Sitting of 30 June 1908

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS](STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
  Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill; North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read a second time; to be considered upon Thursday.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—1. "That in the case of the Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'Charles Haines' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  2. "That, in the case of the Ards and Bangor Railways Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
  3. "That, in the case of the Thames River Steamboat Service Act (1904) Amendment Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'General Steam Navigation Company' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Bromley and Grays Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to:—Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; King's College, London (Transfer) Bill [Lords]; Audenshaw Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from West Kilburn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Hammersmith and other places; and Leith; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: from Radcliffe and Kersley; and Wollescote; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Bo'ness, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: from Bradford Leigh and other places; and Wickham; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from West Kilburn, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: from Bryncross; Coventry; Leith (two); Pontyrhyll, Wakefield; Wimbledon; and Wimbledon and Merton; to lie upon the Table.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Petition from Pontypridd, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
  Paper [presented 22nd May] to be printed. [No. 201.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4049 and 4050 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-third Annual Report (for 1907–8), with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202.]
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Copy presented, of Eighty-sixth Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 30th June, 1908, modifying the Regulations applicable to Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Assassination of an Indian Constable at Calcutta.
    MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any information can be given regarding the assassination of an Indian constable in Calcutta at the end of last month.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject. The only case of which he has any knowledge is that of a constable who, according to the report in the newspapers, died of a stab inflicted by a burglar whom he interrupted.

    Restriction on Loans to Local Authorities.
    SIR THOMAS ROE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Public Works Loan Commissioners to refuse applications for loans from urban district councils whose districts have a rateable value exceeding £200,000, and also to limit the purposes for which loans are advanced to such councils; and whether he is prepared to advise the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to relax the restrictions at the present time imposed by them in this respect.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George). The loans of the Public Works Loan Commissioners are restricted, as my hon. friend describes, under direction of the Treasury. The object of the restrictions is to secure that loans out of the Local Loans Fund shall, as far as possible, be made available only to those local authorities which are least able to borrow on their own account in the open market, and only for those purposes which
    560
    Parliament is believed to be specially desirous of encouraging. If the restrictions were removed, the effect, under present market conditions, might be that many loans of large amount would be applied for by the councils of districts of high rateable value, who are in a position to exercise their own credit; also loans for undertakings of a commercial or remunerative character, which the Local Loans Fund is not specially intended to assist. These loans could not be made except by further issues of local loans stock, depressing the price of that stock, and thereby necessitating the raising of the rates of interest for the poorer as well as for the richer borrowing authorities. So long as these conditions continue I am not prepared to relax the restrictions.

    Evicted Tenants' Grievances.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Cork County Council, which set forth that in the opinion of that body the Evicted Tenants Act of last year was inadequate to settle this question; that the administration of the Act was unsatisfactory, and that the manner of deciding evicted tenants' claims without any provision for appeal in case of alleged injustice was most objectionable and unjust; and, seeing that there is considerable discontent amongst evicted tenants over the delay in procuring their reinstatement, will he say whether something will be done immediately to facilitate their re-settlement on the land.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to a newspaper report containing the resolution referred to in the Question. It is too soon yet to judge of the effect which the Evicted Tenants Act of last year will have in settling the question. There is no foundation, so far as I am aware, for the suggestion that the administration of the Act is unsatisfactory. I understand that nearly 1,600 evicted tenants in all have been reinstated since the Act of 1903 was passed. The Estates Commissioners are proceeding with the matter as rapidly as possible.

    Purchase of Holding for B. Radford, of Gurtienminogue.
    MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have been in communication with Benjamin Radford, Gurtienminogue, with reference to his holding; did the offer to advance £315 to enable him to purchase his holding from Mrs. Richards, Gurtienminogue; and can he say why the sale has not been carried out.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify any proceedings before them in the case referred to.

