument against a national pension scheme; it is an argument for national suicide, which is a very different matter. I have listened to much criticism against the machinery of the Bill; but I have heard no kind of alternative machinery proposed except that these old men and women should go before a justice of the peace and in Court prove their claim, or employ a solicitor out of the money they have stored in Consols to prosecute their claim, and if their claim is disallowed to make an appeal to the House of Lords. There was a suggestion of making the relieving officer of the board of guardians an alternative to the pension committee, but that died before it came to birth. There was no other alternative except the vague suggestion that the Local Government Board is hardly reliable as a final Court of Appeal, which, I am sure, no Member of
  146
  the House would seriously press. I have heard again to-day, as I have heard before, any amount of criticism of the Bill, that too much was left to regulations, a statement partly justified and partly unjustified, and that the details of these regulations have not been thought out. Now, if we had dealt in full in this legislation with all the regulations necessary under the Bill its clauses would have had to be multiplied six or seven times over. I know of no precedent for this course in similiar legislation. The hon. Member for South Dublin says that this is the greatest experiment in social legislation since the Poor Law Act of 1834. I agree, but unfortunately for him the regulations under that Poor Law were not published until 1845, or nearly twelve years afterwards. The regulations of the Local Government Board were certainly not discussed in 1834, and I am astonished that good citizens should complain that our regulations have not yet been elaborated. The Local Government Board, the Treasury, and their expert advisers are now considering these regulations, and, however proud we may be of them, we do most heartily welcome any suggestion which may be made for their improvement. We think they may be improved, and that we have also a right to appeal to the past traditions of legislation in this and similar matters. No one on this side of the House has any quarrel with the description of the measure as a great experiment. We all know that in its details it will require modification. We all know that some of the results which we fear may be produced and that some of the results which we wish to produce will not follow from the Bill; and that, not only in matters in regard to which there has been criticisms in the House, but in matters which no one has had the foresight to consider, there may be very remarkable changes produced by the Bill in the social life of the people, for better or for worse. But, though the Government acknowledge the Bill as an experiment, and although we have, in the main, adopted an attitude of defence towards it in its progress through the House, as it leaves us our attitude is very far from being a defensive attitude, and very far from an attitude of apology. For years the reproach has been laid upon this country that, in the matter

  147
  of old-age pensions, it has been lagging far behind the lesser countries of Europe and our Colonies which the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities described as obscure with a kind of inverted Imperialism on which I congratulate him. One after another of these Colonies has elaborated schemes with regard to its aged poor, but this measure takes this country from the position of the last to the position of the first, which, without undue insular pride, may be a subject of satisfaction even to the most confirmed of Little Englanders. I have tried to judge the various provisions of the Bill, not as a humble member of the Government by whom it is introduced, but as I should have judged them in the days when I was indifferent to and a little contemptuous of all political parties, but when I lived in very intimate and familiar association with just those very classes whose lot this Bill is designed to improve, a lot which at best is hard and austere. I know that it will relieve, perhaps remove, an anxiety which to-day is passing from an obsession into a terror among those who in the heart of our civilisation are still walking in darkness and under the immediate shadow of death. I know that in thousands of humble homes it will remove the desolate and cruel choice of the wage-earner between the needs of the parent on the one hand and the needs of the child on the other; and that it will give to these old men and women a new self-respect, a new hope, and a new determination, pursued in the knowledge that they are bringing to the family exchequer at least as much as they are receiving from it. Moreover, I believe that it will enlarge the spending power of the poorer classes of the country, and that it will result in one very desirable and immediate effect — the limitation of unemployment, for the enlarged demand for food, fuel, and shelter will produce a large demand for the labour which will be immediately required to supply these commodities. Another effect more desirable will be the lifting of the pressure on the needs of the generation to come by the moral attitude which this new and unprecedented provision gives to the needs of the generation which is passing away. I say honestly and without hesitation
  148
  that I would have welcomed this Bill, whatever Government had proposed it, whatever Party had approved it, in-spired by whatever motives, animated by whatever ideas. I shall not modify my rejoicing because it has been devised by a Government and approved by a Party to which I have the honour to belong.
  *MR. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has frankly confessed that the details of the Bill to which objection has been taken are indefensible and undesirable. He admits that they are inevitable and inseparable from any limited scheme of old-age pensions; and the only justification he offered for holding by them at the present time is the excuse we have heard so often during the several stages of this Bill, that it is quite impossible at the present time to afford a larger contribution from the national resources than he has proposed. I have listened, I think, to nearly all the speeches delivered in the course of the debate, and I must confess that I have no great admiration for the Bill which we have been asked to read a third time. But notwithstanding that, I was not aware until I heard the speech of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, that there lay within its clauses so many dangers, tyrannies, and oppressions as he exposed to view. Further, after hearing his speech and the speech of the seconder of the Amendment, I cannot understand on what grounds the Motion, for the rejection of the Bill is made. Is it because the scheme of the Bill is not of a contributory character or because it is not of a universal character? The last sentence or two of the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood did seem to indicate very dimly that he was not altogether in favour of a universal scheme, because he referred to the prospects in front of future Chancellors of the Exchequer having to raise ever-increasing sums annually to meet the ever-increasing charges of this measure. Now, just a word or two in regard to those who support a contributory scheme. I ask what is the justification of a scheme of old-age pensions at all? I think

  149
  the only justification for old-age pensions is that there are people who need a provision for old age. But then comes the further question, why have we people in this condition? Why are they poor, after a hard working life of fifty or sixty years? They are poor and they are dependent upon some form of support in old age, for the simple reason that notwithstanding their hard work they have not been able out of the income they have received to make provision for old age. I submit, and any man with a knowledge of working class conditions will agree with me, that it is utterly impossible for any working man with the average working man's responsibilities, out of the average working man's wages, to provide his family and himself with the necessaries of life, let alone the comforts of civilised existence, and at the same time lay by anything at all as a provision for the future. It has been said there are those who do. Hypothetical cases have been quoted by the hon. Member opposite of old people who have invested hundreds of pounds, but it may be pointed out that where people have saved out of a workman's income—and there have been cases where they have done so— they did not do that and at the same time do justice to their families, they have only done it by pinching and starving their families. We see what is done, but we know not what struggles, what sacrifices, and what self-denial has been exerted by the working classes in order to appear respectable and make provision for their old age when they are no longer able to work to maintain themselves. Why do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above; the gangway ask for a contributory scheme? I think the real reason why certain Members of this House are asking for a contributory scheme is in order that their class may escape the obligation of contributing to these pensions.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no, certainly not.
  *MR. SNOWDEN: It must be so, it cannot possibly be otherwise. Now, I take up the opposite view. With one sentence in the speech of the
  150
  hon. Member for Norwood I cordially agree. The hon. Member said, "You cannot consider this old-age pension question alone." That is true, it is part of the whole social problem. To my mind the social problem with which we have to deal is the more equal distribution of wealth. The question of social reform, in my view, is a question of making the rich poorer and the poor richer. There is no way in which you can equalise the distribution of wealth except by doing that, and therefore I advocate old-age pensions as a means of equalising the distribution of wealth of the country. No scheme of old-age pensions is worth anything to the social reformer, remember, unless it is going to add to that amount of wealth enjoyed by the working classes of the community. That is our case against a contributory scheme. Coming to the scheme formulated in the Government Bill, I find some difficulty in describing what it is. It is not contributory, it is certainly not universal, and although the question has been put to the Government time after time during the discussions, the Government have given no clear indication as to whether they intend that this old-age pension should be conferred as a right for past services rendered to the State, or whether it is simply an extension of Poor Law relief. I am not going to express any opinion on that point, although certain of the clauses of the Bill gave some reason to suppose that there was some justification for the description given by the hon. Member above the gangway. The Labour organisations of this country do not represent the thriftless and wastrel classes. The demand for old-age pensions has sprung from the most thrifty of our population, for they have found it is impossible to make provision for their old age even through a trade union or a friendly society, and there has been perfect unanimity in their demand for old-age pensions. This Bill does not meet that demand, it is very far from meeting it. The demand of the working classes of this country is for a universal pension of not less than 5s. a week, to begin at an age not higher than sixty-five. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to an Amendment standing in my

  151
  name upon the Paper at a previous stage of the Bill to reduce the age to sixty-five, said everybody was in favour of the age being sixty-five. If the money fell down like the manna from Heaven, and there was enough to give everybody an old-age pension at fifty, everybody would be in favour of reducing the age to fifty. The Government limit this Bill, and their excuse was that they were doing the best they could under the circumstances; that it would be impossible in the present state of finances to devote a larger sum for the purpose of old-age pensions. I want to deal with that question, and although I may be regarded as a revolutionary, what I desire to see, as I have said before, is the poor made richer and the rich poorer. I think everything must have a beginning. The Government must have forgotten—perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen may not have had the advantage of religious instruction in a public elementary school. If they had, they might have remember d some time-honoured maxims such as: "Well begun, half done," or "A thing that is not worth doing well is not worth doing at all." Have the Government done the best they could in this scheme? In my opinion they have not. They set aside a certain sum of money which was to be devoted to this Bill. The Prime Minister is a man of honour, and last year he made a definite promise in his Budget speech that a certain sum of money should be devoted to old-age pensions. At every bye-election since that date the Prime Minister's words have been put in leaflet form into the hands of the electors, who were asked to vote for the Liberal candidate, because there was £2,250,000 for old-age pensions. A friend of mine, then a candidate and now a colleague, was discussing what that promise meant, and he wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and asked him whether, in fact, he had this money, and the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "In answer to your letter, I cannot do better than to quote the speech I made in the House when introducing the Budget on 8th April."
  The Prime Minister then quoted these words—
  "I shall have in hand next year, free and earmarked for the purpose a total of at least £2,250,000. That shortly will be the effect,
  152
  as it is one of the main purposes of this year's Budget."
  Where is that £2,250,000? The Prime Minister is an honourable man, and if in his private capacity he had made a promise that he would find in twelve months a specified sum for a specified purpose, and if the source from which that money was to come failed him in the meantime he would have found other sources, but the money would have been found. But the Government have not done that, they have provided this year for a sum less than half the sum the Prime Minister promised, and they say that is the best they can do. I am perfectly sick; the Labour Members are perfectly sick, and the results of the bye-elections have shown that the country is sick of the parrot cry that there is not enough money to carry out long overdue schemes of social reform. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of this Bill admitted that the old-age pension scheme of New Zealand was a better scheme than the one that he was submitting to the House; but said he— "They are able to do a great many things in New Zealand which we cannot do here, they are a new country without either our obligations or our liabilities. "But the exact opposite is the case; we as an old established country should be able to do what is impossible for a new country with growing expenditure and taxation to undertake. If the taxation of this country corresponded with the taxation of New Zealand per head of the population, we should have an annual income derived from taxation of over £200,000,000 a year. New Zealand can afford to give pensions of 10s. a week at the age of sixty-five and not a paltry pension of 1s. at the age of seventy. New Zealand can afford to give an old-age pension at the age of sixty-five, yet the debt of that country is £64 per head of the population as compared with £16 per head in this country. We have infinitely more facilities for carrying out any great scheme of social reform; but the reason they can give pensions in New Zealand is because the basis of all legislation in New Zealand is to prevent wealth accumulating in the hands of a few persons and to scatter it broadcast so that it may be enjoyed by the largest

  153
  possible number. I ask, can we afford the money for a better scheme of old-age pensions? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board again referred to my suggestion to reduce the age-limit to sixty-five. The hon. Gentleman said he could not afford it. I am sure the House cannot say there is no case for so reducing it This is not what the Labour Party ask for; they ask that it should be reduced to sixty, but they are content to take sixty-five as a compromise. The age of sixty-five was accepted as a compromise. What was originally advanced was the age of sixty, but they were willing to compromise as between sixty and seventy at the age of sixty-five. In these days if a workman is thrown out of steady work at the age of forty or forty-five he has very little chance of getting another permanent job. It is a fact known to all who have been making inquiries into the aged poor's condition that pauperism increases rapidly after the age of sixty-five. I believe men who have reached between sixty and seventy years of age have a right to look forward to a few years of leisure before passing away. But how many are going to enjoy the pensions at all if you do not give them the pension, until they have reached a higher age than sixty-five? We have gained experience from the leading trade unions. The average age at death of members of trade unions is just a little over fifty. The average age at which members of trade unions are pensioned is just a little over sixty-three, and the average age at which those pensioners die is just a little under seventy. So that under this Bill a very small proportion indeed of our working class population are going to live to enjoy this pension. Pauperism increases very rapidly after sixty-five years of age. According to the Report of the Royal Commission in this, one of the greatest cities in the world, with its miles of palaces, with evidences in every street of the West End of wealth that never entered into the mind of Arabian romancer to imagine, 35 per cent, of the population over sixty-five are in receipt of Poor Law relief; between sixty and sixty-five years of age the percentage of those who rely on Poor Law relief is doubled. According to our Poor Law regulations, a person who has reached the age of sixty is no longer considered able-bodied, but according to this
  154
  Bill he is expected to continue for ten years longer, because we have not got the money to give pensions at an earlier age. May I again remind the House, I say it not for the first time, and I hope not for the last,. because facts cannot be too often repeated, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his Budget told us that last, year the amount assessed to income-tax had increased by £37,000,000, enough to finance a universal scheme of old-age pensions twice over. May I remind the House further, that the amount of income in the last ten years brought under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue, was increased by £250,000,000;and yet it is said that we have not money enough to afford even £10,000,000 to provide for the old age of the people by whose labour that wealth, has been created. Every Member of this House must have had most heart-breaking letters from old people who are going to be excluded from the operation of this Bill by this heartless, callous, and indefensible clause which prohibits from receiving the pension those who have received Poor Law relief within twelve months. I have a letter from an old man of seventy-two years of age who has worked for the last sixty years, but who, owing to misfortune, has been compelled to receive Poor Law relief. He cannot get a pension. I have been reading of the evidences, of our enormous wealth everywhere. In the newspapers I read of a sale here, in London, only last week, where seven articles brought over £100,000 in a comparatively short time, working out at nearly £400 a minute. I cut from the newspapers a little while back a paragraph which described goods for sale in Burlington Arcade, and among articles there were fur coats for "Fido" at five guineas each. Yet in the face of things like this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this Radical of Radicals, a member of the most advanced and progressive social reform Government which has ever held office, has the audacity to stand at that Table and offer excuses for a paltry measure of social reform like this, saying: "We have not got money to do it." The money is there; the money is staring you in the face. As Henry George used to say: "If

  155
  it was a dog it would have bitten him long ago." Well, we are not going to vote against this Bill. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Yes; I personally express no gratitude for it. I am going to take it for what it is worth; I am going to use it as a lever for extorting something more. My purpose in Parliament at any rate is to try to bring about bigger schemes of reform than this paltry scheme of old-age pensions. I remember that when the debate was closing in Committee the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking of the financial difficulties which he expected the Government to have next year, expressed regret at the reduction of the sugar tax. I do not regret that. I doubt if I would have been willing to accept this scheme of old-age pensions if it had to be financed by continuing the sugar duty. That would not be a social reform. It has been stated over and over again that rich people will benefit by this measure. We have been told that rich people out of their own private means have been providing pensions for dependents, but that now they will stop those pensions. Again, when this Bill comes into operation it will add a burden to the working classes. I have referred to the fact that pauperism increases very rapidly between the ages of sixty and seventy, the increase being more rapid after the age of sixty-five. Take the case of people of sixty-seven or sixty-eight years of age, people who are likely to come to the pension age before 1910. What is going to happen? If there had been no Old-Age Pensions Bill these people would have at once applied for Poor Law relief: but in view of this Bill their friends will endeavour to keep them off it in order that they may not be disqualified from applying for the pension. To do this these friends will have to spend money out of their own pockets. I want to say a word to the Government about the sliding scale. I do not suppose that anybody who has advocated old-age pensions ever dreamed in their most foolish moments that, when the scheme was in some measure realised, it would contain a provision for the payment of a pension of 1s. a week. The only valuable and material concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was when he abolished
  156
  the proposed reduction in the case of couples living together. He said that it would cost some £300,000 or £400,000 a year. I am perfectly certain, so far as one can be certain about anything one cannot prove, that the Chancellor of the Exechequer is going to save far more than that by the change from the universal 5s. a week to the sliding scale. I will tell you why I think so. Suppose the number of people with incomes of 8s. and 10s. a week were equal to the number of those with 10s. and 12s. a week, then one would equalise the other; it would not add anything to the cost at all. But the number of workpeople with private incomes of 10s. and 12s. a week seems to be enormously less than the number with 8s. or 10s. a week, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer I can save the 2s. or 3s. a week, and he is not going to be called upon for anything but an insignificant sum in regard to the change which he has made, giving only a small pension to those who have I between 10s. and 12s. a week. Does he think that any self-respecting member of the working classes, a respectable working man, with a private income of 10s. or 12s. a week, would submit to the inquisition which is prescribed by this Bill for the paltry sum of Is. a week? Does he think that such a self-respecting man would make a weekly journey to the Post Office in order to get it? I think I know enough of the working classes of this country to warrant me in believing that no member of them is going to take advantage of that part of the Bill in order to get a pension under such circumstances. Then a word or two about the character test. The Bill was discussed under the operation of the closure. We have been twitted by hon. Members above the gangway with having voted for the closure Resolution. I suppose that even fools may learn by experience, and I confess that I have learned by experience. I voted for the guillotine Resolution, because I believed that the Government had given a definite promise, or that at any rate they had said that it would be possible, in the allotted time, to give adequate consideration to every part of the Bill; but I noticed that in Committee the Government were often as anxious