    Annuities Collectable under the Land Purchase Acts.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of annuities collectable yearly in Ireland under the Purchase Act of 1885, under the Purchase Acts of 1891 and 1896, and under the Purchase Act of 1903, respectively; and what is the number of annuitants in arrear at date, and what is the amount in arrear under each of these Acts, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The required information, up to 1st July, 1907, is given in the Annual Report of the Irish Land Commission for 1906–1907 (Cd. 3652 of 1907, page 9, Payments of Purchasers' Instalments). Similar statistics up to 1st July, 1908 are in course of preparation, and the annual report containing them will shortly be laid before Parliament.

    Consideration of Scottish Estimates.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint another day for Scottish Estimates in order that the administration of the Congested Districts Board may be discussed, as well as the Fishery Board and Local Government Board (Scotland) Votes.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith). As I stated yesterday, I am prepared to consider whether half a day can be given between now and the end of July for the discussion of Scottish Estimates.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
      MR. GEORGE D. FABER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the present system of supplying uniforms to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve has completely broken down, and that, though repeated applications have been made, no kits have been issued to the Clyde division since March last, and that 190 men of that division are at present without kits, and consequently unable to appear on parade, or in church, or to embark in the Fleet for instructions; will he state whether uniforms are issued from the Deptford store; and whether the Deptford store at the present time has its usual amount of general stores in reserve; and, if not, what is the reason of the diminution.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The kits for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are supplied through H.M.S. "President," West India Docks. The made-up garments (jumpers, trousers, etc.) are made to measure by a contractor, and the other articles (caps, knives, etc.) are drawn from the Deptford Victualling Yard. The contractor who received the orders for the supply of uniform jumpers, trousers, etc., for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve this year was re-arranging his premises at the time when the orders were received, and has, consequently, found some difficulty in coping with the large demands that were made upon him at the same time. The supply of the uniforms has since then been hastened, and it is expected that the balance to complete all orders will be despatched early next week. In regard to the articles supplied from Deptford, there is a shortage of sennet hats, the stock of which have advisedly been kept low, owing to the present pattern having proved unsatisfactory and a new pattern being under trial. Supplies to the new pattern are, however, now becoming available.
      AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a shortage in any other articles in the stores at Deptford?
      MR. MCKENNA: I am informed this is the only shortage, and it has been adequately explained.

      Bomb Outrages at Calcutta.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government has any information regarding the recent discovery of a bomb on the steps of the Scottish Mission Church at Calcutta.
      THE UNDER-SECEETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Secretary of State received a report with regard to the finding of the bomb, but it gave no substantial information beyond that which was contained in the newspapers.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: Has the hon. Gentleman any information showing that the outrage in this instance was due to a trade dispute?
      MR. BUCHANAN: We have no information to that effect.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the House any information regarding the outrage perpetrated near Calcutta upon the Eastern Bengal State Railway.
      MR. BUCHANAN: The most recent report received from the Government of India informs us that the man, Campsie, the most severely injured, is progressing, and that as yet no clue has been obtained to the perpetrators of the outrage.

      Government of India and the Franco-British Exhibition.
      MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the amount of the subsidy granted by the Government of India to the cost of the Indian section, of the Franco-British Exhibition.
      MR. BUCHANAN: A grant of £10,000 has been made and a further sum of £5,000 has been guaranteed. The latter will be drawn upon only if there should be a deficit in the working of the section. The Committee hope to recover eventually
      564
      a substantial part of any excess expenditure above £10,000.

      Indian Exhibits in the Franco-British Exhibition.
      MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among Indian traders, merchants, and visitors at the inadequacy of the Indian section of the Franco-British Exhibition in showing the economic resources of the dependency and the development of Indian trade with Europe, most of the exhibits being specimens of Indian decorative arts and such as to constitute the section merely a bazaar; and, if so, whether in future exhibitions that may receive subsidies from the Government Exchequer he will make certain, by the appointment of Indian gentlemen on the committee, that the true resources of the Indian Empire are visualised.
      MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is informed by the committee responsible for the Indian section that, with the necessarily limited funds and space at their disposal, they have taken every possible step to invite exhibits from India, and to make known their readiness to assist exhibitors. The classified list of exhibitors and exhibits shows that with the resources at the command of the committee the collection is quite a fair one. The committee includes among its members two gentlemen, members of the Council of India.