  157
  as Members of the Opposition to continue the discussion to prevent subsequent Amendments being reached. I have had an experience which will serve me my Parliamentary lifetime. I know that it is not wise to make rash pledges, but I think that I may venture to make this one, that never again, so long as I am a Member of this House, will I vote for a guillotine Resolution unless it is provided that there shall be some discussion at least on every section of every clause of the Bill. Just a word about the industry or character test. It was described as a character test by hon. Members sitting on these benches. The Postmaster-General when he was in charge of the Bill on one occasion said it was an industry test, and not a character test. I am not going to try to split straws about its definition; it is a matter of taste; but I say, with all reverence, that as a test of industrial character it is such as Jesus Christ himself could not fulfil. It is an industrial character test which no Member of this House could fulfil. There is no Member who, if he should be in poverty at the age of sixty, will be able to claim an old-age pension, as he would not be able to prove that he had worked according to his ability and opportunity. My chief criticism of the Bill has been that the Government have not had the courage to find the money. We shall accept the Bill and make the best use of it and use it as a lever to get further concessions. I do not think the Government of the country are likely to get much credit from this. The result of the bye-elections show this. I happened to be in a bye-election fought a day or two after the measure bad been outlined by the Prime Minister and when in one of the meetings of the Liberal candidate he made the announcement that the pension age was to be seventy his statement was received with derisive laughter. That part of the Bill which excludes those who have been in receipt of poor relief during the present year has caused a great deal of heart-breaking, and I think it will cause a great deal of indignation and resentment and somehow or other resentment and dissatisfaction have a habit of expressing themselves far more effectively than satisfaction. The Liberal Party will not gain much support from this measure
  158
  but I think it would have revived their decaying fortunes if they had tackled the question in a bold and courageous manner, and there is no reason in the world why they should not have done it. The Prime Minister in the Second Reading debate touched the hearts of every Member of the House by a most eloquent and pathetic picture of the unbefriended poor people who, after a strenuous life of hard work, were left unprovided for, and he made an appeal to the House on their behalf. I suppose it is too late now for me to make an appeal on behalf of a much larger number who are still going to be left unprovided for and unbefriended—old people between sixty-five and seventy who have worked for fifty or sixty years—a number sufficient to form a procession four abreast 100 miles in length. But we shall never remain satisfied until there has been assured to every man and woman the guarantee that a lifetime of useful and honest toil shall carry with it the right to a number of years of reasonable enjoyment before in the order of nature they may be expected to pass away.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Not much has been said by the hon. Gentleman with which I agree, but there was one remark in which I am in full agreement and that is that the expression of dissatisfaction is more effective than the expression of satisfaction. That has been more and more borne in on my mind after listening to his speech. One of the most striking features of the debates on the Bill has been the group of opinions expressed in different quarters of the House, on the Bill, and then ultimately the reasons given for voting for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin brought to bear a great deal of criticism upon the Bill, but he wound up by saying he would not vote against the Third Reading. The hon. Member in a kindly and conciliatory speech said he would vote for it. If I may make a suggestion I would say he should not look a gift horse in the mouth. In this country you cannot move at the impetuous pace that he would have legislation of this character move, and the proposal mbodied in this Bill is quite democratic enough for a great experiment of this

  159
  character. We all agree with his proposal that the age of these old people should be sixty-five rather than seventy, but he must realise the difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding in one year the necessary money. I hope before many years pass the age limit will be reduced to sixty-five, and that the amount will be found without dislocation to the credit of the country. I fully realise that the Bill is full of imperfections and objections and inequalities and anomalies. But what scheme could any one of the opponents of the Bill unfold which would not have inherent within it similar inequalities, anomalies, and difficulties? There are two other methods. There is the universal scheme of pensions which, however admirable, is not in consonance with English traditions. Of necessity it would mean that the scheme must be of a compulsory character and under the present conditions of labour and of the Poor Law and of the wage earning classes it would be totally impracticable. The second is the contributory scheme. I want to know what the contributory scheme is, because there has been a good deal of confusion on the point. There are two methods on which you could base a scheme of contributions, and I want to know which of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer. There is one which would mean that everyone who was ultimately to have a pension must contribute towards it. In the present condition of the wage earning classes that would of necessity rule out a very large proportion of the most deserving and those who most urgently required pensions. I should like to know where the agricultural labourer would come in with 14s. a week. I should like to know where the women of the country come in under a scheme of that character. The agricultural labourer to-day in many of our counties is able only with the greatest difficulty to maintain himself and his family and to contribute to a friendly society. If he was asked in addition to contribute to an old-age pension fund it would absolutely break his back, and make it entirely impossible for him to maintain himself and his family. Therefore, that form of contribution appears to me quite impracticable. The other form is that the
  160
  test by which a man should become a recipient of a pension should be that he had contributed to some friendly society during a certain number of years-Again that would rule out the great bulk of the women. Then we should have to-face one of the most glaring anomalies, far greater than anything in this Bill, that if a man who for years past had to the best of his ability worked and contributed to a society fell ill or met with some misfortune and it was impossible for a year or two to contribute, he would be immediately ruled out. I was struck the other day by a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, a strong advocate of the contributory system. One of the chief objections that he brought to subsection (b) of Clause 3 was the fact that one of the reasons why a man should not be disqualified from becoming a recipient of the pension was that he had subscribed for ten years between fifty and sixty to a friendly society, and he-drew a pathetic picture of men during that period being unable to subscribe for a short time and therefore being ruled out. I cannot, conceive how he can consistently entertain that view, and at the same time be an advocate of a contributory scheme. The more you look into a contributory system the more it presents difficulties and anomalies. For years past I have been intimately associated with the friendly society movement, and I have been a theoretical and academic advocate of an old-age pension scheme based upon a contributory system. The more advantage one has had during these debates of looking at the pros and cons attached to a system of that character the more I have conic to the conclusion that it would be quite impracticable, and if attempted to be carried out would bring about great inequalities and hardships on many large classes of the community. I have said already that there are many anomalies and difficulties in this Bill, but they are of a comparatively small character, and we must assume that very careful regulations will be laid down; and I think we may also assume that those who administer them will carry them out in a proper spirit. We have been told that the sliding scale will discourage thrift. There again I have not the slightest apprehension that to any

  161
  important extant thrift will be discouraged in the country. We have heard of one trade union which grants 13s. a week to people reaching the age of sixty-five. I think that that, however, is a solitary instance of a pension of such dimensions being granted. If hon. Members will study the different benefit societies in existence they will find that only a small minority give old-age pensions at all. Consequently this scheme of the Bill will be a valuable financial aid to those societies which continue to pay sick pay after the age of seventy because the pension will relieve them. Another society in the West of England combines in its administrative system both sick pay and old-age pension. I have been closely connected in years past with this society, and therefore I have an intimate knowledge of its working. Take the case, for example, of a young boy of fourteen who joins and becomes an ordinary subscriber and remains a subscriber until he reaches the age of sixty-five. I find that at the end of that period he would only have amassed sufficient capital to buy an annuity of 6s. 8d. a week. That is one of the very few societies that have a regular old-age pension scheme, and the Government scheme will in no way interfere with the encouragement of thrift and of members continuing their contributions, but will, on the contrary, rather encourage them to go on. There is one other aspect of the question which I should like to present to the House, and it is one that makes me favour the scheme that has been proposed more than anything else. We have heard a great deal about the finance of this scheme. I agree to a certain extent with the hon. Member who dealt with this branch of the subject, that you cannot raise this vast amount of money without taking a certain amount from the rich and handing it over to the poor. I look upon this proposal as valuable on account of the very glaring, and to my mind, dangerous disparity that now exists between extreme wealth and poverty, and anything of a legislative character which can bridge over and diminish that glaring disparity will be in the very best interests of the State as well as in the best interests of all connected with the country. This proposal un-
  162
  doubtedly will mitigate the poverty of those who are most distressed. Undoubtedly it will involve additional taxation upon those who are richer, but it must not be overlooked that the individual wealth of this country is now greater than has ever been known before in any country in the world. But apart from any humane view and looked at purely from the point of view of foresight, prudence, and statesmanship, I think this scheme is the wisest possible policy to adopt. As regards the financial aspect I know it is going to cost about £7,000,000. After the Bill has been in operation two or three years I would like to point out that the scheme as it stands to-day will not actually take £7,000,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. As I look at it it will mean that in the course of three or four years it will really be a substitution of burdens on the rates for burdens upon the taxpayer. I hope that in a few years time a very large majority of those in receipt of Poor Law relief will come under the provision of the old-age pension scheme, and therefore I welcome this proposal not merely from the point of view I have indicated, but also from the point of view of an early and substantial start in the long delayed readjustment of imperial and local taxation. When the closure Resolution was under discussion I ventured to say that I believed that for all time you would have to have during the Committee stage of Bills of an important character, some Resolution passed confining debate by the allotment of time. I also ventured to point out that if that was to be carried out, and if we were to continue as a deliberative assembly granting full discussion in this House, there must be some scientific arrangement devised by which all vital questions should be ensured full debate during the Committee stage. There are many vital points in this Bill which have not had the advantage of full discussion. I should be the last person to suggest that that result has been brought about through any obstructive methods on the part of the Opposition. I do not blame the Opposition, but the system. We have seen, day after day, quite trivial Amendments discussed for two or three hours; you cannot blame anybody for that, because the Amendment called on

  163
  for discussion is down on the Paper and so the discussion must drivel on. I should like to see some arrangement devised by the Government by which those trivial Amendments should be put further back on the Paper and the important Amendments given precedence. I support the Third Beading of this Bill, although I am fully alive to its objections. I realise to the full that it is a great experiment, and I think that has been frankly admitted. However, I believe the House is justified in making this experiment, not only on the grounds of humanity, but also on the grounds of policy.
  *SIR WALTER NUGENT: If Members representing Ireland have not intervened in this debate, it is not because they have no interest in this question, but because by not intervening they hoped that all the more speedily this measure might be placed or the Statute-book. Whatever objection we may have had to the original Bill they have been modified or entirely removed by the Amendments made in Committee. We welcome the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer limiting the Poor Law disqualification to the year 1910. As regards the sliding scale we think that also is an improvement. We welcome the Bill more for what it makes possible in the future than for what it does at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that no system of pensions would be complete which was not followed or accompanied by a reform of the Poor Law. There is no part of the kingdom more in need of Poor Law reform than Ireland, and, personally, I would like to see the Poor Law system as it at present exists in Ireland abolished altogether. If the Poor Law system was abolished, I think it might be possible to make contributions from local rates to the scheme before the House, and that might enable the pensionable age to be reduced to sixty-five. There is no reason why hereafter a contributory provision could not be grafted on to the present Bill so that those who contributed might be entitled to a pension in case of disability or at an even earlier age. We welcome this Bill because there will be no diff-
  164
  culty in improving it in the directions which I have outlined. The cost of administration of the pension scheme as compared with the Poor Law would be infinitesimal. In Ireland we consider this Bill as an honest attempt to legislate for a class which has hitherto been left out in the cold. The measure will be welcomed in Ireland, and will do much to draw closer the bonds of friendship which at present unite the democracies of the two countries.
  *Mr. WEDGWOOD: Up to the present every speaker from the Government benches as well as from below the gangway has alluded to the very great expense of having a universal scheme of old-age pensions. I think it is possible that we may exaggerate the actual cost to the community of this Old-Age Pensions Bill, or of any extension of it. The support of the aged in this country is not a new charge upon the wealth producers of the country, however new it may be to the Exchequer balance sheet. We do not kill off the old people at seventy yean of age. They are kept alive somehow and somebody pays for their sustenance after the age of seventy. They cannot live for less than 5s. a week, and therefore quite 5s. a week is found by somebody at the present time. Therefore, somebody is now paying a great part of the £7,000,000 to be found next year. The charge is paid by charitable persons, who give pensions to their old servants, by charitable agencies, by philanthropic employers, and by dutiful sons and daughters. Who does not know of numbers of domestic servants, shop girls, or even governesses, who are spending part of their earnings to support an aged mother or father, and who find for them, therefore, their old-age pensions? Those people have been for years finding the £7,000,000 for old-age pensions, and what the House is doing by this Bill is making what is now a voluntary and individual charity, falling only on the best people in the community, into a compulsory charge spread over the whole community. The country as a whole will not be paying much more than at present; it is merely a redistribution of an already existing burden. It is entirely distinct from an

  165
  increase of expenditure on the Army or Navy, or a grant-in-aid to the Colonies. Supposing it were possible to introduce national insurance against accident, the State might collect from employers of labour in this country the premiums now paid and call it a tax instead of an insurance premium. That might show an increase of £5,000,000 a year on our national Budget, but it would not make any difference to the employers or to the industries of the country. There would be a great rise in the amount of income collected but the community would be no worse off than at present. In exactly the same way the charge for old-age pensions is merely a replacement on a fairer and more business footing. It is only in so far as the aged get just what will provide for absolute necessity that that point is true. In so far as the aged get more money to spend on comfort or perhaps on drink or betting there will be an additional charge on industry. I submit that any improvement in the lot of those aged people is worth paying for, for our own sentimental satisfaction if for nothing else. The sacrifice the country is making is not anything like £7,000,000, will not under the worst circumstances amount to £25,000,000, but to something far le.3s than that. Some of this charge will benefit the aged people, and we hope that many of them will be able to spend their latter days in houses of their own in the countryside. [An HON. MEMBER: On 5s. a week?] A married couple with 10s. a week will be able to do so. It is much cheaper to live in the country than in the towns. I am anxious to impress on the Government that the passing of this measure will see the aged housed in the country instead of workhouses, and that must lead to a great demand for houses in the country-side villages, and a certain amount of the benefit you are giving to the poor old folks is bound to show itself in the increase of the amount paid for rent. There are all over the country houses let at charity rates of 1s. 6d. or 2s. a week, or even 1s. a week, just because that is absolutely as much as the people living in the cottages are able to pay. I beg the Government to notice that by giving those people more means of livelihood they are giving them also more means of paying rent.
  166
  In countless cases over the country, landlords, though they may be opposed to this Bill, will be able to get more rent from these people. I am indebted for some actual cases to the hon. Member for Preston. He told me that a land agent had told him of three cases in which, as soon as the Bill was passed, he would be able to get a reasonable and fair rent for houses. He was at present getting 1s. 6d., and he would be able to raise the rents to 2s. on the passing of the Bill. I am anxious to make clear that unless the Government take the land question properly in hand — I hope they are going to do so, and I am encouraged to hope that they are going to do so by the presence of my hon. friend on the front bench — they will find that they will gradually push up the price of land, and that even the old-age pension scheme is going to raise the price of land, because poor people will be able to pay more for rent. This is only an example of a principle that underlies all our legislation. Until you tackle the land question you cannot really do permanent good to the people of this country.
  Viscount MORPETH: Earlier in the evening the hon. Member for Wolverhampton constituted himself the censor of the people who sit on these Benches. I believe the hon. Member is the author of some letters to the Press in which he explained that he voted for the Government right or wrong. Those who have voted in the minority on this question are not ashamed of supporting their views, however small the minority. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board treated us with great generosity, as I should have expected from his career, for he, at any rate, has sympathy with those who find themselves compelled to vote with the minority however small, and if I may say so his Ishmaelite origin still clings to him even on the Treasury Bench. We take this line because we believe the Bill to be an unsatisfactory and bad Bill. The hon. Member who moved its rejection stated that it was partial, incomplete, and unjust and those words were actually accepted by the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I cannot imagine that a Bill

  167
  which can be stigmatised as partial, incomplete and unjust, even although unjust only in the abstract, is not a Bill which may readily be opposed, even though the apologists of the Government and the supporters of their policy have made no pretence that the Bill is anything but incomplete. They have indeed admitted that it is merely an experiment, and that is another reason why we talk in opposition to this Bill. We complain that this important question instead of being settled, or having the foundations laid in such a manner that the final and completed building may be seen, is dealt with in so partial and incomplete a manner that continual pressure will be applied to the Government to modify, and modify profoundly, the structure of their Bill. I believe that that is inevitable because the Government have based themselves on inconsistent principles in the advocacy of this reform. They have told us that it is a right inherent in the betterment of industry. The man who has contributed to the betterment of industry is probably the man who has been tolerably successful and who has by his own exertions put himself in such a position as not to need, or, at all events, not to be the person who chiefly needs, aid from the State. On the other hand, supposing the Bill is based on the question of the need of the person who is most needy and who receives help from the State, we immediately get into an entirely different category of reasons. It is not a reward or a prize as a pension in the ordinary sense of the word is. It is not a pension for long and good service. The pension under this Bill is merely Poor Law relief given to those who have had misfortunes in life. We heard in former years of the deserving poor, of those who were in the workhouse through no fault of their own. That has been the real cause of this Bill. It is the sympathy felt with those persons who, after a long life of struggle, have been reduced to the workhouse through no fault of their own which has made the Government base the Bill on the right of the recipient through long service to the State. Therefore the scheme resembles the Poor Law 4n everything but name, and the stigma of misfortune must be affixed to the recipient, however anxious you may be to remove the stigma or change the name.
  168
  This has been apparent from the supporters of the Government themselves. I should be the last person to take advantage of the candour of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, but it is significant and should be noted that he told us in the course of his speech that in a not very long career he had been enamoured of a contributory scheme, and that he had cast it aside as unworkable. Then he hankered after the scheme of Charles Booth, and I did not gather that his hankering in that direction had altogether disappeared. He only fell back on the present scheme of the Government, partial and incomplete as it is, and admittedly unjust in many of its effects, not because he believed it to be the best or even a good scheme, but because he had been driven to it by the hard logic of the want of money. If the Government had desired to bring in a complete scheme I think the money difficulty need not have been an insuperable one. It is only because they have not made up their mind on which basis to make old-age pensions that they have been driven back into the illogical and untenable position they occupy at the present time. I do not wish to argue the question of a contributory scheme. I would not admit that the hon. Member for Blackburn is right when he says that his objection to a contributory scheme is his desire to redistribute the wealth of the country and to transfer it from the richer to the poorer classes. I suppose, to whatever party in the State we belong, we all admit that wealth is unjustly and unevenly distributed at the present time, but I do not think that that is a wise policy in considering the question of old-age pensions. It ought to be resolved on its own merits. It should not be taken out of is proper position into the large question of socialism when the attention of the House ought to be engaged in thrashing out a proper scheme. As to a contributory scheme, we are told that it cannot be adopted because the working classes of the country cannot afford to provide for old age. I will say two things with regard to that argument. In the first place, I remember hearing one of the most experienced officials of the Poor Law, Mr. Vallance,