      Indian Press and the National Congress.
      MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the statements published in the Eastern Bengal and Assam Era, an Anglo-Indian journal published at Dacca, attributing the Goalundo and Mozufferpore outrages to the meetings of the Indian congresses, and advocating the arrest and flogging of the congress leaders; whether he is also aware that this journal also advocated the public flogging of Mr. G. B. Arundale, headmaster of the Hindu College at Benares, and those who sympathised with him, because he had presided at a meeting which closed with the

      565
      cry of Bande Mataram; and, if so, will the clause of the Indian Penal Code dealing with writings that create hatred be applied to the Eastern Bengal and Assam Era, as to other journals recently suppressed under the terms of the Code.
      MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has not seen the statements referred to. The provisions of the Penal Code apply in the same way to the paper mentioned as to all other publications, and would be enforced under the same conditions.

      Debates on the Indian Press Act.
      MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Report of the Debates which took place in the Indian Council upon the new Press Act.
      MR. BUCHANAN: The supplement to the Gaeztte of India containing the Report of the debate will be supplied in the usual course to the Library of the House, and the hon. Member will perhaps consult it there. It is expected by next week's mail.

      Mohmand Expedition Papers.
      MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India when the promised White Paper dealing with the Mohmand punitive expedition will be issued to the House.
      MR. BUCHANAN: The preparation of the Papers is being expedited; but I cannot yet name a day for their publication.
      MR. MACKARNESS: Will the Paper be laid on the Table before the debate takes place?
      MR. BUCHANAN: I hope so.

      Dinizulu.
      MR. NICHOLLS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the constitution of the special Court appointed to try the chief Dinizulu; and why it has been thought
      566
      necessary to establish a special Court under a special law for this trial.
      THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I cannot at present add anything to the reply returned to a similar Question on 24th June with regard to the constitution of the Court. Ministers have proposed the establishment of a special Court, because they think that by this means they will best secure a strictly impartial tribunal for this important trial. The Governor of Natal concurs in this view, as do also His Majesty's Government.

      Hague Conference—Signature of the Convention.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the result of the careful consideration of the various conventions and instrument annexed to the final Act of the Hague Conference, promised before 30th June, has led to further instructions by His Majesty's Government as to signing all or a portion of them with or without reservations.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The British Plenipotentiaries, acting under instructions, proceeded to The Hague and signed yesterday the various instruments annexed to the final Act of the Hague Conference, with the exception of the Convention creating an International Prize Court, which remains open for signature for another year. Papers will shortly be laid showing what States have signed the various instruments, the period for signing which expires to-day, and the nature of the reservation made by this and other countries.

      Insecurity at Salonika.
      MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the Chief Commissary of Police at Salonika to maintain security in that city and to punish criminals, he will instruct the British Ambassador at Constantinople to urge his dismissal.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: The state of insecurity which has recently prevailed at Salonika has not escaped the notice of His Majesty's Minister at Constantinople, who has drawn the attention of the Grand Vizier to the matter, ant pointed out that the present Director of the Police is apparently not competent to discharge the duties efficiently.
      MR. REES: Are the British Government in any way responsible for the management of the city of Salonika?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: It is very desirable that order should be maintained there.