  169
  declare that in all the workhouses he had visited he had never found either a teetotaller or a member of a friendly society. He was very severely cross-examined in regard to that statement, but he adhered to it. But, if that statement was correct—as I suppose it was in its main outlines — it shows that it is not altogether impossible for the great bulk of the working classes to make provision for their old age with great gain to themselves and the whole country. Another point is: the other day when discussing the eight-hours day for miners the hon. Baronet opposite said rather airily: "Who objects to raise the price of coal? It would be only a bottle of whisky the less." I ask why are the poorer classes to be deprived even of their bottle of whisky in order to make miners wealthier? I ask at the same time, if they are to sacrifice a pleasure for the sake of the miner's short day, why should they not make a sacrifice on behalf of themselves? I would not be supposed to lay down arbitrarily that no class should make a sacrifice of any pleasure for the sake of any other class. But I say that the industrial classes of this country have, to a very large extent, made provision for themselves, and it is one of the most striking features of our social life that they should have done so. I will not follow the hon. Member for Tyneside in his extraordinary lecture on thrift. It is remarkable how heterodox an economist can be on occasion, and how he can relegate political economy to Saturn when it does not suit himself. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the basis of capital comes from abstinence, and the working classes would be more powerful, both economically and politically, if they enjoyed the advantages of capital as other classes in the community do. Although thrift is the most unamiable of all the virtues and disagreeable to those to whom it is preached, it is right that it should be pointed out that as a nation and as individuals we must make our social prosperity only upon thrift. Our complaint is that this Bill is far from helping forward national thrift. It does nothing to assist it. It is not a contributory Bill; but the Government might have
  170
  introduced Amendments which would have rendered great assistance to national thrift. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that by his proposal, which debarred people in receipt of Poor Law relief from receiving a pension, an immense lever would be given to keep old people off the Poor Law; that it would act upon the boards of guardians who would prevent them coming, if possible, on the Poor Law; that it would induce the old persons themselves to avoid it, and be an incentive to their relations to endeavour to help them to keep off the Poor Law. But all this will be swept away by the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which this restriction is only to last until the year 1910. It is true that he has told us that the Poor Law is to be remodelled. To my mind it is not remodelling of the Poor Law that is necessary, but it is the financial pressure that will compel him to deal with it; and that is the most ominous feature of the case. This enormous charge of something like £30,000,000 will almost inevitably force the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to find money to finance the Bill, to throw the charge back on the rates. That will not be the last straw, but the last burden which will break down the present system of rating, and the case of the local exchequers is likely to be as precarious as the condition of the National Exchequer in the year 1910. I believe that the machinery of the Bill, as it stands, has not been thoroughly thought out. I am somewhat chary in making this observation, because it is said to be the common stock-in-trade of the Opposition; but I am compelled to make it. I cannot help fearing that in the administration of the Bill, as at present drafted, there will be an immense amount of fraud and heartburning. Those who will be put outside the pale will resent the injustice and say: "Why is my neighbour, who is no better than myself, to receive a pension of 5s. a week, whilst I am deprived of it? "It will not only cause heartburning because they are kept out of a pension and debarred from receiving the actual cash, but they will feel that there is a reflection cast on their moral character. It will be said that they are deprived

  171
  of the pension because, in the opinion of the Imperial official and of the pension committee, they are not as worthy of it as some other persons in the village. Nothing is likely to be more irritating to the population of a village than that it should be divided into sheep and goats by the pension official or by a committee of the county council. In the last place, I support my friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, because I believe that under it we have introduced a measure which will inevitably lead to an auction between the two parties in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said with some pride that he would be no party to a system of that kind. But in the few days allotted to the Bill, we have seen the system of auction in full working order. And in that very Amendment on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his proud boast that he would not give way to it because he was determined not to take any part in that transaction, the right hon. Gentleman himself capitulated. It is for that reason, and because I believe that the parties have now entered into competition on the road of danger and perhaps disaster, and because I think this measure, although it may do something to alleviate the fear of distress and old age, will in the long run do far more harm than good, that I support the Amendment.
  Me. FENWICK: I have listened with great interest to the whole of the debate which has taken place on the matter now before us; but have refrained from obtruding myself at any stage until now. I should, however, regret exceedingly if this debate had closed without my having an opportunity of offering in a few words to the Government, both on my own behalf and on behalf of the large body of working men whom I have the honour to represent in this House, an expression of my free, full, and wholehearted appreciation of the step which they have taken. I am conscious, with other Members of the House, that the measure is not a final one. It cannot be so regarded. As a matter of fact there are no final Acts of Parliament at this time of day. The Bill may be, and | doubtless is, open to the criticism which
  172
  the noble Lord has alleged against it, as being partial and incomplete. That is frankly admitted; but I venture to say that if it be open to the charge of being partial and incomplete, it is certainly not open to the criticism brought against it by my hon. friend the Member for Blackburn in an early part of the debate viz., that it is a paltry reform. I venture to think that there are few working men, and few leaders of working men outside this House—I question whether there are many of the Labour representatives in the House—who will agree with the declaration of the hon. Member for Blackburn that this is a paltry reform. How many at the commencement of the session imagined that we should have a Bill involving financial considerations so vast and far-reaching as the scheme submitted by the Government to Parliament and the country? Would anyone have imagined that the Government would have made a beginning with anything like £6,000,000, which was the sum involved when the scheme was first projected? But this scheme is not to be taken alone but in conjunction with other measures which the Government intend to carry through during the present session. We are told that the scheme as it now stands will probably involve an expenditure next year of something like £8,000,000, but I shall be much surprised if, when we have an opportunity of meeting next year, we do not find that the financial responsibility has greatly exceeded that estimate. But in conjunction with that we have to bear in mind that the Government is determined to take half the duty off sugar. That involves £3,500,000 more, and taking it altogether, these two reforms seem to involve a financial responsibility of £12,000,000. Anyone who in the face of such considerations as those can get up and say that this is a paltry reform, has more courage than I possess. I believe the Bill will be received by the workers of this country with the greatest rejoicing. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn that this is part of the problem of poverty and that you cannot solve the problem of poverty, Increase materially the areas of work, and enlarge the opportunities of the workers for enjoyment without, on the other hand, to some extent curtailing the

  173
  riches of the rich. That is a proposition no one will dispute. Yet unquestionably the feeling arises that poverty is a social problem for which our modern civilisation has yet to find a remedy. Here in a measure we are doing something, partial and incomplete it may be, but still something to relieve poverty and to enlarge the opportunities of the poor for enjoyment, and, so far as we are engaged in a work like this, it ought to be welcome to social reformers. I have not the courage of the noble Lord who has just preceded me, who declared he would vote with the hon. Member for Norwood if he pressed his Motion to a division. Hitherto the Opposition has not shown any desire to put the House to a division either on the introduction or the Second Reading, and I doubt very much, after the speech made by the right hon. Member for South Dublin, who expressed his intention of not voting against the Third Reading, whether the hon. Member for Norwood or the noble Lord will have the courage to challenge a division. The hon. Member for Norwood told the House that the motive behind this proposal was mere party popularity; that the Government were under no pledge to deal with this question and had no mandate to deal with it. That may be, but their predecessors in office were under a pledge and had a mandate to deal with it, and I am inclined to commend the action of the Government rather than to censure them on that account. The Government are doing without a pledge and without a mandate what their predecessors who had a mandate and were under a pledge refused to do. That Party had under their control financial facilities far greater than those enjoyed by the present Government. During the four years they were in office from 1895 up to just before the South African War they had aggregated surpluses amounting to £9,500,000. No one will deny that that Party were under a pledge, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition least of all. I have here a copy of his polling card, issued to the electors in 1895, which contains fifteen points of the programme of the Unionist Party, in the order, I take it, of their relative importance, and old-age pensions
  174
  stands fourth on the list. That indicates the importance which the right hon. Gentleman attached to this question then. Yet in the four years succeeding 1895, when they had these aggregated surpluses of £9,500,000, the pledges they had given vanished like the baseless fabric of a dream, and it is left for the Government to give effect to the pledges given by and the mandate given to the Party opposite in 1895. I end as I began. I hail with delight the beginning His Majesty's Government have made in the way of providing old-age pensions for aged poor men. Years ago, long before responsible statesmen and politicians had ventured to throw the sanction of their influence and the weight of their intelligence on the side of old-age pensions, I remember a conversation I had with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham who is I so honourably and creditably identified with this movement. He put to me this question: "What is the subject that interests most the minds of the industrial classes"? At that time I had the honour to be the Secretary to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, and had the opportunity of gathering from the leaders of the men throughout the country what their feeling was, and I had no hesitation in saying: "If you can guarantee the working classes of this country that in the time of old age or unpreventible misfortune they will not be compelled to throw themselves on public charity, you will have accomplished one of the greatest measures of reform that our or any other day has witnessed." I believe the scheme which the Government have launched, imperfect and incomplete as it may be, will bring comfort to many homes which would not have that comfort if the scheme was not to come into operation on 1st January next year. We have, in my own county of Northumberland and in the neighbouring county of Durham, a movement the object of which is to provide cottages for our old workmen. In Northumberland we have 100 cottages and we are erecting them at the rate of ten a year. There are others, because the employers have kindly undertaken to build also. But in the 100 that are under the control of the committee, there are 175 tenants, men and their wives, and of those, 120, if living next January, will be

  175
  eligible for these pensions. They all hail with pleasure the scheme before the House, and I thank from my heart the Government who have had the courage to face this subject, and wish them Godspeed in their endeavour.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I have some reluctance in intervening in a debate of which I have not heard the important speeches on either side or any of the speeches until a few minutes ago, and am, therefore, not quite aware of the arguments on either side. I am, however, reluctant to leave this Bill, discussed as it has been, without making some observations and attempting to sum up and bring to a focus, if I can, some of the impressions that it has aroused in my mind. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Northumberland, who has just sat down, and thought much of it extremely interesting, but was sorry that, contrary to his ordinary Parliamentary habit, he should have travelled somewhat outside the scope of the Bill into controversial politics of ten years ago. I have not the smallest objection to that. I live in an atmosphere of controversial politics. I do not, however, think it very interesting or relevant to the Bill. He thinks that while undoubtedly the majority of the Unionist Party have for many years been in favour of old-age pensions, they ought to have taken ah opportunity of bringing in a Bill either in the session of 1896, 1897, or 1898—before, that is, the South African war, and he thinks that the fact that the Government did not bring in a Bill in one of those three years is a slur on their political reputation. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the financial position of the country at that time would have justified any such experiment as the Government is now trying, and if the lapse of three years is supposed to condemn a Government for not bringing in a Bill, I should have thought that the present Government would hardly escape. But that is not an important part of the controversy with regard to this Bill, because we are all agreed that some scheme of pensions is extremely desirable, and the only thing we have doubt about is the manner in
  176
  which the Government has gone to work in carrying out that unanimously accepted object. It is that that gives me, for one, very serious misgivings. I think that neither the actual provisions of this Bill nor the mode in which the Government have allowed it to be discussed gives us the smallest security that one of the greatest and most costly experiments in social legislation is going to be tried under circumstances that will give any hope of permanent success. There are three main questions raised by the scheme. The first is, will this Bill work according to its avowed objects? Is the machinery of the Bill, in other words, going to give pensions on the plan that the Government say is desirable? The second is, how is it going to affect the broader and wider problems of social reform? And the third is, how is it going to affect the national finances? These are the three problems that every man in this House, no matter in which quarter he may sit, should really consider if he wants to estimate the value of the legislative experiment the Government are now trying. The first point is whether the Bill is really going to work out according to the theory of its framers; and, if it does, what will be its results? The theory of its framers is a very simple one. They say that, pending the acquisition of further national resources, they must limit their Bill to pensions for persons seventy years of age, and, to put it broadly, of good character. How is this Bill going to attain these two objects? How is the machinery going to limit the Bill to persons of seventy and to persons of good character? And will the machinery work smoothly, justly, and to public advantage? I cannot really believe that the Government have thoroughly thought out the method in which their own machinery is going to work. Take the first of the two conditions, that of age. That is one of the subjects we have discussed. We have not had an opportunity of discussing the age as between seventy and sixty-five, because that was shut out by the closure, but we have discussed on more than one occasion the machinery by which the age of seventy is to be arrived at. I do not think that by any statement the Government have shown a clear

  177
  idea of the difficulties by which that investigation is surrounded or the means by which those difficulties are to be surmounted. In the first place, who are the investigators? They are officers of the Inland Revenue, a single committee for each county and large borough, and ultimately the President of the Local Government Board. For the life of me I cannot see that an investigation can be carried out by any of these three bodies. I made some remarks in Committee with regard to the Inland Revenue officers which I believe have given pain to those most estimable public officers. If I have said anything that gave them pain I most heartily withdraw it. They are a most valuable body of men, and carry out duties of great responsibility with perfect uprightness and great efficiency. But I ask whether the most admirable performance of the duties of the Inland Revenue either gives a man the training or provides him with the machinery by which this kind of investigation is to be carried out. Take the case of an unskilled labourer in London. He reaches an age that he himself thinks is either Seventy or very nearly so. He believes that he has worked hard all his life, and that if anybody deserves a pension he does He applies to the Inland Revenue officer and says: "My name is O'Grady."
  Mr. JOHN WILSON: Make it Smith, and then you are safe.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I chose an Irish name for a particular reason which will appear directly. He says: "My age is seventy, and I desire to be supplied with a pension. I come from Cork." The Inland Revenue officer says: "What proof have you that you are seventy?" He has no proof. Why should he have a proof? I do not believe I should know my own age if it were not that tactless friends are constantly reminding me of it. Most assuredly a dock labourer who left Cork thirty years ago may very well be excused if he has not proof of his age, since he was born in a country where there was no registration of births at the time when he was presumably born. How is this unfortunate official going to investigate in the City of Corkwhether Mr. O'Grady working at the docks is or
  178
  is not seventy years of age? The thing appears to be wholly impossible, and there is no machinery for doing it. The county committee to which he refers are no better off than himself, and if they refer to the head of the Local Government Board he is no better off. The machinery cannot be found and will not be supplied. These are considerations that the Government have never faced, for, though they have been urged more than once in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never really re plied to them. He contented himself with pointing out, what nobody denies, that in every village the age of everybody is known, and that there are places and professions where there would be no difficulty. That does not get over the difficult point with regard to the very people you want to help with these pensions, the poor of the large towns, the unorganised, those who do not belong to trade unions. In these cases neither they nor anybody else can produce that legal proof which is at the very basis of the Bill. If the difficulties with regard to age are overwhelming, what are we to say with regard to the investigation as to character? None of us are without some misgivings as to the enormous power given to an Imperial officer and to a local committee to form a judgment on the way in which the poorer classes of the community have carried out their life's duty. It is not a pleasant thing to have to do, and if it is done honestly and conscientiously it will be a very painful duty thrown on those who may have to do it. Here, again, we really have very little means of obtaining assistance. Do not let us consider the country village where everyone's character is known. There may be an opportunity for favouritism or vindictive attacks on unpopular persons, but the facts will be known and may be fairly and properly judged upon. But how can the facts be known with regard to the great floating population of the huge industrial centres? They cannot be known. It seems to me we may go further and say even that the intentions of the Government with regard to character are not being carried out. Will anybody look at the Bill and consider the position of the widow? Take the case of a widow of respectable character with a number of children, who

  179
  has been obliged since 1st January to appeal to the guardians. She cannot get a pension. She is absolutely excluded. Is there a more deserving case in the world than the woman left without a husband to work for her, living with the care and responsibility of children incapable of working for themselves? I cannot imagine any case more worthy of assistance; but it will not be assisted. The woman has been driven to accept Poor Law relief, and she is excluded. When you turn to the case of a man who has subscribed to a friendly society from the age of sixty, it does not matter what his wife's character may be. She is sure of a pension. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with that question on the Report stage, and thoroughly misunderstood it. He thought my noble friend the Member for Marylebone was maintaining the proposition that a wife who carried out her household duties with economy and efficiency was not really helping to earn the pension of which her husband, by subscribing to a friendly society, was securing possession. That was not my noble friend's contention. He was pointing out that a husband might have been thrifty, and might have subscribed for ten years to a friendly society, but if he died a year after reaching the age of seventy, his widow, whatever had happened before, if she had every vice incident to poor humanity, would have an absolute right to a pension because her husband, in spite of thriftless ways and worse, had been able to continue his subscriptions for ten years. I cannot see that that carries out the views of the Government and of the Horse, yet that is the Bill as it must go to a House where it is impossible, even if the Government desire to allow it, to make any change in the amount charged upon the taxpayers. There is another point as to character. Of all the people we want to assist, I have warmer sympathy with none than with the man or woman who, towards the end of a long and honourable life, is not well enough after the age of seventy to be looked after in his or her own home. What is the remedy for that person? There is none save the workhouse infirmary. We have heard a great deal of the brand and the stigma of Poor Law relief. It may have been exaggerated by some; but we all agree
  180
  that the self-respecting among the poor look with extreme repulsion upon receiving assistance through the machinery of the Poor Law or in Poor Law buildings. But these people, who have, by the necessity of their condition, to make use of Poor Law machinery and buildings are to be deprived of what is called, we believe most falsely, the right to a pension. They are not to have 5s. a week; they are to lose their homes; they are to suffer the stigma of Poor Law relief. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Bill touches the cases of all the poor over seventy years of age, or even deals with the most deserving cases. It does not, and the professions of the Government in this respect, as well as in others, are wholly baseless. There is one other point on which I must say a word. You are dealing with a sum which at the lowest is £6,500,000, and, according to the hon. Member who last spoke, will be much more. You are giving that over absolutely to bodies which are responsible to no legal tribunal whatever. I have the utmost confidence in the general honesty of the committees and county councils and of the officials of the Government; but are we wrong to look with some suspicion on the possibility that this vast potentiality of bribery will never be misused? The six or seven millions sterling is to be distributed at the discretion of certain individuals. That discretion is not fettered by strict legal interpretation; It is a matter of estimate and judgment. If an Imperial official thinks that a man has not really been a very creditable character, or if somebody has enemies, it is conceivable that that person may lose both his pension and his vote. I do not believe there is much danger of abuse in this country. I do not believe that this Bill will lead to it. Even if the theory is ever worked out, which I do not think it will be, I admit that, if there is a danger, it is not a great one here. I am not so sure that where party politics run high, as in Ireland, you can be so certain of the working of it. It is not that Irishmen have a larger dose of original sin than the rest of us; but the way in which local administration is worked in Ireland has a tinge of party politics which it has not

  181
  in any other part of the United Kingdom, and I am afraidthat if the Bill is worked on the theory of the Government it will be found that every friend of a local authority in Ireland will be over the age of seventy, while no enemy of the local authority will ever get beyond the age of sixty-nine. I have been endeavouring to show that if it is attempted to work the Bill according to theory you throw an almost impossible task upon the executive, and your discrimination will be arbitrary, and the class you most want to help will be excluded. But will the Bill be worked according to theory? Will its operation be confined to persons over seventy, and of virtuous character? I do not believe for one moment that it will. We are very good-natured people, particularly so when we are dealing with other people's money; and the duty of excluding anybody from the benefits of the Act will be a painful and also an expensive one. Every committee which declares a person in its district or county or borough to be ineligible for a pension has to do that which is very painful from the point of view of humanity, and Very disagreeable from the point of view of the local purse. When humanity and economy are on one side, I think they are too strong for any legislative dykes which the Government may raise against them, and I do not believe that the dykes that the Government have raised will keep out the waters of expenditure for one moment. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway greatly regretted that they could not discuss their Amendment for reducing the age from seventy to sixty-five. I do not think it will make very much difference. I believe that under this Bill everybody who desires a pension and can show a decent appearance of being seventy will probably he found eligible by a kindly Imperial officer and a charitable county committee. That raises one or two points of very great importance. The first point touches on what I have described as the second great question raised by this Bill—namely, its future effect on social reform. If you are going to use, as I am sure you are going to use, this Bill as a mere method of giving pensions at the taxpayers' expense to persons in declining years, and who have not got a very black mark against their
  182
  character, how will you prevents its be coming a mere part of the outdoor relief system of the country? You cannot do it. It is quite true that you have got a different machinery for allocating the money, but to suppose that the ordinary citizen is going nicely to distinguish between what he gets through the Imperial officer and the committee and what he gets through the relieving officer and the board of guardians, and to regard one as discreditable and the other as creditable, is really trespassing upon our credulity. There will not be that broad distinction in the public mind. It will gradually be thought, what is, indeed, the fact, that this is a mere addition to outdoor relief as outdoor relief is now administered in a large number of parishes in this country. In a very large number of unions in this country it is perfectly well known that outdoor relief is given on easy terms to persons who can show a good character. In those districts it ceases to be a badge of discredit. A proof of poverty it may be, but it is not a badge of discredit, and these pensions, which will certainly be given in, somewhat reckless fashion under this Bill, will be regarded as a substitute—an improved substitute I admit, because it is larger in amount—for that outdoor relief, and there will not be that broad distinction between out relief on the one side and pensions on the other which, I think, everybody would desire should be kept unimpared. And, remember, if you give, as I think you will give, these 5s. pensions, easily and without examination, to persons whose age has not been proved, though advanced in life, they really do become a subvention of wages. The man of sixty-five or sixty-six who conceives himself, or is conceived by his neighbours, to be, roughly enough for the purposes of this Bill, of the age of seventy and is still capable of a fair day's work, will be very glad to supplement his pension by doing a certain amount of odd jobs if he can get anybody to employ him. But he will neither desire, nor will he obtain, an amount of wages which will diminish the amount he gets from the State. What he will get will be as much as, but no more than, will enable him to get the full 5s. and, if his labour is worth more than that, the employer gets labour at less than its

  183
  true market price, and these pensions become quite clearly and plainly a subvention in aid of wages, as was the case under the old Poor Law. This leads to another question connected with social reform on which I confess I feel very strongly. What is to be the relation of this measure to the inquiry now going on with regard to the reform of the Poor Law and to the legislation which the Government propose to found thereon at some future period? The late Government, conscious that the Poor Law system of the country was antiquated and utterly worn out, appointed a Royal Commission to consider the subject. That Commission has been working hard for three years. The Government hope that it will report this year. I go merely on common rumour when I say I think that that is a somewhat sanguine estimate. It might have been accurate before this Bill, but this Bill has wholly changed the problem which is before them. The Commission was appointed to consider the Poor Law as it stood in 1906, but you have profoundly altered the Poor Law by this Bill, and I cannot imagine—I have had no communication with any member of the Commission — how the Commissioners are going to report without fresh investigation and without waiting to see how this Bill is going to affect the problem of outdoor relief. I believe this Bill is going to substitute 5s. pensions, broadly speaking, for outdoor relief almost all over the country. If it is going to do that, it is quite evident that the whole problem of outdoor relief will be completely changed, and I do not know how in these circumstances you can expect a Commission, dealing with so complex a subject, to report with any confidence to the Government and the House. The truth is the Government must be perfectly well aware that they ought to have taken this question of old-age pensions as part of the general problem of poverty. You cannot divorce the two. If only for the purpose of distinguishing pension from Poor Law relief you must consider the two together. You must consider your machinery for Poor Law relief in order to consider fairly your machinery for pensions, and until you know what your machinery for Poor Law relief is
  184
  likely to be, how can you say what your machinery for carrying out the pension distribution is going to be or the relation which this vast expenditure of public money is going to bear to the sums now expended by Poor Law guardians? This really brings me to the last of the three points I wished to touch upon—namely, the relation of this measure to our national finances. I confess that I look on this whole question with considerable alarm. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme explained that after all no great burden would be cast on our national finances, because the money was now paid by the charitable and through the Poor Law, and there was not much difference whether the burden was thrown on the Exchequer by this Bill or whether it was left to be paid sporadically and uncertainly, partly by Poor Law machinery and partly by the private machinery of charity. I think that the hon. Member is profoundly mistaken. It makes the whole difference where the money comes from. The mere fact that there is money to be got somewhere does not make it easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get it. The hon. Member who last spoke congratulated the Government upon having brought in the Bill with courage. I see very little courage in the bringing in of this Bill. Courage is required if you bring in a Bill whose provisions and the financial resources connected with it are brought into one conspectus before the public, and they are shown what they are to get and what they have to pay for it. The Government here shows what the public are to get, but they have not yet been shown how they are to pay for it. But there is a divergence of opinion even among the members of the Government. The Prime Minister assured us more than once that the Government had considered the point, and that they clearly saw their way to provide the necessary funds by means of free trade finance. This method of carrying it out is a secret which the Prime Minister has kept, not only from the Opposition, but from his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that is carrying secrecy too far. I think that in the comity of the Cabinet the late Chancellor of the Exchequer should have told the present Chancellor of the Exchequer how, within

  185
  the limits of free trade finance, £6,500,000 are to be found next year and £7,500,000 the year after. It is not going to be £7,500,000 either. If my interpretation of the situation is correct, you will get to £11,500,000 almost immediately, and how within the limits of free trade finance are you to get £11,500,000? There is no great information either to be got from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to what he has already told the City, and if he has kept the secret from the high financial authorities of the City it is not likely that he will tell his critics in the House. I do not ask him, therefore, to tell us, if he does not know. But again I ask, where, within the limits of free trade finance, are £6,500,000, £7,500,000, or £11,500,000 to be obtained? The finance cannot be put on one side, and when the right hon. Gentleman has got the money, neither he nor any one else can deny the enormous public burden cast on the finances of the State. It is not a thing to be lightly done, nor is it to be done without some general survey of your financial obligations. I do not understand that the Government have made any such general financial survey. I am not going to raise the question of the burden of national armaments; but there are other questions eminently deserving of the attention of the House connected with social reform. Is it not manifest that almost every problem of social reform comes back to the Treasury, the Imperial or the local Treasury, in the end? How are you going to give these vast sums of money for one particular purpose if you have dried up the sources of supply for the use of any other purposes that can be proposed? It may be right, while the objects to be attained by the Bill may be so clear and excellent that we need not regret the expenditure. But I should like to know what the other things are. Money lies at the root of almost everything we do; but I do not think that you will find the suggested taxation of the rich a very satisfactory method of increasing the national resources for the purposes of social reform, even from the point of view of society. I admit that this Bill will greatly relieve the Poor Law, that it will be a subvention to the local authorities in aid of the Poor Law. So far they may have resources set free for other purposes connected
  186
  with housing, education, and other cognate questions; but I cannot believe that any future Government for years to come can have money at liberty for any other purpose of social reform whatever. How can they? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a sanguine man, and I believe he looks forward, almost cheerfully, to the problems of the next Budget, although they are as yet unsolved in his mind. I wish him well: But even in his most sanguine mood he can hardly look forward to the time of this great and growing charge when he will be able to meet satisfactorily other claims that touch the heart and the conscience. What we want is some broader survey of their obligations before they commit the country to this vast expenditure. The Government have made no such survey, and they have admitted this. In the forefront of one of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches, he told us with emphasis that they were going to await the Report of the Poor Law Commission in order to form some kind of estimate of what the reforms would cost, that they were going to frame the finances of the country on lines not only to satisfy all that can be asked for from this Bill, but from the other Bill. But they will not have a shilling to deal with, the Report of the Poor Law Commission or for the demands made upon them for social reforms. It is for that reason I look forward, and not I alone, with much misgiving to the method by which the Government are attempting to carry out the objects of this Bill. With those objects I heartily sympathise. As far as I am concerned, I frankly admit I rejoice in a policy of old-age pensions, but I should like to have seen that most difficult of all social problems dealt with in a manner by which alone a satisfactory result will ensue. I should like to have seen a serious attempt to produce some scheme by which all these investigations might be avoided, and we might be able to give a pension as of course, or have, what I should much prefer, some contributory scheme. I am told that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board said that he himself at an earlier period had been in favour of a contributory scheme. I do not think that he ought too hastily to have given up such a scheme as impracticable. Such

  187
  a scheme would at all events have two plain and manifest advantages—it would avoid inquisitorial investigation, and it would get over the other difficulties which have been alluded to at less cost to the Exchequer, and that means that more money would be left free for the necessary purposes of national defence or other great purposes of social reform. I regret the hasty course which the Government have taken, but the responsibility must lie with them. The Government alone have the opportunity of estimating the resources at their disposal for carrying it out. They, and they alone, have the machinery for making some comparative survey of all the needs of the State. On them lies the responsibility. The Bill does not satisfy the demands of those who claim the right to old-age pensions, and on the other hand it so burdens and cripples the national resources that we may find it impossible to meet other obligations not less pressing, not less connected with the safety of the State and the well-being of the poorer members of the State.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): But for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down I should not have deemed it necessary to take any part in this debate after the able and powerful speech of my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. As a rule, I think debates, and especially long debates, on Third Reading, are rather futile, but I do not regret this debate, and all the less after the very interesting, genial, and significant speech with which the Leader of the Opposition has fascinated the House. There was one observation he made which I welcome specially because I know what it carries with it. The right hon. Gentleman 'gave a hint to the House of Lords—a hint which, coming from him, is in the nature of a command. The right hon. Gentleman criticised rather severely the machinery of the Bill. He stated that important parts of the Bill had not been discussed. If he will take the trouble to look at the Amendments he will find that the main objections to the Bill were discussed. The criticisms directed against the Bill were in the main directed to the sliding scale, the married couples,
  188
  a contributory scheme, the income limit, the paupers, the industrial test, the machinery, and the reduction of the age. With the exception of the reduction of the age, we have discussed each and every one of these points during the five days we were in Committee and the day on Report. There was not one of these important elements in the Bill which was not the subject of considerable and even exhaustive debate. I accept in its entirety what the right hon. Gentleman said about the three main problems to be considered, but there was not a criticism which he directed against the machinery of the Bill which would not be applicable to every scheme that has ever been or ever could be submitted to this House. Take the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—any scheme which he submitted. Take the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon's Committee, or the scheme of the Aged Pensioners' Committee—and I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Member for West Birmingham committed his Government in debate in 1903 to the Chaplin Committee's Report. He took part in the debate on the Aged Pensioners' Bill, and on behalf of the Government accepted the outlines of that Report. There is not a single criticism which the right hon. Gentleman directed against our scheme that would not be applicable to every point in the Report of the Chaplin Committee. He said: How are you to find out whether a man is seventy years of age or not? and he put the imaginary case of O'Grady. He took a case which must be exceptional, and I felt when he chose a case of that kind it was the best testimony to the fact that in the main the machinery of this Bill would work smoothly, and that it would only break down in exceptional cases. If the right hon. Gentleman felt that our machinery was bad, he would have taken an ordinary workaday case; he would have taken the case, not of O'Grady but of Smith. But, instead, he took the case of an aged Irish labourer born in Cork, but having spent most of his days in London. On the whole, I think that is an exceptional the career of folk case. But let O'Grady. Let us take, first of all, his

  189
  go I think we may assume that in the vast majority of cases the Irish labourer would be a member of a trade union. If there is an organisation got up for the purpose of fighting anybody, you may rely upon it that an Irish labourer will be somewhere in it. If he is a member of a trade union, then we can got at his age, for although he may overstate his age when he goes to the pension officer, he is not likely to do it to the trade union. So that, therefore, we have, first of all, eliminated all the ordinary cases of Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen working in London, and it is purely the case of the Irish labourer who has come from Cork when he is a boy; we have eliminated nine-tenths of the O'Gradys who have come over to this country, and we have only got this miserable remnant of the sect who are absolutely devoid of the most predominant instincts of the Irish nature, and who do not desire to join an organisation to smash up either the capitalist or the landlord. He is so easy to deal with, ho is so docile, he is a man of really so exceptional a character, that I feel sure he could not possibly deceive a pension officer, and therefore I am not very much afraid. Although I have very great apprehensions about the cost of the scheme, I do not think O'Grady alarms us. But in any scheme this exceptional person will give you trouble, and if this imaginary Cork Irishman with his pedigree and character and his birth certificate is going to stand in the way of an old-age pension scheme for everybody, then there is nothing you can do, there is no scheme in the world that O'Grady cannot get over. Therefore we have got to defy him at some stage or other. We have got to work up sufficient courage to face this imaginary gentleman and try to do justice by the remaining seventy-years-old people who have made honest representations. Take the character test, as the right hon. Gentleman called it—it, is not a character test at all. What difficulty is there in finding out what this imaginary gentleman has worked at? That is really all you have to find out. If he has contributed to a friendly society or a trade union he must have got his money somewhere, and therefore there is no difficulty about him.
  190
  But supposing he is outside a friendly society, you must first of all find out whether he has worked. You ask him, "Where did you work?" "In what employ were you?" "Can you name your employer?" The pension officer can easily test that, and it does not require a very high level of intelligence to make inquiries from Messrs. Smith and Co. whether O'Grady worked for them. It is for him to prove; he has got to make the application; he has got to prove his age; he has got to say where he was born. [OPPOSITION cheers.] No doubt of it. It is the first time that it has dawned upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have drawn a cheer from the anti-old-age pension party which sits entrenched up there. Of course, ho sends in his application and says he is seventy years of age. Of course, he has got to say where he was born; and surely the pension officer can be trusted to make inquiry about it. It is upon this basis that the right hon. Gentleman ventures to condemn root and branch the whole of our scheme. He says the Government have never considered it and the Government have never thought of O'Grady the whole time they were dreaming of this great scheme. I do not believe there ever was such a speech delivered which is such a complete justification of our whole scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us what is his alternative it would have been different. Let the House remember that he is in favour of old-age pensions; he is delighted that Parliament is to deal with it at last. He wants something done for old people, but this is not the way. Then what is the way? He has not told the House. He has not pledged himself to a contributory scheme. I ask him, is his alternative a contributory scheme? He has taken part in these debates on the Second Reading, the Committee stage, and the Third Reading, but never once has he told the House what is his idea of the way it should be dealt with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me. We have absolutely not sufficient evidence before us as to how contributory schemes have worked elsewhere. Every Report referred to is antecedent to the real development of the German scheme,

  191
  and, as we know from the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, they have not fully looked into that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not object to the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, but he ended his interruption with a misstatement. He said we have not looked into the German scheme. We have looked into the German scheme, and very carefully, and with the same result as everybody in this House on either side—the result of dismissing it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did. The right hon. Gentleman's Government appointed four Commissions and Committees, they investigated the subject in every shape and form, they had Commission after Commission, and eventually in 1903 they committed themselves to the Chaplin scheme, and now the right hon. Gentleman says he really does not know whether it is this scheme or a contributory scheme—he is absolutely in the dark as to the whole thing. And this after committing himself through his spokesmen to what is practically the plan of the Government. Has he any right, therefore, to criticise our scheme in the way he has done without, at any rate, saying what is his idea? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that we ought not to proceed now? Does he mean that we ought to allow these half-million poor people to go on year after year in disappointment? Are we to go on year after year doing nothing, until at last he has made up his mind as to which of these schemes he is prepared to recommend? The right hon. Gentleman has criticised our scheme on the ground that the machinery is bad. I say this criticism is not merely inadequate but grossly inadequate. He has pointed out no insuperable difficulties. Of course, there are difficulties in any scheme, I do not care what it is. Nobody except the Member for Preston has ventured to commit himself to the German scheme, not even the noble Lord opposite, and the moment he begins to investigate it he will find it is absolutely impossible in this country. Nobody has answered this question—if we apply the German scheme, what are we to do with the women? The great majority of those who will receive
  192
  benefits under our scheme are women. Under the German scheme not 10 percent. are women. I know perfectly well this scheme is full of difficulties. But you have got to begin. You have got to solve these difficulties. I have no doubt that after a few months' operation of this scheme we shall discover difficulties which not even the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman were able to anticipate. Of course, in dealing with a gigantic problem of this sort, with more than half a million of people, in thousands of diverse circumstances, you will have difficulties which you never suspected. Any legislator of this kind is bound to encounter new surprises suddenly arising. But it is not beyond the resources of British statesmanship to cope with such difficulties as they arise. Anyway, is that really a reason for doing nothing? In spite of the hon. Member for Blackburn, I say we are doing a great deal. The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, attacked us with an acrid ferocity which is entirely his own. We are dealing with the problem of 572,000 old people, I poverty stricken, but too proud to seek the charity of the Poor Law. We are dealing with them as a first instalment. The hon. Gentleman, I will not say had not the generosity or the manliness, but I will say had not the sense of justice to recognise that. Why, he taunted us as if we were really robbing these 572,000 people instead of trying to endow them. We have pledged ourselves next year to deal with the problem of the pauper, about which the hon. Gentleman attacked us. He has never even recognised that. Cannot he be just even to the Liberals? I have no doubt he will go about the country repeating these attacks. He will never mention that we are giving pensions to 572,000 people who had never been dealt with before; that we are finding £7,000,000 in addition to the £3,500,000 we have taken off the sugar duty for this purpose. He will never mention that we are pledged to deal with the pauper next year.
  MR. SNOWDEN: You are not.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I say we are pledged to deal with paupers next year. This is what we have done and