      Egyptian Special Tribunal Decree.
      MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Decree of 1895, which brought into existence the special tribunal which passed the Denshawai sentences in June, 1906, has been repealed; whether any steps have been taken to carry out the important modifications of that Decree recommended by Lord Cromer in July, 1906; and, if not, upon whose advice have those recommendations been ignored.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: The Decree has not been repealed, but it does not of itself set up the special tribunal; that can only be done on the application of His Majesty's Consul-General, who has been instructed not to take this step without reference to His Majesty's Government. The special tribunal will not be again invoked till the modifications referred to have been made, and meanwhile we shall rely upon the ordinary tribunals.
      MR. MACKARNESS: Did not Lord Cromer recommend that Amendments should be made which would prevent any public executions or floggings in the future?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: These could only take place if the special tribunal was set up, which will not be the case.
      MR. MACKARNESS: Does the Egyptian Government think it desirable
      568
      to keep up a law of exceptional severity in the interest of the British Army of occupation and no one else?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: That depends upon how the native tribunals do their work.

      The Vatican and the Irish Universities Bill.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has taken any steps, directly or indirectly, to ascertain the views of the Vatican, or those entitled to speak for it in this country, respecting the Irish Universities Bill now in Committee of the House; and if their approval has been secured for the measure.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to both Questions is in the negative.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the approval of the Vatican or its representatives in this country is received to this Bill not a single Roman Catholic will dare enter the University of Ireland?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Franco-Canadian Convention.
      SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs whether he can now lay upon the Table the correspondence between the Canadian and the Home Governments concerning the application of our most-favoured-nation treaties under the Franco-Canadian Convention.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir; at any rate, not at present. I will consult he Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject at a later stage.

      Persia.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information as to the state of affairs at Teheran and other parts of Persia.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I have little to add to the information already given

      569
      to the House. The Shah has issued a proclamation dissolving the Mejliss, and summoning another three months hence. Meanwhile, Teheran and other towns have been placed under martial law. Some persons have taken refuge, according to the custom of the country, in His Majesty's Legation; and this, coupled with the fact that the Shah has posted troops in the neighbourhood of the Legation, an improper proceeding against which His Majesty's Government have protested, is giving rise to correspondence with the Persian Government, as the refugees cannot be given up without definite and reliable guarantees for proper treatment. I am informed that some refugees are in other Legations. There are reports of disturbances at Tabriz and other places in the provinces, but all accounts agree that there is not danger to foreigners.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask the date of the latest communication?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: That brings it down to the telegrams I have received this morning.
      MR. DILLON: What would the Government consider definite and reliable guarantees for the safety of these refugees? Would they take the word of the Shah?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: We are now considering what guarantees we shall ask for.
      MR. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter portion of the Question I put yesterday, and to which I received no reply?
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now ask yesterday's Question. He should put it down again if he wishes an Answer.

      Imports of Arms into Muscat.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a quarter of the whole imports into Muscat consists of arms; whether most of these are imported from Belgium; and whether
      570
      the Brussels Conference has particular and precise instructions to deal with a traffic which directly promotes and prolongs warfare upon the north-west frontier of India.
      SIR EDWARD GREY: During last year the import of arms, etc., into Muscat exceeded one quarter of the whole imports. About 50 per cent. of the amounts imported came from Belgium. The annual trade report of Muscat, which will be ready for publication shortly, will contain the statistics on the subject. The matter is engaging the attention of the Conference now sitting at Brussels.
      MR. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information with regard to the presence of a body of Afghans at Regan who receive and distribute these arms?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot reply to that without notice

      Swansea Dock Fatality.
      MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to an accident which occurred on Saturday, 20th June, at the King's Dock, Swansea, now in course of construction, by which a locomotive engine fell down an embankment and killed two men; whether it is intended to hold an inquiry into the cause and circumstances of such accident in accordance with the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894; and whether he can state the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, reported as having occurred on these works since their commencement.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. There appears to be no power to direct a formal investigation in regard to this accident. As I pointed out to the hon. Member in reply to a previous Question with regard to this dock on 23rd March last, the application of the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, to docks was repealed by the Factory Act of 1895. The accident also appears to be outside the provisions

      571
      of the Factory Act with regard to the use of a dock or the construction of a building as contained in Sections 104 and 105. Provision to enable a formal investigation to be held in regard to accidents on work of construction will be made in the Bill which I propose to introduce this session The number of accidents reported to the factory inspector by the contractors since the commencement of the work in May, 1904, is 586, of which eleven have been fatal.