  193
  the fact remains. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may criticise the Bill; they may say the machinery is defective; they may say we have not done as much as we ought to have done; but the fact remains that the moment the Bill gets into operation there will be over half a million of poor people who for the first time will be raised above destitution and poverty.
  MR. CROOKS: I apologise to the House for intervening in the debate at this late hour. What astonished me in the course of the discussion is the different grounds hon. Gentlemen above the gangway have taken. First they wanted a proper universal scheme; then they wanted certain qualifications put in; then the mover of the Amendment to-day deplored that there were so many qualifications in order that a poor man might get a certificate of character before he could secure a pension. Now they regret the failure of their efforts to put in still more qualifications. I have read somewhere that life is a comedy to a thinking man and a tragedy to a feeling man. That is all the difference in the world. We have had an exhibition of thinking without feeling. I have felt pretty keenly about the whole business—listening to the flippancy which one expects at some kind of Tory meeting. In a pamphlet which I wrote ten years ago I anticipated that whenever a scheme of old-age pensions was considered in the House of Commons it would be called "a glorified outdoor relief." So is every kind of pension that is paid out of the taxpayers' pockets. We have been told by opponents of the Bill about inquisitorial examinations of claimants for a pension. It is very good of these hon. Gentlemen, I admit it. Is it not the case that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who receive pensions from His Majesty's Government are obliged to declare in writing their impecuniosity? How dreadfully lowering and degrading it must be to a man whose private income would be wealth beyond the dreams of avarice to an ordinary poor man in this country! Yet, he has the nerve to write to somebody and to declare his impecuniosity before he gets his £1,200 a year! No man reads him a little homily on thrift. No man says a word about it. There is nothing de-
  194
  grading about pensions at all, except when they get down to 5s. a week; they are not awfully degrading but the reward for services to the State—that is if they are anything between £1,200 and £4,000 a year. They then add to the dignity and importance of His Majesty's subjects. The noble Lord who spoke earlier in the afternoon made a glaring mistake, because a Return was moved for in 1901 showing the number of members of friendly societies who were in the workhouse, and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham quoted the fact that there were 4,000 men in the workhouse of England and Wales who had been members of friendly societies for thirty years and upwards. I do not take my own figures in this matter. It is an astonishing thing that all these facts having been published by the Charity Organisation Society is the excuse for not providing pensions earlier. Nothing was done by the Unionist Party in 1899 because they had been captured by the Charity Organisation Society. Then they gave several homilies on the Act of 1834, but if they had kept up-to-date with regard to that Act they would have found that what with rules and regulations that had been made since there is hardly a vestige of the 1834 Act left. There is a Poor Law Commission sitting now, and that would be a reason for doing nothing, because whenever the late Government wished to do nothing they appointed a Royal Commission. I have illustrated the fact, I think, before. It is the case of the man who once saw a lot of coloured cooked eggs on a barrow, and he said, "What are those eggs, guv'nor?" "Oh, they are partridge eggs." "Do you think a hen would bring them off?" "Yes, I should think so." "Then how much for a sitting?" "1s. 6d. and a share of your luck." About four weeks after he turned up again and gazed wistfully at the stall, and the man recognised him and said: "Well, what luck?" "Oh, you never saw anything like it in your life. The hen, she sat and sat, and I am blowed if she did not cook them. "There has never been an Old-Age Pension Commission or a Poor Law Commission which did not well cook their Reports before bringing them to this House. The regulations of the Board have amended Poor Law relief out of all knowledge. They

  195
  told us to give outdoor relief generously, and in giving it to old and deserving people we should not rake up the past. I was a guardian and I wished to do it generously. Some said "They do not want old-age pensions; you want to make the workhouse more comfortable." Well, we did that, and what was the result? I was put on trial and very nearly got time. I rejoice at the start that is now going to be made. I do not contend for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition was not right, when he said you will not get rid of a certain class of people; but what I am afraid of is, and I hope those who draw up these regulations will bear this in mind, that if charity commissioners and boards of guardians are connected with it you must safeguard people who require infirmity relief from being pushed into some dark squalid hole and left there. There are many people who if they had £1 a week could not take care of themselves. This Bill is not wanted for that purpose; it is, wanted for people who can look after themselves. I believe it will stop the recruiting for the workhouse. God knows what sacrifices are made by children to keep their parents and little children to keep their grandparents. I know a man who had to go to his old mother and say: "This is boots off my children, mother; what am I to do?" And the old mother, out of her love for the little ones, made the plunge and went into the "house" in order to keep the boots on the feet of the little children. In this case we know what we want, and we do not want it to be said hereafter that when this Bill was before the House we said we would rest content with this. We are going to prevent old folk breaking up their homes. They struggle on to keep a roof over them, and you wonder why they are content to live in misery and squalor when they can go to the workhouse and be well tended. There is one thing the value of which you cannot define and that is liberty. There are none so poor but they would give their lives for it, and what I want to do, and what I am sure we shall do by this Bill, is to enable the children to keep their parents and give them what they cannot buy, a little love and sympathy.
  196
  What have you done all the time? If ever you wanted an objectionable rate or if ever you wanted to get anything that would be fought against, you put it on to the poor rate. Thus it was made to appear that you were spending millions and millions on the poor, when you were doing nothing of the kind. What are the actual figures? In 1905–6, there was, roughly, £30,000,000 collected in England and Wales under the head of the Poor Law, or £26,000,000 odd in England and Wales excluding London; but the actual amount paid in indoor and outdoor relief was £6,603,519. Why deceive the public to this extent? Why do you not tell the truth about the figures? There are just under 300,000 aged people, or perhaps a few more, who are getting indoor or outdoor relief, and there are very nearly 600,000 who do not get any relief at all. That shows that two persons out of every three manage to keep out of the workhouse somehow. It is wonderful what we have heard in this House that people can do when they are seventy. It is a revelation. The right hon. Gentleman has just talked about a man going to work and of subsidising his employer. I know, as a Poor Law guardian and an administrator, that many and many a sweater has taken account of a poor wretched woman's 2s. 6d. which the guardians have allowed her to help her to pay her rent, and has reduced the price for shirt-making in consequence of that outdoor relief. Yet, the moment you attempt to lift people up and make men and women of them, it is almost a criminal offence. We may surely call these old-age pensions, very old-age pensions. I wonder any Member has the temerity to get up in this House and object to them. I once said, and I repeat, that no man should sit in this House without having served first for ten years as a Poor Law guardian. He would then know something about human nature. It is not perfect. There are a good many sides to it, but most people who apply for relief are very human, and I do not think they very much object to these inquisitorial examinations as to their character. We were challenged by the hon. Member for Preston, who said, "Would you go on any public platform and declare that you are in favour of giving a pension of

  197
  5s. per week to a drunken, thriftless, worthless man or woman?" My reply is very prompt to that. A man of seventy with nothing in the world to help him is going to cut a pretty shine on 5s. per week, whether his character be good or bad. What could he do with it? It is not enough to keep him in decency, and he would be well punished for not taking care when he had the opportunity if he had to live on 5s. per week. Who are you, to be continually finding fault? Who amongst you has such a clear record as to be able to point to the iniquity and wickedness of an old man of seventy? I said before, and I repeat, if a man is foolish enough to get old, and if he has not been artful enough to get rich, you have no right to punish him for it. It is no business of yours. It is sufficient for you to know he has grown old. After all, who are these old men and women? Let me appeal to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. They are the veterans of industry, people of almost endless toil, who have fought for and won the industrial and commercial supremacy of Great Britain. Is their lot and end to be the Bastille of the everlasting slur of pauperism? We claim these pensions as a right. Ruskin, I think, read you a little homily on the subject—
  "Even a labourer serves his country with his spade and shovel as the statesman docs with his pen, or the soldier with his sword."
  He has a right to some consideration from the State. Here in a country rich beyond description there are people poverty - stricken, beyond description. There can be no earthly excuse for the condition of things which exists in this country to-day. If it be necessary to have a strong Army and Navy to protect the wealth of the nation, do not let us forget that it is the veterans of industry who have created that wealth; and let us accept this as an instalment to bring decency and comfort to our aged men and women.
  MR. HARWOOD: I only rise to say a few words and to offer one suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how I think some of the money for old-age pensions might fairly be obtained. He spoke the other night about robbing the hen roost. I think he should consider where he has the most right to go, and the suggestion I want to make is that I think it would be fair to consider whether some of this money could not be raised by a levy on wages. Do what you will, and take what precautions you will, I believe a great deal of this money will go into the hands of employers in the form of lesser wages paid by them. That was the experience under the Poor Law in the early part of the nineteenth century, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition is quite right when he says you cannot prevent this being in some degree a subvention of wages. Not only when a man is seventy but all through his life you will find there will be a tendency to pay him less because there will not be the necessity to make that provision for his old age which really ought to come out of the wages fund. The hon. Member for Preston was quite right when he said that the right way to solve this question is to pay proper wages, such wages that all classes of the people can save sufficient to provide pensions for themselves. If you provide a pension, you will lower wages. It cannot be helped, and I say it would be a fair thing—and I speak as one who would, to an extent, be affected by it—to make an employer contribute something towards this fund. It would be a fair thing for other reasons. Most employers feel an interest and a duty in regard to the provision for the old age of their employees, but, when this Bill is passed, that sense of duty will be considerably diminished, and many employers will cease to do that which a great many do now. They will gain firstly in wages all through. Whatever you do you cannot prevent

  199
  this going into the pockets of the employers, and therefore you may fairly take something out of their pockets now. Then it will reduce local taxation by throwing an added burden on the National Exchequer; the consequence will be that employers of labour who are large payers of poor rates will gain very much by the diminished amount to be raised for the poor rate, and therefore they ought to contribute something towards the fund. The other point that I want to name is this. The Bill is passing through the doors of this Chamber out into the world. The outside world cares little for our party struggles and inconsistencies. It will look at the Bill from another point of view and I want us in parting with it to-night to try and share that view. We who have to go out into the world to face our people will have to defend this Bill, and the need for defence will grow greatly as time passes because the burden will increase while the sense of gratitude will diminish. And what defence have we to offer? We do not pass laws like the Modes and Persians that can never be changed. All the details of the Bill may be altered. What is the real principle behind it on which we can take our stand? It is that it is an attempt, perhaps rough, rude, and inefficient, but an attempt to rectify the gross injustice of our present social conditions. Whatever we have done we have failed to distribute wealth fairly between the different classes of the community. Some other plans will have to be tried. People are suggesting Socialism, but at any rate until we have some other plan we are making a rude attempt to put it right. Another thing to be remembered is what Society owes to Labour. Labour is the only thing you can have a stock of at any time without paying for it. Everything else we have to pay for. I hope we shall defend this Bill with pride because it is an attempt to rectify a great wrong and an attempt to put Society on a just basis.
  MR. HUNT: The hon. Member for Northumberland earlier in the evening twitted the Unionists with not having the courage to vote against the Bill. I myself and I think most of my friends on this side will agree with me when I say the reason we do not vote against the Bill is that we have long believed that old-age pensions are right and ought to be given if they can be paid for; and, in the second place, after the experience of the last election I do not think we shall be very wise to give Gentlemen on the other side a real good handle for another very large inexactitude. These at all events are my reasons for not voting against the Bill. The Secretary for War the other day said the Bill was simple, effective, and desirable and that the country was baffled and bewildered by it. I suppose that is because it is so very simple. It effectively keeps out a great many people from having old-age pensions who are certainly quite as much entitled to them as the people who are going to have them. It is desirable to have old-age pensions for some people, but the Government have brought in the Bill in about the most undesirable way that they could. I have had letters from the great friendly societies in my division all protesting against it because it will do them a great deal of harm and discourage thrift. The schedule shows how it discourages thrift, because the more a man saves the less he gets from the Government—exactly the opposite of what it ought to be. Under the Bill a vast number of people living in poverty will be heavily taxed to provide old-age pensions. Then you have the 500,000 to 1,000,000 men mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, who are seeking work and not able to find it, and all the people who cannot get work through pllness and have to find food and drink for their families. Included amongst these is the hard case of widows who

  201
  are struggling to keep themselves and their families out of the workhouse. They will all be heavily taxed to provide old-age pensions for people who, in a certain number of cases, could very well manage to keep out of the workhouse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Manchester put the matter very plainly. He said—
  "You had better know what you are paying for. You know now you pay the duty on sugar, exactly what you are paying. Every penny of it goes into the Exchequer, and you will get it by-and-bye in old-age pensions."
  So you are making the poorest of the poor pay all their lives up to seventy in
  order to grant pensions to people who are in many cases better off than the people you are taxing.
  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th June, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day under the Order.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided.—Ayes, 315; Noes, 10. (Division List No. 182.)

  AYES.

  Abraham William (Cork, N.E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Agnew, George William

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

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

  Alden, Percy

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Armitage, R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Glover, Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cooper, G. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Gretton, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gulland, John W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crean, Eugene

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Barran Rowland Hirst

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Barry Redmond J. (Tyrone N.)

  Crooks, William

  Halpin, J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Beek A. Cecil

  Cullinan, J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bell, Richard

  Curran, Peter Francis

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

  Bellairs Carlyon

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harwood, George

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Boland, John

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Boulton, A. C. F.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hemmerde, Edwad George

  Branch, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brigg, John

  Dillon, John

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brooke Stopford

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hodge, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dunne Major E. Martin (Walsal)

  Hogan, Michael

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Byles, William Pollard

  Erskine, David C.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Cameron, Robert

  Essex R. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Hudson, Walter

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutton, Aflred Eddison

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Hyde Clarendon

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Idris T. H. W.

  Clough, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Jenkins, J.

  Collings. Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Gill, A. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sears, J. E.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Morse, L. L.

  Seddon, J.

  Kearley Sir Hudson E.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Shackleton, David James

  Kekewieh, Sir George

  Myer, Horatio

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Kelley, George D.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Nicholls, George

  Sheehy, David

  King Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Nicholson. Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Laidlaw Robert

  Nolan Joseph

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, George

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Lamont, Norman

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Smith,F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal W.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Snowden, P.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Dowd, John

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Grady, J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Strauss, K. A. (Abingdon)

  Lupton, Arnold

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

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

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Maclean, Donald

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tomkinsno, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, George

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Crae, Sir George

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Kean John

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Killop, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Manfleld, Harry (Northants)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Richardson, A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Meagher, Michael

  Robinson, S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Meehan, Francis E(Leitrim. N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Menzies, Walter

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Middlebrook, William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Williamson, A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Russell, T. W.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mond, A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  NOES.

  Banbury,Sir Frederick George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Bowles and Sir Henry Craik.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Cox, Harold

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF FIRTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Order for Second Beading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Order be discharged and Bill withdrawn."
*MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he thought that out of courtesy to the. Scottish Fishery Board the right hon. Gentleman might have given some reason for the extraordinary course which he had adopted on the present occasion. For many years past this particular oyster water had been, so far as the fishermen were concerned, a place which had not been used. He had never heard of anyone having exposed for sale oysters from this bed, the only occasions when fishermen went out for a few oysters being when people in the neighbourhood were giving dinner parties. Anything he had done in connection with this matter had been entirety in conjunction with the Fishery Board. He had cordially supported the Board, and he had pleasure in acknowledging that the Board had cordially supported him. The Board had seen that a very valuable industry might be prosecuted in that particular water. A great many years ago there were many oysters there, and a number of working men earned a fair living in catching oysters. Hon. Members from Ireland would have no difficulty in realising what this meant in a poor district, for there were many similar districts in that country where practically no wages were paid, and the whole population earned their living by their own exertions either off the land or off the sea. He considered that he was only doing his duty to his constituents in endeavouring
206
to fall in with the Fishery Board in this matter. If this Order had been passed, ten or twenty families would have been enabled to live in comfort, and that result would have' more than realised his wildest dreams. Though there had been gross exaggerations in regard to what would happen if the Order were passed, he was not going to occupy the time of the House in going into the opposition to the measure. He thought the Secretary for Scotland might have allowed the Order to go to the vote of the House, so that it might have been decided fairly and squarely without the employment of the Government Whips as Tellers. There was nothing more intolerable for a man in public life than to bear secret and underhand attacks not knowing from whom the attacks emanated. The Secretary for Scotland had been grossly misled by secret reports and opinions, which in common fairness to his Department he should have made known. The right hon. Gentleman had informed him in the Scottish Committee-rooms that a petition against the Provisional Order had been received from the burgh of Kirkwall. On making inquiries into this he found that there was no opposition from the Provost or high council of Kirkwall, or from any local authority in the whole constituency. At the Bill Office he found that the petition which purported to come from Kirkwall, and which misled the right hon. Gentleman, had come from, comparatively speaking, a handful of people whose signatures had been obtained no one on earth knew how. The Fishery Board, having applied for this Order, held an inquiry in Kirkwall, and the whole of the evidence against the Order given at the inquiry was of the most

207
flimsy and untrustworthy character. Practically not a single fisherman came forward to oppose the Order. One man who was at the place three times a year for oysters opposed the measure. The opposition came only from persons who occasionally fished oysters for their own amusement. The whole opposition had arisen from local jealousy. He was one of the promoters of the Bill, he admitted; but it was not of his own free will. He did not want to have anything to do with it, except to help an industry to be started, and to subscribe what he could afford for that end; but he agreed to back the Bill when it was represented to him that it would benefit the fishermen and help to re-establish a fishery which had once afforded employment in a district where some industries were much needed. Beyond that he had no interest in the Bill, and any profits to be derived from it were signed away by him to be devoted to the public good. He had been actuated wholly and solely for the public good of his constituency. He would have been glad if the Secretary for Scotland had not adopted the attitude he had taken. It would have been much easier if he had let the matter take its ordinary course and let the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil move the rejection of the Bill. He understood that the principal objection to the Bill was that this fishery should be under the control of the local authority, but the Government knew that the local authorities had declined to undertake this responsibility, and he himself had suggested to the Secretary that if the Order were granted and the local authorities desired to undertake the responsibilities the matter could be arranged on fair terms. The other evening they were condemn-
208
ing trawling in the most unmeasured language; but here was an industry which had been absolutely destroyed and made useless, and all they wanted to do was to restore that industry to enable something to be done for the fishermen. The local authority were frightened about taking it over as it might lead to an increase in the already heavy rates, and so they definitely declined. If one fraction of the allegations that had been made against him with regard to this matter had been true, he was not fit to sit in the House of Commons.
*MR. KEIRHARDIEasked if the hon. Gentleman insinuated that he had made any allegations against him personally.
*MR. CATHCART WASON: Certainly not; but owing to the course taken by the Secretary for Scotland in refusing to allow a free debate and free vote, he was prevented from answering the Member, and after all that had been said such a proceeding could not be justified.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said he only intervened for the purpose of suggesting to his hon. friend that debate on this subject might be avoided; and it was for that purpose that he had moved that the Order for the Second Reading should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. He could assure his hon. friend that he had in no sense whatever any desire to reflect upon his conduct. He was reflecting the general opinion of the House when he said that from no quarter had anyone heard any suggestion whatever which would lead to the idea