      Commonwealth Government and Irish Trade Mark.
      MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the decision of the Commonwealth of Australia in respect of the application that the Irish trade mark should be accepted as proof of origin of Irish goods, to which preference is given under the new tariff.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Australian Minister for Trade and Customs has, I understand, informed the Irish Industrial Development Association, in whose name the Irish trade mark is registered, that he considers that whilst the presence of the Irish trade mark would be valuable as additional evidence of origin, it would be found very desirable, in the interests of the movement for the protection and marking of goods of Irish manufacture, that his Department should also require the usual certificate of origin signed by the manufacturer or exporter.

      Mall Improvement.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the object or utility of the three parallel tunnels now in course of construction at the proposed entrance to the Park from Trafalgar Square; what is the length of each tunnel and the width; whether artificial light is proposed to be used in each tunnel; whether the centre tunnel is intended to be a reserved tunnel, and, if so, under what conditions; who is responsible for the design, and what style of architecture, if any, it is supposed to be; whether the buildings will eventually take the form of a semi-circus on
      572
      each side; what is the estimated total cost of the buildings constituting the circus and the tunnels; what the buildings are proposed to be used for; and whether he would be willing to give reasonable notice to Parliament before undertaking any works of a similar type.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): The three arches through the new building at the end of the Mall are to convey the traffic from St. James's Park to Trafalgar Square. They vary in length from 37 to 50 feet, and the width of each is 20 feet. No artificial light will be used or required except at night. The centre arch is intended for State occasions. The design was made by Sir Aston Webb, R.A., under directions from the late Government. It was exhibited in the Tea-room of the House for several months before the work was begun, and the hon. Member had ample opportunities of objecting to any portions of it which offended his artistic taste. If there is such a word in the English language as "semi-circus," it does not accurately describe the form which the buildings will ultimately take. The cost of the buildings is provided partly by the Public Buildings Expenses Act of 1903 and partly from monies voted by Parliament after full discussion in this House. The total estimated cost is £180,000. The buildings will provide for an extension of the Admiralty and for residences for the First Lord and the First Sea Lord in lieu of those now occupied by them. It is not at present intended undertake any other works of a similar type, but if any such were projected due notice would be given to Parliament as was done in relation to the present building, and no work would be commenced until Votes had passed the House of Commons.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would have been better to have allowed the public entrance to be park to be open instead of under a tunnel?
      MR. L. HARCOURT: I am not inclined now to criticise the decision of my predecessors.
      MAJOR AMSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will it be fit for traffic?
      MR. L. HARCOURT: I should think that some time next year we shall be able to admit traffic through.

      Medical Attendance for Post Office Employees.
      MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to recent cases brought under his notice in which certificates of duly qualified medical practitioners, stating reason for sick absence of postal employees, have not been accepted by the Department, he will state when he intends to put into operation the recommendations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Hobhouse Committee's Report that free medical attendance should be provided for postal employees who reside in districts outside the four-mile radius.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I hope to bring into force the recommendation of the Select Committee respecting free medical attendance at home for persons living outside the visiting area of their medical officer on 1st October next. It was not possible to bring this concession into force at the same time as the other concessions recommended by the Committee on account of the complicated nature of the arrangements, and the requisite notices to the medical men that were necessary for giving effect to it.

      Post Office Savings Bank—Unclaimed Balances.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any separate record is kept of unclaimed balances standing to the credit of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, and, if not, will he explain why this is not done; whether the accounts are audited, and, if so, what difficulty arises in ascertaining the total; whether any, and, if so, what, steps are taken to make known to possible heirs the existence of these unclaimed balances; and whether he can state in what manner they are disposed of.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The experiment has been made from time to time of keeping a separate record of such Post Office Savings Bank accounts as appeared to have been abandoned by depositors; but practically every case in which the balance was worth considering had to be re-transferred to the active ledgers. The separate record is now restricted to accounts in which the balance due is less than £1. Many depositors leave their savings untouched for years; and as the Post Office Savings Bank was established in the year 1861 only, it would not be right to assume, from the absence of transactions in an account, that the depositor is dead. Every assistance is given to persons claiming to be the representatives of deceased depositors.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of these accounts have been dormant for a period of ten years and upwards?
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not think that would convey any information that would be of value for the reason given—namely, that in the case of the Savings Bank depositors' accounts are left for very many years without being touched.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: But surely there is a large number of accounts which have been dormant for ten years or upwards which have lapsed altogether?
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is not our experience. We should not consider that they had necessarily lapsed.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that he is setting a very bad example to the other bankers of this country when a Government Department refuses to supply to the House of Commons——
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is a matter of opinion.

      Remuneration of Sub-Postmasters—Commission on Bankers' Postal Orders.
      MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has beer, called to

      575
      the Post Office circular respecting the remuneration of sub-postmasters, which reduces the rate of commission on bankers' postal orders to half an unit instead of one unit, as recommended by the Select Committee; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In the scheme submitted to and recommended by the Select Committee full details were not in all cases given as to the treatment of exceptional cases. The case of bankers' postal orders is one of these, and in regard to them the existing practice is merely being continued. The reason for assigning a reduced rate is that postal orders presented in batches by bankers and others are already sorted and accompanied by dockets and paid in one sum, and entail less labour than the standard postal order. The half rate does not apply to the first 5,000 orders presented in batches.

      Telephone Dangers.
      SIR EDWARD BASSOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has read the Report of Dr. Allan, the medical officer of health for the city of Westminster, relative to the liability of the users of telephones to contract tuberculosis; if he is now convinced of the danger to public health to which his attention has already been drawn; and whether he will insist upon the adoption of the system of flat mouth-pieces, such as obtains in France with no disadvantage to the public service.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have read the report of Dr. Allan, which was not communicated to the Post Office, but was published in the Lancet. Steps are taken for the regular cleansing of Post Office public telephones, and suggestions for improved methods of disinfection are under consideration. In 1905 a series of tests were made of call office telephones in London by the City Medical Officer of Health, with the result that no evidence of any danger of infection was found. The case specially referred to by Dr. Allan appears to be quite exceptional. It was one of six in which tests were applied, and in the other five cases no trace was found of dangerous germs. Many appliances for attachment to telephones,
      576
      in order to prevent the danger of infection, have been examined in connection with the Post Office telephone system, but their use is open to many objections. Washing with disinfectants is, in the opinion of medical experts, including Dr. Allan, the most effective safeguard.
      SIR EDWARD SASSOON: The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the point of my Question. I asked as to the flat mouth-piece, and as to its superiority over other mouth-pieces.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We have considered that and other appliances, but have not come to the conclusion at which the hon. Gentleman appears to have arrived.
      MR. REES: Is there any difficulty in using a flat box to which there is no mouth-piece?
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The matter is under consideration, and any suggestion from any one with real knowledge on the matter will certainly receive careful consideration.

      Employment of Half-Timers.
      MR. W. R. REA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can see his way to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of the employment of half-timers.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I propose to appoint an Inter-departmental Committee, of which my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board has consented to act as Chairman. The constitution of the Committee will be announced shortly.