209
that the hon. Gentleman had throughout the whole matter acted other than from public-spirited motives, for which he had so honourable a record. The truth was that the opposition to the Bill had not come from any private consideration, but, so far as he was aware, was based entirely on public grounds. The procedure for the Provisional Order was taken under an old Act. He suggested that before taking this step the hon. Gentleman should ascertain whether there was a public authority willing to take the step which he and his colleagues proposed to undertake. Everybody knew a great effort was necessary to induce people to come forward and take up these matters, and that was one reason. Another reason that should further exonerate his hon. friend from any suspicion of interested motives was that these undertakings were most unprofitable. He asked the hon. Gentleman to allow the Bill to be withdrawn, and if no public authority came forward to undertake the public duty in connection with this fishery they would be satisfied, that no other course than that suggested by his hon. friend could be pursued.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEassociated himself with the right hon. Gentleman in all that had been said with regard to the hon. Member who had endeavoured to induce an uncommercial company to develop the oyster and mussel fisheries. In regard to the county councils it was true that some time ago the Fishery Board had communicated with the county councils, but the matter was never seriously discussed and nothing was done. Nothing was known to the people of the locality of any attemptt being made to interfere with the old time custom. For at least,
210
400 years small crofters, tradesmen fishermen, and others had had the right to fish in these waters for oysters. Forty-five years ago dredging was introduced and the oyster beds practically destroyed. From that time little fishing had been done. But evidence showed that the oyster beds were again improving. His hon. friend said that no evidence was given by fishermen against the Order, but the point was that no evidence was given for the Order except by the members of the syndicate, and their relatives. The Order proposed to hand over for sixty years eight square miles of water to a small syndicate, and during all that time the public who from time immemorial had a right to fish there for oysters and mussels and to gather bait were to be prohibited from doing so. The oyster beds had been improved by crofters and others, who in their spare time had taken as many as 300 oysters a day and placed them in these beds. One witness said he had planted 1,000 or 1,200 a year. He had taken up this matter to protect the right of these small fishermen and others and to give the public authority an opportunity to carry out a proper supervision of these beds and properly develop them as an oyster fishery. He had received petitions against this Order being passed from landowners, merchants, farmers, fishermen, magistrates and so on, all constituents of the hon. Member. He hoped therefore, the hon. Member and his supporters would not challenge a division, but would allow the course suggested to be taken so as to give the local authorities an opportunity to take the matter over and look after the Bay as a public service.
*MR. DUNDAS WHITEsaid that as one who had been an

211
opponent of this measure he hoped he might be allowed to associate himself in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in assuring his hon. friend the Member for Orkney that there was nothing whatever of a personal character in the opposition to the Bill. His opposition had been solely on account of the character and proposed terms of the Order, which it proposed to confirm. It would, of course, be out of place to discuss them that night, but if the question had arisen he would have had something to say about the proposed area being too large, about the monopoly for sixty years being too long, and he would have shown how in various ways the privileges of the undertakers were greater and the protection of the public interests less than in those Orders which were regarded as precedents. As, however, the Bill was being withdrawn, there was no occasion to do that, but he desired to take that opportunity of associating himself most heartily with the assurances which had been given to his hon. friend.
Order discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

SUPPLY [8TH JULY] REPORT.
Resolutions reported:—

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding; £167,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of
212
payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,334,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £868,800, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Half-pay and, Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £377,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
Resolutions read a second time.
First Resolution postponed.
Fourth Resolution to be considered upon Thursday next.
Postponed Resolution to be considered upon Thursday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Joseph Pease).
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Brancepeth (V. Boyne).—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a. Amendments made. — Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Camborne Water Bill.—Read 3a, and passed.
Manchester Corporation Bill; Burnley Corporation Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Stradbroke be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Monk Bretton; read, and agreed to.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Falkirk and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Falkirk and District Water. Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to

3
the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7); deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee. (No. 135.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Thirty-eighth Annual Report of the Deputy-Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1907.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  1. Scheme for a new teachers' registration council proposed to the Board of Education by the representatives of certain educational associations.
  2. Regulations for technical schools, schools of art, and other forms of provision of further education in England and Wales (from 1st August, 1908, to 31st, July, 1909).

  TRANSVAAL.
  Papers relating to the form of contract in use in connection with the recruitment of native labourers for the Transvaal mines in Portuguese East Africa.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  The Lord Leith of Fyvie discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee, and the Lord Dawnay (V. Downe) added to the Committee in his place.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  THRIFT AND CREDIT BANKS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD DENMANsaid the first Amendment standing in his name was of a drafting character, and he did not think
  4
  it would receive any opposition from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'having for its object,' and insert the words '(hereinafter referred to as a thrift and credit bank), whose rules provide that its object shall be.' "—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD WENLOCKsaid he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to amend Clause 1, which ran—
  "A society having for its object the creation, by means of the receipt of deposits and of borrowing moneys at interest, of funds to be lent out to the members of the society or for their benefit may (subject, to the provisions of this Act), on submitting to the chief registrar rules in conformity with the provisions of this Act, be certified by the chief registrar to carry on business as a thrift and credit bank within the area specified in such rules, and upon the grant of such a certificate the rules shall have effect accordingly."
  By leaving out all words from the word "benefit" to the end of the clause, and inserting the words—
  "Either alone or in conjunction with trading or co-operative principles may, on complying with the provisions of this Act, be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act)."
  As he had a number of Amendments on the Paper on behalf of the Treasury, he thought it would be for the convenience of their Lordships if he now explained the scope and objects of those Amendments.
  From a mere glance at the Amendments it might be supposed that the Government were endeavouring to follow the practice, not unknown during the last year or two in their Lordships' House, of wrecking a Bill by Amendments in the Committee stage after it had passed Second Reading. That was not their intention at all. They were just as anxious as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to encourage thrift and similar qualities, more particularly in agricultural districts where it was evident that the best results could be obtained from a Bill of this character. The Amendments, long though they were, really dealt with only one or two points. Before explaining exactly the bearing of

  5
  the Amendments he would state briefly the history and constitution of friendly societies. In the year 1905 the friendly societies and affiliated orders numbered 27,000 different bodies, with an aggregate membership of nearly 6,000,000 and accumulated funds amounting to £42,000,000. The societies had been of slow but steady growth, and had taken many years to reach these large dimension.
  More than 100 years had elapsed since the first legislation dealing with the subject was brought before Parliament. In the year 1793 the first Act of its kind was passed for raising separate funds for the mutual relief and maintenance of members in sickness, old age, and infirmity. By an Act passed in 1850 it was enacted that a society might be established for other objects, in particular for procuring for its members food, lodging, clothing, and other necessaries, by exercising and carrying on in common their respective trades and handicrafts. In this way the provisions in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act were introduced. Other Bills wore brought before Parliament and passed into law, until, in the year 1870, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question of the working of friendly societies. This Royal Commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary for the successful working of these societies that the two objects of banking and trading should be kept separate and distinct. The Commission reported in the year 1874, and in 1875 and 1876 Acts were passed which provided, on the one hand, for the friendly societies, and, on the other, for industrial and provident societies. Under the one banking operations and under the other trading operations could be performed, and since that time various Acts had been passed carefully keeping these two functions entirely distinct so far as the friendly societies were concerned.
  The Bill now before their Lordships would permit banking and trading to be carried out by the same society, which would reverse the practice and legislation of Parliament for over thirty years. He had always learned in their Lordships' House, and more particularly in Committee-rooms upstairs, that they must be very careful how legislation
  6
  of this character affected Acts of Parliament that already existed. Parliament had decided, after the most careful consideration and after the Report of a Royal Commission, not to permit friendly societies to perform banking and trading functions. The noble Lord made his Bill ancillary to the Friendly Societies Act, which would bring it into conflict with existing legislation, and the Government were not prepared to give their consent to this particular provision.
  The promoters of the Bill had a particular reason for making it ancillary to the Friendly Societies Act. Under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, whereby they could carry on trading, they could not obtain the provision of unlimited liability. What they desired to do was to bring this Bill under the Friendly Societies Act, so as to be enabled to introduce the principle of unlimited liability. That raised a very serious point and on behalf of the Treasury he had to say that they were not prepared to give their consent to that. There were obvious objections to the principle of unlimited liability—first, that people of moans would not be prepared to join such societies; secondly, that many people who had little or nothing to lose would join, because in any case they could not come to any harm. It was not very desirable that well-to-do people should abstain from joining, and people who had nothing at all to lose should form the bulk of the membership.
  It was better that there should be a definite liability so that people joining one of these societies would know exactly what liabilities they incurred. All might go well if the societies were carefully managed and times were ordinarily I prosperous, but supposing that they were badly managed, or we came on times of distress, not only might all the members be involved in ruin, but many other people would be affected as well. One of the promoters of the Bill had told him that the principle of unlimited liability was the keystone of the Bill. One of the results of the Bill in village life would be that if they induced people to join these societies they would not only encourage them, but would compel them, to pry into one another's affairs in order to

  7
  ascertain how each stood financially. He had always been given to understand that one of the drawbacks of village life in this country was that, if anything, people knew rather too much about their neighbours; but if this Bill became law that disadvantage would be accentuated.
  If a man of means were persuaded to pay, say, £5 into one of these banks in order to aid in starting its operations, that unfortunate person might have everything he possessed taken from him, under this Bill, to meet the bank's liabilities. If he were the only solvent person in the village, being a prudent man, he might resign his membership of the society; but under the Bill, he would be liable for twelve months after the date of his resignation for any debts of the society as they existed when his membership ceased; or if, worn out by the system of espionage which appeared to be contemplated, and by the knowledge that the society was working badly, he broke down and died, his estate would be liable for a year for the debts of the society as they existed at the time of his decease. He thought such provisions were entirely without precedent in an Act of Parliament.
  Some noble Lords might remember the terrible ruin which, in certain cases, was brought about as a result of the principle of unlimited liability—the ruin of the Glasgow bank was a well-known example. Surely their Lordships should hesitate before accepting such a principle as that. He would put it to the noble Viscount on the Front Opposition Bench, Lord St. Aldwyn, whether, if he were still controlling the affairs of the Treasury, he would find it possible to give his assent to such a provision being passed into law. One of the able gentlemen, acting with Lord Wenlock in this matter had represented that if his (Lord Denman's) Amendments were carried it would be a fatal blow to the Bill. He had, accordingly, arranged a meeting, at which the registrar of friendly societies and an official of the Treasury were present, to consider if compromise were possible in regard to the Bill, and the conclusion arrived at was that it was not possible. The main question was whether the Committee were prepared
  8
  to accept the principle of unlimited liability.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word benefit' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words 'either alone or in conjunction, with trading on co-operative principles may, on complying with the provisions of this Act, be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. 1893 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act).' "—(Lord Denman.)
  *LORD WENLOCKsaid he had heard with much surprise that noble Lords on the Ministerial side of the House deprecated legislation which was likely to run counter to the existing law of the land. This Bill was an attempt to burst the bonds of red tape with which small societies were hampered, and to place them in a position similar to that in which more than 20,000 societies were working with advantage in different parts of the world. Under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act they would not be able to carry on their work. They could only proceed on the lines indicated in the Bill. The noble Lord had drawn a very harrowing picture of what he thought might occur; but the experience of the 20,000 societies to which he had referred showed that his fears were unfounded. His noble friend the ex-Viceroy of India introduced an Act upon similar lines for the benefit of the ryots of India, and, although it had been in existence only about three years, the measure was doing incalculable good. The Bill would prove beneficial in the United Kingdom, especially in Ireland. The principle of unlimited liability, as described by the noble Lord opposite, might present a doubtful appearance; but the Bill provided that the members of a society, at their annual general meeting, should fix the amount of liability, i.e. the maximum about to be lent out by their society in any one year, as well as the maximum sum lent to each individual. The system had worked with such great advantage elsewhere that he was told that there was not a single shilling in default in any of the 20,000 societies which he had mentioned. The system had been found to do good in Germany and other parts of Europe, and in certain parts of the East. He strongly opposed the Amendment, and had no hesitation whatever in saying that it would be

  9
  perfectly impossible to carry on these societies except on the lines indicated in the Bill.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Lord in moving the Amendment hail appealed so directly to him on this matter that he felt bound to trouble their Lordships with a few observations, although he had not prepared himself, as he would have wished, with regard to this somewhat complicated and difficult subject. He did not happen to be present in their Lordships' House on the occasion of the Second Reading, and his attention had only just been directed to the Bill. Therefore he had not been able to go into the details of the question or consider much of the matter which Lord Denman had very clearly presented to their Lordships.
  He thought his noble friend in charge of the Bill had some reason to complain of the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. What were the words with which the noble Earl the Leader of the House greeted this Bill on Second Reading? The noble Earl said—
  "We quite agree as to the great benefits which may accrue from the formation of credit banks for agricultural purposes such as those favoured by my noble friend, and therefore we cordially assent to the Second Reading while reserving such criticisms as we think necessary for the Committee stage."
  Could it have been anticipated that those words indicated the amount of opposition which was now offered on behalf of the Government? The noble Lord had attacked root and branch what lie understood to be the principle of the measure. In fact, his noble friend who had introduced it went so far as to say that unless this principle could be accepted the Bill would not be proceeded with. Surely that was a matter which should have been discussed and dealt with on Second Reading rather than by an Amendment moved in Committee. But he was impressed by what the noble Lord opposite had said as to the possible mischiefs of unlimited liability. The unlimited liability which his noble friend desired to establish was, he understood, the unlimited liability, not of those who borrowed money from these societies, but of the members who were liable for the
  10
  debts of the societies. That might become, as Lord Denman had pointed out, a very serious matter indeed for such members. With regard to banks generally throughout the country, everybody now felt that limited liability was the proper principle on which banking should be conducted. It was quite true that for thirty years or more Parliament had drawn a great distinction between the powers of industrial and provident societies and those of friendly societies, and had prevented friendly societies from entering upon trading or banking functions; and he thought everybody who was interested in friendly societies would feel that they ought not to enter upon such objects. But the question before the Committee was whether this particular class of banks should he allowed the unlimited liability which his noble friend sought to establish on their behalf. These societies, as his noble friend had said, did exist in large numbers already, and, so far as he knew, they were proceeding very prosperously and with great benefit to many persons. Sir Horace Plunkett had taken a great part in establishing societies of this kind in Ireland, and he believed noble Lords from Ireland would say that much good had been done in that country by the working of these societies. He understood that they were worked now under the principle of limited liability, and what this Bill would do would be to extend that to unlimited liability. They were told that the societies could not continue their work on the principle of limited, liability. As to whether that was so or not, he was not prepared to say.
  He hardly knew what to advise his noble friend to do in the position created by the action of the Government. He felt, on the one hand, that limited liability was the right principle. On the other hand, he would be very sorry to do anything that would check the growth and successful working of these societies. There was not, however, the scope for the operations of these societies in Great Britain that there was in Ireland. No country in the world could compare with Great Britain for banking facilities; there were fewer such facilities in Ireland, and therefore it was that these societies had been established and worked successfully

  11
  there rather than in Great Britain. Whether it was in the circumstances worth while to press the matter to a division was for his noble friend to decide.
  LORD WENLOCKinquired whether he correctly understood the noble Viscount to say that the societies in Ireland were worked now under the principle of limited liability.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was not personally acquainted with their working, but he believed they were worked at present on the principle of limited liability.
  LORD WENLOCKsaid the societies in question had been working for fourteen years under the Friendly Societies Act with unlimited liability.
  LORD AVEBURYwas in much the same position as the noble Viscount who had just spoken. He was under the impression that His Majesty's Government were satisfied generally with the Bill, and that the Amendments they intended To introduce would be merely of a drafting character. At the wane time he had been very much impressed by the arguments brought forward by Lord Denman, and could not help feeling that there was great force in what the noble Lord had said. The general tendency in banking legislation had been from unlimited to limited liability, and that was felt on the whole to be very healthy. He would be very glad to see the Bill come into operation, but he did not quite understand why the change from unlimited liability to limited liability should be regarded as fatal to the Bill. Perhaps his noble friend would be good enough to explain why he had so much opposition to the Amendment now proposed by the Government, which, prima facie, seemed to have very much to recommend it.
  LORD WENLOCKsaid the reason which had actuated the promoters of the Bill in favour of unlimited liability was that the societies which had been started in Austria, Hungary, and Germany on the principle of the limited
  12
  liability of the members had broken down and failed completely. If the Amendment were carried the promoters would be obliged to drop the Bill, because they felt that if such a condition were imposed upon them, it would make it impossible for these banks to be conducted with success.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am disposed to accept with some humility the mild chastisement which the noble Viscount inflicted upon His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. It is perfectly true that on the occasion of the Second Reading I did express warm sympathy with the objects of my noble friend opposite. I have always taken an interest in this question, and I recognise that these credit banks would, under certain circumstances, be of no small convenience in, at any rate, the rural parts of the United Kingdom.
  I quite admit also that the present banking facilities, large as they are, do not in every case meet the needs of those districts. That. I think, has particularly been the case since the very wide substitution of joint stock banks for private banks. Private bankers in the country were more used to make small loans to small people on the strength of character rather than of financial stability than is the case with the joint stock banks by which they have been so largely superseded. So far, I fully admit that part of my noble friend's case. I very much regret that some conference did not take place before instead of after the Second Reading, between my noble friend and those who act with him and the Treasury. I think it would have been altogether more satisfactory.
  It was hoped that some modus vivendi might have been reached on this matter, but it certainly does appear from what my noble friend behind me has said that, as matters stand, that is not possible. I can only suggest that, as the Treasury, before whom we all bow, are inexorably opposed to this particular provision in the Bill, the matter must stand aside for further consideration. I cannot see that it would be of any advantage to

  13
  my noble friend to proceed with the Bill this session. If we can devise home means, whether by a Committee or some other procedure, for a closer consideration of the merits and demerits of his particular proposal, I hope we may be able to arrive at some agreement. But, in the absence of agreement on this particular point—a point which I do not propose to argue at this moment—it seems to me that my noble friend would really gain nothing by proceeding further with his Bill at this moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that my noble friend who has charge of this Bill would do well to accept the suggestion which has just fallen from the Leader of the House. It seems to me to be clearly a case where it is absolutely necessary that the matter should stand aside, to use the noble Earl's phrase, for further consideration. For what has happened? As has already been pointed out when this Bill came up for Second Reading it was received with very general encouragement by His Majesty's Government. The expression of the noble Earl who leads the House was that he gave his cordial consent to the Second Reading of the Bill, but that he desired to reserve certain criticisms for the Committee stage. I ask your Lordships to look at the Bill by the side of the Amendments tabled by Lord Denman. Omitting the interpretation clause and the short title, the Bill consists of eleven clauses. The noble Lord who represents the Government proposes to strike out no less than nine of these eleven, leaving only Clause 1 and 2, in which he proposes to make very considerable alterations. Such a process of restoration leaves uncommonly little of the original work of art, and I cannot help thinking that the only course open to your Lordships is to adjourn this discussion, and that my noble friend who has charge of the Bill should consider, perhaps after some such conference as was suggested by the noble Earl opposite, what further course he should take.
  LORD WENLOCKsaid that, after what had fallen from the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition and other
  14
  speakers, he was quite prepared to adjourn the discussion.
  Debate adjourned accordingly, and House resumed.

LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Herschell.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before we absolutely part from this Bill I should like to make a few observations in regard to the history of it, both before its arrival in this House and during its passage through this House. I venture to think that your Lordships' House has grave reason to complain of the whole course of action taken in regard to this measure by His Majesty's Government. It was first, I think, put forward mainly to get rid of the alleged grievance resulting from the undue holding up of land supposed to be ripe for building. But it contained a very great deal which went far beyond what was necessary for achieving that, in my humble opinion, laudable object.
I am satisfied in my own mind—I cannot, of course, state it with absolute certainty, but that is how it looks according to the evidence—that the underlying object m the minds, at any rate, of some members of His Majesty's Government was either to commit this House to the acceptance of very far-reaching principles in the matter of reform of taxation, or else to use the rejection of this Bill as a counter in the game of agitation against your Lordships' House, an agitation which had somewhat more prominence given to it last year than during the present year. I venture to say that the whole subject of local taxation, and in that I include our whole system of taxation upon land, is one which is second to none in importance; but it is a most intricate and difficult subject and demanded most careful and almost judicial treatment. But from the first, from the moment when the Bill was introduced, members of His Majesty's Government

15
spoke with very different voices in regard to the objects that were being aimed at.
As at first introduced, it was, in my humble opinion, one of the most crude and ill-considered Bills that have ever been thrown on the Table of either House of Parliament. It was amended, with very inadequate discussion, during its passage through the other House in the small hours of the morning, and it reached this House last year in the concluding hours of the session. Your Lordships, under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Robertson, refused to accept the Second Reading of the Bill last year; and, in my humble opinion, the House was amply justified in taking that course. That was not, at any rate, the view last year of the late Prime Minister, because, in addressing a meeting of his supporters on 5th October in Edinburgh, he placed this Bill and the Small Holdings Bill in the very forefront of the effort to raise an outcry against the constitutional exercise by this House of its legislative functions.
The words of the late Prime Minister, speaking in October, were these—
"The Land Values Bill, which did no more than throw upon the local authorities the simple duty of valuing the land apart from the buildings upon its surface, was incontinently rejected, and I say this rejection was a piece of arrogance and high-handedness which marks the extreme pretensions of the House of Lords."
That was at the commencement of the autumn campaign. Whether that agitation realised all the anticipations of noble Lords opposite is a matter for them to consider; but on 12th February this year the Prime Minister had rather changed his view. Speaking then in the House of Commons he said—
"It is to gratify Lord Lansdowne's view that there was no precedent for passing such a Bill within twenty-four hours of the Prorogation, which I admit is a reasonable one, that we re-introduce both of these Bills in the earliest days of the session."
If our action last year having regard to the circumstances under which it was taken was reasonable, it would have been more dignified—I think, also, more wiseo—to have said so in October at Edinburgh rather than have waited till the end of the agitation.
The Bill came back to your Lordships in exactly the same form as that in which
16
this House rejected it last year; but in the meantime, in the course of the agitation which was pursued in the recess against this House, the Bill was held up in the country as an enormous reform, as a great alteration of the whole basis on which local taxation was to be imposed; and it was promised over and over again in definite words, by more than one member of the Government that all the rates were to go upon the land as valued under the provisions of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill for valuing land a e in my humble opinion, open to a good deal of the animadversion which was passed upon them by Lord Stanley of Alderley, who spoke upon the Report stage; and I venture to say that the idea of putting all the rates in Scotland, both of the owner and the occupier — that was stated in terms—upon land values as defined by this Bill could only be adequately described, as it was described by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the moment his attention was called to it, as—
"the most unmitigated nonsense."
It is because of these very different versions of the Bill that I think this House has grave reason to complain of the course which has been taken in regard to it.
There remains the point of the substitution of capital value for annual value as the basis of valuation and of subsequent taxation. No one can deny that that is a wholly new idea; nor can it be denied that, so far as our existing system of valuation is concerned, it is an absolute revolution. I will not labour this point. But in England, from the time of the Act of Elizabeth, the criterion of valuation was what the hypothetical tenant would give, and in Scotland tin; annual rent, if that annual rent was fixed for not more than twenty-one years; and in both these cases the object in view was to test, however roughly, the ability of those interested in the subject to be rated. I put it to the House, and I state fearlessly that there has never been any adequate discussion, either in Parliament or in the country, by a Commission or other form of inquiry, in which this proposal to substitute capital for annual value has been threshed

17
out in all its bearings; and I venture most respectfully, but as strongly as I can, to say that capital value cannot possibly afford any such criterion of the ability of the owner to bear taxation.
If it is the case that the land can be let with a covenant for immediate building, it is immaterial which basis is chosen; but it land which is not ripe for immediate building and has only a prospective value were to be rated on capital value it would not only mean an immensely heavier burden, but it would very soon have the effect of rating all the value out of the subject altogether. Capital value, however you ascertain it, and a percentage taken upon it, would give, and must give, a result far in excess of the real annual value. I should have thought it was a commonplace in economical discussion that taxation which falls on capital in the strict sense must, diminish the sum of the community's wealth, and that if you use capital value of property as the basis of taxation you cannot avoid trenching on the accumulated resources of the nation; and I suggest, as a second difficulty, that capital value is not really a fair test as between owner and owner, because some forms of capital give to the owner a much lower return than other forms. If you are to gauge for local purposes fairly, as between men and man, his ability to bear taxation, you must do it mainly on what he puts into his pocket and not on what it is supposed he owns. You have relieved—and, as I think, rightly relieved—personal property and stock - in - trade from local rates; but if you have relieved that form of capital value, surely it is an aggravation of the injustice to rate land on its capital value and to rate it alone amongst all the subjects which are now liable to rating.
I certainly acquit those members of His Majesty's Government who have spoken for themselves in this House of any complicity with the doctrines of the late Mr. Henry George, but beyond all question some friends of the Government accept, those principles and have avowed their intention of rating and taxing landlords out of existence. I venture to say that if we had accepted this Bill as it was brought
18
to this House it would have been pleaded against us, with more less force, that we had in fact gone some way in accepting those doctrines. What is the use of ascertaining capital value if you are not going to rate, upon it? If you are going to rate upon it you are accepting those principles, while if you are not going to rate upon it you are putting a great burden upon the local authorities to ascertain that which is to be turned to no real account. Rating on capital value would be one of the surest means of affording the opportunity to those to whom I have alluded of carrying out their object.
I venture to say that if we are to go forward on this path, if we are ever to change the basis of local rating from annual to capital value, it should be done only after the fullest, fairest, and frankest discussion, and on the responsibility of the Government as a whole, speaking with one voice, after taking Parliament fairly and fully into their confidence and after laying the whole of their scheme before Parliament. An endeavour should not be made in this fragmentary form to commit us to principles which, in my opinion, would be most mischievous, and would aggravate any injustice and unfairness in the system of local taxation as it exists at the present time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, your Lordships might think it disrespectful on my part to the noble Lord who has just spoken if I said nothing in answer to his criticisms, and I should be very sorry to be thought to show him any disrespect. But I think I should lie regarded as tedious if I were to enter again into the subject of capital as against annual value. The Bill has been discussed at every stage during two successive years, and I think we have got about as far as we can get. I hope, therefore, I may be excused if I observe some brevity.
The noble Lord again seems to think that I rest my defence of this Bill solely on the ground that some land is held up. I will not say more than this, that I have repeatedly disclaimed that restriction. The second point which the noble Lord made was that rating ought not to be upon capital value but upon annual value. In one sense the two things may be the

19
same. As my noble friend Lord Crewe has pointed out, you can always ascertain the capital value by multiplying the annual value by so many years purchase. Similarly you can always deduce from the capital value what the annual value would be by assuming that a certain percentage fairly represents a proper percentage on the capital. If you give me the true value, that which would be given in the open market to-morrow, I do not care whether it is put in the form of capital or annual value. Therefore it is, if I may say so, to elude the whole point of the distinction to dwell simply upon the difference between capital and annual value. The annual value as we now know it represents the annual value of the use. The use governs the value, and that is what I think is unfair to the other ratepayers.
The noble Lord had two apprehensions. He seemed to think that the Bill constituted an attempt to induce this House in some subtle way, without knowing it, to assent to the principles of the late Mr. Henry George. My Lords, we should be bold men indeed, if we thought we could make any approach towards the principles of Henry George by any amount of persuasion in your Lordships' House. For my part I have no sympathy at all—I have already expressed my view—with the doctrine of transferring all rates to the land. Then the noble Lord seemed to think we were animated by another motive—that of finding some ammunition for the purpose of fighting your Lordships' House on this Bill. I may say, frankly, that I think this Government has not been very handsomely treated by your Lordships' House; but, at the same time, is it not possible to suppose that the public interest and the desire to remedy a grievance, the existence of which has been admitted by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in the course of these debates, may have had something to do with the introduction of this Bill?
The real truth is that the Bill imposes no taxation whatever. It is a Bill which proposes to have a valuation of site value as opposed to that of the buildings upon it, and the Amendment which was supported by the whole of your Lordships on the Opposition side of the House accepted that principle. After all, His Majesty's Government represent the people of this
20
country for the time being, however unworthily, and is it not fair—I hope your Lordships will excuse a certain amount of frankness on my part on this subject—is it not fair that you should look at our Bills and assume that it is just possible that we may have some fair object in view and not an ulterior one? We feel that we are not credited with having any good intention in regard to legislation that we bring forward in your Lordships' House; but I will say no more about it.
We have had enough discussion already upon this Bill to show that the subject is of itself extremely difficult and complicated. No one knows that better than the noble Lord himself, for he was the chairman of the Royal Commission which investigated the matter. Judging from the inexplicable criticisms that I see in the newspapers and also, if I may say so, that I hear in debate, I think that the subject has not yet been thought out by a good many people who oppose it. What is at the bottom of this Bill is fair play to all the ratepayers and not robbery of anybody. The Amendments your Lordships have introduced are such as I am afraid make the Bill one which cannot possibly work if passed, and which has very little prospect of passing at all. All we can do is to put forward our proposals, and if they are rejected by your Lordship's House to commend them to the sense of the country.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Beading read.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My, Lords, the object of this Bill, briefly, is to ensure that representatives of the Press shall be allowed to attend meetings of local authorities unless such attendance is contrary to the public interest in a particular instance. The Bill comes up from another place, where one or two small objections that were made to its provisions were met by those who drafted it; and I am informed that the only alterations suggested by the County Councils Association and the Municipal

21
Corporations Association were agreed to and embodied in the Bill. The Bill, therefore, left another place, I think I may say, practically an agreed measure.
Reporters have attended meetings of local authorities hitherto practically without exception; but in the case of the Tenby Corporation and Mason a decision was given, which I have no doubt was perfectly correct in law, but which Came as a great surprise to everybody having experience in this matter. That decision lays it down that the Press attend all meetings of local authorities practically on sufferance. The decision, I understand, really goes a great deal further than that, because it lays down not only that the Press attend meetings of local authorities on sufferance, but that individual members of the Press also attend such meetings on sufferance. That is to say that if a representative of a particular paper or the particular representative of a paper is in any way objectionable to the majority of the local authority, it is within their power absolutely to exclude him. Obviously the particular reporter or newspaper which the majority would object to most would be the reporter or newspaper representing the views of the minority; and therefore, if this recent decision were carried to its logical conclusion, it would be in the power of every local authority to get rid of its most active critic, and, in fact, absolutely to silence all criticism reaching the eyes and ears of the public.
I submit to your Lordships that it is not at all desirable that such a state of things should be allowed to continue, and that it is in the public interest that publicity should be secured in all cases without question. There are legislative precedents for a proposal such as this, though the most important precedent that I am able to quote goes a great deal further than we desire to go in the present Bill. In Ireland, by Clause 15 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, it is absolutely impossible to exclude representatives of the Press without the assent of the Local Government Board. No resolution of any council or board to exclude from its meetings the representatives of the Press is valid without the sanction of the Local Government Board. We do not suggest anything so drastic in this Bill. There is another indirect legislative precedent which, I think,
22
should be quoted. I am informed that the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act, 1888, provides that a fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a local authority shall be privileged unless actual malice is proved. I think, therefore, it was undoubtedly in the mind of the Legislature that the meetings of local authorities should be open to the public.
But I do not desire to recommend this Bill to your Lordships' acceptance solely on the ground of narrow legislative precedents. I claim rather that it is obviously wise that publicity should obtain at all meetings of local authorities. Their duties are being increased every day, and public interest in their doings is at the same time also extending. They control vast expenditure, almost as large as, if not greater than, that which Parliament itself controls. For one hundred years Parliament has insisted on the publicity of its proceedings, and I think he would be a very bold Leader of your Lordships' House or of the other House who would suggest that one of the Houses of Parliament should sit in camera. It is practically established now, by custom, that the proceedings of Parliament are public, and I see no reason whoa similar provision should not be extended to local parliaments. That is really the case for the Bill.
The Bill, as I say, does nothing more than establish what everybody believed to be the law until very recently, and, what I believe is absolutely desirable in the public interest. I stated just now that the Bill does not go as far as the Irish precedent which I quoted, and a perusal of the first clause of the Bill will show that this is so.
Clause 1 states that—
"Representatives of the Press shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority."
But it gives power to a local authority to exclude temporarily such representatives from the meeting when, in the opinion of a majority of the members, it is desirable to do so in view of the special nature of the business. Your Lordships will have noticed that in Ireland we are unable to exclude the Press without going to the Local Government Board. Under the provisions of this Bill, which applies to England, Scotland, and Wales, it will be

23
possible to exclude representatives of the Press whenever, in the opinion of a majority of the members of the local authority, it is desirable to do so in view of the particular business to be discussed. The Bill, as originally drawn, provided that it should be necessary to have a majority of two-thirds of the members present at the meeting in order to put this power in force; but the representatives of the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association desired that this should be reduced to a bare majority, and the promoters of the Bill met that suggestion. I am informed that this was the only suggestion for an amendment of the Bill that was made by those authorities during its passage through the House of Commons.
The second subsection of Clause 1 enacts that any local authority may make regulations as to the accommodation to be provided for representatives of the Press, and the manner in which the same is to be allotted. The reason for that, I think, is to meet particularly the case of the London County Council. It is felt that the London County Council may not have accommodation for all the representatives of the Press who may desire to attend, and therefore power is given to make regulations in order to deal with the accommodation in the hands of the council. Words are inserted at the end of the subsection to the effect that the representatives of a particular newspaper are not to be excluded because of its opinions, or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper or through the agency of such representatives, this provision being necessary in view of what happened in the Tenby case. It is obviously a fair safeguard that there should be an appeal on the part of any newspaper that feels aggrieved as the result of any procedure under these regulations, and that power of appeal is given in subsection (3) of Clause 1. Subsection (4) is consequential.
Clause 2 deals with definitions. I would characterise them generally by saying that their principle is that all authorities which have spending powers are brought within the provisions of the Bill. There is one exception—Education Committees. I think your Lordships will agree that since the Act of 1902 the Education Committee is in a very special
24
meetings. Committee meetings are in no way interfered with. They will continue, as now, closed to the public, but there is nothing to prevent them sitting in public if they desire to do so. The fifth clause contains the application of the Bill to Scotland, and Clause 6 exempts it from extending to Ireland, where, as I have informed your Lordships, more stringent provisions are already in force. I believe the Bill to be necessary in the public interest, and I trust your Lordships will be willing to read it a Second Time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I merely rise to intimate that His Majesty's Government support this Bill. I do not think it is necessary that I should say anything further, as the noble Earl has gone fully through the various Clauses and explained them to your Lordships as far as explanation was necessary. I quite agree with all that has been said by the noble Earl, and I have to state, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they are of opinion that publicity should be given to all local affairs. Increased public interest is now taken in the work of the local authorities, and it is only fair that full reports of the meetings of those authorities should be available to the ratepayers and those who are concerned with the administration of local business. This Bill was originally introduced, as Lord Donoughmore has explained, in consequence of a decision of the Courts in the case of the Tenby Corporation and Mason, and, at the instance of the Local Government Board, who have looked very carefully into the Bill, it has been amended in Committee in another place in several particulars. The Local Government Board desire to support the Bill as amended.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am not acquainted with the history of this Bill in another place, and I merely take it as it is presented to your Lordships. It is a Bill to provide for the admission of representatives of the Press to the meetings of all local authorities, and it gives the Press practically an absolute right to be present at every meeting of a local authority which has spending powers, to adopt the short description given by the noble Earl in

25
moving the Bill. We are all in favour of publicity; but has there been any want of publicity hitherto? We are all in favour of publicity being given, for instance, to the proceedings of this House, but I am not aware of any law giving the Press the right to come here.
The third subsection of Clause 1 provides that if any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by the accommodation provided for him he may appeal to the Local Government Board. Take the case of the official reporter in your Lordships' House. If he represented the Press and were to object to his accommodation, is he to have a right to appeal to the Local Government Board to find for him a seat which will suit his convenience better than that which is provided for him by this House? Surely, in a matter of this sort we may trust the local authorities. I am sure your Lordships will be of opinion that legislation is not only undesirable, but absolutely harmful, unless it is necessary. Now, where is the necessity for this Bill? The noble Lord has indicated none. It seems that in some particular case the representative of a particular paper was excluded. He went to law, and found that he had no absolute right to be present. We do not know all the circumstances under which this gentleman may have been excluded. But why are we to assume that in this particular case the local authority was wrong and the representative of the Press in the right? Why should we make a law saving that in all circumstances this gentleman or any representative of the Press is to have a right to be present?
The Bill, in the first subsection of Clause 1, provides that—
"Representatives of the Press shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority."
In the first place, who are the Press? The fourth subsection of Clause 1 states that—
"On receiving a written request from the Editor or the local representative of any newspaper, the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of the meetings of the local authority to the office of such newspaper or to such local representative."
Therefore, I suppose that by the Press the Bill means any representative of any newspaper whatsoever. There is nothing to define who the Press are. I do not
26
see that any special necessity has been proved why a representative of the Press should have a law made in his favour any more than other members of the public. According to subsection (1) representatives of the Press are to be admitted to the meetings of every local authority, but, on the other hand, the local authority is empowered to—
"temporarily exclude such representatives."
What does "temporarily" mean? Whenever they choose, I suppose. If that be so, the proviso contradicts the beginning of the clause.
When you come to subsection (2) you find that any local authority may make regulations as to the accommodation to be provided for representatives of the Press. I apprehend that that means that they are to make regulations for accommodating the Press.
Then it is provided, as I have said, that—
"If any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by any such regulations made as aforesaid, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Board may order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations …"
Has not the Local Government Board enough to do as it is without going into these small matters? The provision which I have read, that on receiving a written request from the editor or local representative of any newspaper the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of meetings of the local authority, means that if anybody starts a newspaper—it does not matter what circulation it has, or whether it has any circulation—he has merely to write to the clerk of the authority, and this official is required by the Bill to send due notice to all the meetings of the local authority.
I venture to submit that the Bill has not been thoroughly considered. I suppose it is a private Member's Bill, though I was very sorry to hear my noble friend opposite say that the Government approved of it. My attention was not directed to the Bill until it was too late to give notice of an Amendment on the Second Reading; but, if your Lordships support me, I shall move the adjournment of the debate with the intention, when it is resumed, of moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, as the noble Earl in his opening remarks referred to the County Councils Association. I think it would be as well that I should explain exactly what their position is with regard to this Bill. As far as my own view and that of the Association are concerned, the Bill is wholly unnecessary. Every county council, I believe, admits the Press under proper regulations, and has the power which this Bill properly gives of excluding the Press when there is any matter to be discussed which it is not desirable should be published in the newspapers. That being the case the County Councils Association took the view that, as long as the provisions of the Bill were brought into conformity with the present practice of the county councils, they would not oppose it. As my noble friend Lord Donoughmore said, the first clause of the Bill was altered in conformity with amendments moved on behalf of the County Councils Association. We thought that a county council should have power to exclude the Press by an ordinary vote, and that it was absurd to bring in a two-thirds majority on a matter of this kind.
There is one provision in the Bill of which we do not approve—that contained in subsection (3) of Clause 1, which says that if any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by the regulations which are made by a county council for the accommodation of the Press he may appeal to the Local Government Board. That, I think, is wholly unnecessary, and certainly the words that succeed that provision are wholly unsuitable. The local authority are not to be consulted and asked their views; but the Local Government Board may—
"Order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations in such a manner as they may think fit, and no regulations in so far as they are so varied or altered shall be subsequently varied or rescinded by the local authority without the consent of the Board."
Is it not a little too much in the direction of centralisation for the Local Government Board to step in and tell a county conucil or a small authority at the other end of England what arrangements they should make for the accommodation of the Press? The Board cannot know the accommodation available in the place
28
of meeting, and if it is going to busy itself with these small details, it will soon overburden itself. If the Bill receives a Second Reading I shall move, either that the subsection be left out altogether, or that it be considerably amended.
It seems also rather strong that the clerk of the county council should be ordered by statute to send notices of all meetings to any newspaper anywhere in the kingdom who chooses to apply for them. It would be impossible for that subsection to be carried out if an attempt were made to enforce it unreasonably. As far as I know this is the first time that there has been a differentiation between the Press and the public. Hitherto if the public were excluded the Press went out with them, and it is a new departure to legislate specially for the Press and to exclude all reference to the public. I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but I Certainly shall oppose it if subsection (3) is retained.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill may ultimately have the beneficial effects which my noble friend hopes, but, as far as I am concerned, I fail to see that it will make any practical change. The object of the Bill is presumably to force on a recalcitrant local authority the presence of any gentleman representing the Press who wishes to attend the meetings; but in subsection (1) it is provided that any local authority may temporarily exclude any such representative if it considers it advisable in the public interest. Surely it follows that any local authority which objected to the presence of reporters would inevitably contend that it was contrary to the public interest that they should be present. Therefore how do you improve the position by passing the Bill in its present form?
*LORD HAVERSHAM: MY Lords, I only rise to emphasise the point which was so well put by Lord Camperdown and Lord Belper with regard to subsection (4) of Clause 1. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see that it is impossible that the House should deliberately put on the clerks to the local authorities the enormous duty of supplying newspapers with notices of meetings. Not merely are the meetings of the authority referred to, but also

29
those of the committees to be sent to the newspapers, and I think we ought to hesitate before placing such a duty upon these officials in this light manner. Personally I cannot see what the object of the Bill is. I have been a member of a local board in London, and there has never been any question of the Press being admitted. I see no rational reason for the Bill, but I see many reasons why we should change subsection (4) and other subsections.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think it will be quite clear to my noble friend in charge of the Bill that a good many points will have to be considered if the House should decide to go into Committee on the Bill. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I think the Bill is right in principle, because there has been a legal decision that the Press are not entitled to admission, and I think there is every reason for due publicity of the proceedings of local bodies such as are named in the Bill.
But, on the other hand, while the Bill takes very good care to provide for that, it does nothing whatever to provide for what I am afraid is very possible—misconduct on the part of the Press. Your Lordships have heard, and some may have had experience, of cases in which representatives of the Press have asked for an interview, and on being denied an interview have promptly proceeded to invent one for the benefit of their newspaper. I can recall several cases during the time I was responsible for Irish administration in which meetings which had never taken place at all were reported at full length. I am afraid that in these days of what is called newspaper enterprise we must consider that some newspapers, at all events, may be capable of abusing the privilege granted to them.
What is the position in such a case that this Bill would establish? Under subsection (2) of Clause 1—
"No. … regulations shall enable.… local authorities to exclude the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of its opinions, or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper or through the agency of such representatives."
30
I should be very sorry to exclude any representative on the ground of the opinions of his paper or of its comments on the proceedings of the local authority; but if a newspaper deliberately reports the proceedings falsely or publishes documents that should be confidential, there ought to be some punishment in the form of the exclusion of such representative in the future. I hope that His Majesty's Government, who support the principle of the Bill, will be prepared to deal with that point in Committee if the Bill proceeds.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the House will agree to read the Bill a second time. I quite admit that there may be points that will require careful consideration in Committee. As regards what Lord Newton said as to the object of the Bill being nullified by the provision in subsection 1 of Clause 1 in regard to temporary exclusion, I think if the noble Lord will look at that again he will see that it has to be rather a solemn and formal performance in respect of a particular subject, and it would be impossible to suppose that under that all representatives of the Press could be permanently and every day excluded from the meetings of the local authority. I think the real necessity for the measure consists in the fact of the recent legal decision. It is a very serious matter that it should be laid down by the Courts of Law that all the proceedings of all local bodies can, if so desired, be carried on in camera; and on that ground we certainly support the principle of the Bill. As to the provision relating to the issue of notices, that might very properly, in my opinion, be submitted to some consideration. It seems to me to be rather loosely drawn, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl opposite will consider that point. So far as the county councils are concerned, I very much doubt whether ally measure of this kind is necessary at all, but there are far more numerous local authorities where I can understand that some difficulty might arise.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I hope we shall not be misled by the continuous repetition of the necessity for publicity. What do we mean by publicity? Lord St. Aldwyn

31
has told us that the admission of the Press very often leads to misrepresentation. Is misrepresentation publicity? If you want to secure publicity by law, then you must have official reporters who are responsible to some authority. It is no use admitting the Press; everybody knows perfectly well the result of that where local authorities are concerned. Discussions by local authorities are not generally of wide interest, and the result is that they are very sparsely reported unless somebody forgets himself and says something that he ought not to say. That never happens in county councils, but sometimes in municipal borough councils one of the hon. members calls another hon. member a liar and there is a row. That is reported at the greatest length, and that is the value of publicity. I think that it is a most monstrous thing that we should be asked in this country for the first time—we are told that it is so in Ireland, but Ireland is not, I hope, a precedent for us in this country in all things—to give the Press legal recognition and authority to be present at all meetings. I entirely agree with what was said by Lord Belper. If you wish to do this at all, do it by insisting that the public should be admitted. This is the first time, as far as I know, that it has been proposed to give the Press a legal standing in this country. The Bill goes very much further than some noble Lords seem to think; it establishes a very dangerous principle and is a measure that is not required. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Camperdown intends to press his Amendment, but I hope that, at any rate, it be open to us, if we please, to take the opinion of the House on going into Committee, if we do not take it at an earlier stage.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the circumstances I think it would be more convenient if I did not press my Motion; but, of course, it will be quite competent for me, or for any other Peer, to take such course as may seem desirable with regard to this Bill at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 21st instant.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will your Lordships allow me to make three further Amendments in Clause 2 of this Bill? They do not introduce anything new, but it has been pointed out to me by an eminent Colonial authority that doubt might arise as to the way in which the provision in the Bill should be carried out. The object of the Amendments is to secure that certain Judges of Courts in British Possessions may act as assessors of the Judicial Committee if they are Privy Councillors and if His Majesty in Council so directs, but that their number shall not exceed two at any one time. This is merely a Departmental matter; and I hope your Lordships will agree to the Amendments.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 19, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'if His Majesty so directs.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'the Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, and this Art,' and to insert the words 'this section.'"—The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 23, to leave out the word 'seven,' and to insert the word 'two,' and to leave out from the word 'time' to the end of the subsection.'"—The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)

PUBLIC HEALTH (MARKETS IN RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, this Bill has been introduced by the Government to enable markets to be established in rural districts by rural district councils. It is a very short Bill, and I do not think it requires very much explanation. It has been brought in to a large extent in consequence of representations which have been repeatedly made to the Local Government Board by the Board of Agriculture and others interested in the agricultural districts.
Under Clause 166 of the Public Health Act of 1875 town councils and urban district councils are given power to provide a market place, construct a market house, acquire land and levy tolls for carrying on the market in their area. The town council can only do that by a vote of two-thirds of their number, and the urban district council must get the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the district before the market can be instituted. Rural district councils, however, have no direct powers for providing and carrying on markets, although Section 276 of the Public Health Act enables the Local Government Board to invest a rural district council with all, or any, of the powers which an urban district council now enjoys. The Board, however, have been advised that the provisions of Section 166 as they stand cannot be applied to rural districts.
The proposal in the Bill to meet this difficulty is to enable rural district councils, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to exercise the same powers as are exercisable by an urban district council with the consent of the owners and ratepayers. The reason for substituting the consent of the Local Government Board for that of the owners and ratepayers, to which, I believe, some exception was taken in another place, is that the consent of the owners and ratepayers cannot be conveniently obtained in a rural district. The methods of procedure prescribed in the Public Health Act to obtain this result are quite unsuitable to apply to a rural district, which is often of very wide extent. It is highly desirable that properly constructed markets should be established in rural districts. At present in many instances live stock markets are held on a portion of the public highway, and this practice is very often objectionable, not merely on sanitary grounds, but also from the point
34
of view of the well-being of the animals offered for sale.
Rural district councils are, under their present limited powers, unable to spend money on paving places where it has been the custom to hold markets, and on keeping them clean and in a sanitary condition. It is to remove all these difficulties that this Bill has been introduced. The owners and ratepayers will be fully protected under this procedure, because if there was any doubt as to the opinion of a locality the Local Government Board would, of coarse, hold a local inquiry before giving its consent. Some objection has been taken to the additional cost which will be thrown upon local authorities, but I do not think the expense will be at all largo and will be justified on the grounds of public health. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.'—(Lord Allendale.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a non-controversial measure dealing with police pensions, which has come up from another place. I understand that the Government have no objection to it, and I hope, therefore, the House will allow it to be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Newton.)
THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. The Home Office are still of opinion that their original proposal was the best, but as this is a compromise they will do nothing to prevent the passing of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

THE IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the number of persons not previously possessed of land (other than evicted tenants or persons representing evicted tenants), to whom land has been given by the Estates Commissioners purporting to act under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The question of Ireland was before your Lordships both yesterday and the day before, and I shall, therefore, confine my remarks within the briefest possible space, although I think this subject is one not undeserving of your Lordships' attention.
I need hardly say that I do not propose to call in question the action of the Estates Commissioners in granting land under subsection (b) of Section 2 of the Land Act of 1903. They are expressly given power to do so, and I believe one argument that was brought forward in favour of the provision was that it might tend to stem the tide of emigration of able bodied young men from Ireland. I quite agree that this is very desirable, but it was not the main object of the Act of 1903. As I understand it, that Act was passed for two special purposes—first, to enable the tenant to purchase the land ho tilled, and I lay emphasis on the phrase "land he tilled;" and, secondly, to enable tenants who had very small holdings but were industrious and possessed of certain means, to have their holdings increased by the addition of a certain amount of grass land in their neighbourhood. This second object is one which has to a great extent caught the public mind. The ears of the public have been taken with the phrases "relief of congestion," and "economic holdings," without, perhaps, their clearly understanding exactly what those terms mean; and the Report which has just been issued by the Royal Commission on Congestion, presided over by Lord Dudley, makes drastic suggestions as to the means by which these matters can be carried out. So far as I can make out, they recommend that the West of Ireland, at least, should be made a second Servia, a peasant State consisting of ton-pound holdings; and that there should be some oases of trees where landlords will be allowed to remain in their parks shut off from the political or economic life of the nation.
36
Perhaps I may be allowed to read to your Lordships what the Dudley Commission say in their Report as to the sufficiency of land to be given both to the sons of tenants and also to relieve congestion. In paragraph 123 the Commissioners say—
"Every holding given to the son of a tenant or to any other person not at present a land holder will to that extent perpetuate congestion in the West."
And, again, in paragraph 126—
"We think it is our duty to state very definitely that such a utilisation of the grass lands of the West of Ireland is incompatible with the relief of congestion."
Whatever we think about the land question in Ireland, we all agree that it is very desirable it should be settled, and that nothing should be done which would tend in any way to accentuate the difficulties in accomplishing that settlement. If land is given, under Section 2, to the sons of tenants, it will not be very long before that son finds some Bridget to share it with him, with the result that perhaps within thirty years you will have five or six other able-bodied landless men claiming that you should do the same for them as you did for their father. I believe that one job ought to be completed before we begin another. Consequently I am averse to any action which may lessen the amount of land available for the relief of congestion. I should like to again quote from the Report of the Dudley Commission——
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am extremely unwilling to interrupt the noble Lord, but I desire to call attention to what I think is something of an abuse in the form in which Notices are put on the Paper. The noble Lord is really calling attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland. That is an extremely natural and legitimate thing to do, but I wish to draw his attention to the fact that if he desired to do that ho should have put his Motion in that form, and not merely have asked the simple Question standing in his name on the Paper.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I am sorry if I have infringed the rule, and I will endeavour to confine myself more closely to the question. To return, then, to this special subsection. I know that

37
it was framed with the best intentions, but I am sorry to say that in my opinion it was one of the greatest mistakes in the Act of 1903. I believe it has had more to do with the unfortunate state of affairs which has existed during the last eighteen months in Ireland than, perhaps, anything else, with the exception, of course, of the action—or what I shall, perhaps, more correctly describe as inaction—of the Chief Secretary. Small tenants and their sons knew of this provision in the Act, and it was only natural that they should wish to take advantage of it. The result is that strong local opposition has been raised to the migration of tenants from other parts of Ireland to the grass lands in the immediate neighbourhood where those tenants with their sons are living; and, in the fear that such lands might be taken for the relief of congestion elsewhere, these young men have, I am afraid, had recourse to very reprehensible measures. In the hope of ob. twining the land as soon as possible they have resorted to the practice of cattle-driving, which has reached such a state of perfection, I will not say under the auspices, but under the rule of His Majesty's Government. They have done this in the hope of compelling the graziers to give up their farms and the landlords to sell, so that the land might be divided among the landless men in the neighbourhood, and the effect will be to accentuate the difficulties of relieving congestion elsewhere. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that up to 31st March last the Estates Commissioners had provided (under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by Section 19 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906) parcels of untenanted land for 137 persons, who were either sons of tenants or labourers. The answer to the supplementary Question is that the Commissioners had allotted, under Section 2,70,326 acres of untenanted land altogether among 2,647 persons, and of these all but the 137 mentioned had previously been in possession of land. The average size of the "parcel" of land so allotted was, in the case of sons of tenants and labourers, thirty-five acres per man. Having re-
38
gard to the very large number of advances made by the Commissioners for the purchase of "parcels" under Section 2, it cannot be said that the Commissioners have unduly exercised their powers by allotting 137 holdings to persons who had not already been in possession of land.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Sons of tenants are, I admit, in the Act. Can the noble Lord say how many of the 137 were labourers?
LORD DENMAN: I shall be obliged if the noble Earl will give me notice of that Question. I cannot give the exact figure, but the number is very small.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, Twelve o'clock.