      Grants for Secondary Schools.
      LORD BALCARRES,: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the Regulations for Secondary Schools, 1908–9, the Board of Education are empowered to pay grants in full for the school year 1908–9, irrespective of the payment, if any, made for the school year 1907–8 to a secondary school, in respect of which the Board is satisfied that the conditions

      577
      laid down in Article 5, as to denominational religious instruction, or in Article 18 (b), as to the imposition of a conscience clause applicable to boarders may be waived, in view of the educational needs of the area; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Board to make such payments of grants in full in respect of which it is shown that the conditions in question can with advantage to the educational requirements of the district be waived.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: Under the Regulations for Secondary Schools, 1908, any waiver of the conditions attached to any higher scale of grant by the Regulation of 1907 can only be granted as regards the conditions set out in Articles 23 and 24, except in continuance of a waiver already granted under the Regulations of 1907. As is stated in Paragraph 3 of the Prefatory Memorandum to the Regulations of 1908, no such waiver has been granted as regards Article 5, and only one as regards Article 18 (b). The waiver provisions are in any case only applicable to schools which received grants, or were recognised as pupil teacher centres, for the year 1907–8.
      LORD BALCARRESwas understood to ask in how many cases the waiver was granted in 1907?
      MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice, but I will get the information for the noble Lord.

      Small Holdings Act—Dorchester (Oxford- shire) Inquiry.
      MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board are aware that at a recent inquiry held under the Act, at Dorchester, in Oxfordshire, only five out of twelve applicants were present, and that this was partly, at least, owing to the fact that the inquiry was held at a time when it was impossible for all the applicants to attend.
      THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWAED STRACHEY,): The Board are informed by the clerk of the county council that
      578
      no complaint as to the time or place of meeting was received, and no reasons for non-attendance were given except by one applicant. In the hope of suiting the convenience of those who did not attend, another meeting was arranged and due notice given to the absent applicants, but only the one who had written explaining his absence at the previous meeting attended.
      VISCOUNT VALENTIA: Could this information not be obtained more readily from the clerk to the county council of the county, a division of which the hon. Member so ably represents, than through the Board of Agriculture?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It is entirely at the option of the hon. Member to address the question either to the county council or myself.
      MR. MORRELL: Is not the object in addressing the question to the Board to call public attention to the matter, and is not that desirable?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It depends entirely on the circumstances of the case.

      Small Holdings Act—Expenses.
      MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board will repay out of the Small Holdings Account the salaries and expenses of any officers specially appointed by a county council, with the sanction of the Board, to assist in establishing and organising small holdings under the Act.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The repayment of expenses of county councils is expressly restricted under the Act to those incurred in proceedings in relation to the acquisition of land, and although the Board are prepared to take as liberal a view of the terms of the Act as is at all possible, they have no power to sanction the repayment of expenses incurred for other purposes.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is the House to understand that all these expenses and salaries

      579
      will be charged as additional rent on the tenant holders?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I do not understand that Question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give notice of it.
      MR. MORRELL: The hon. Baronet told the House on 11th June——
      MR. SPEAKER: Quotations from speeches in this House are not now permissible.
      MR. MONTAGU: If the expenses of salaries are not borne by the Board of Agriculture, by what fund will they be borne?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid a certain part of the salaries might be payable for certain specific work done, but only the salary paid to an agent for the management of the land under the control of the county council would naturally form part of the expenses. As on any other estate, it would be part of the expenses of the estate and naturally would have to come out of the rents.
      MR. MORRELL: If the whole of the time of the officer hitherto has been taken up in ascertaining the demand, and not in the managing of the estate, will the Board of Agriculture consider the advisability of repaying the salary during that time to the county council?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Those are preliminary inquiries, and the expense of preliminary inquiries cannot be repaid.
      MR. MONTAGU: Will the cost of the preliminary inquiries fall on the rates of the county or on the small holders?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That is a legal question, but I believe they would fall upon the general rates.

      Small Holdings Act—Bishop's Lydeard Inquiry.
      MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has
      580
      been called to the fact that, at an inquiry under the Small Holdings Act held at Bishop's Lydeard, in Somerset, by the Somerset County Council, on Wednesday, 10th June, the chairman of the committee said that they had had the advice of the Board of Agriculture not to be in any particular haste to put the Act into operation, because it required very careful consideration; and whether the chairman had any authority for making such a statement.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are informed that the chairman of the committee in question, in using the words to which my hon. friend refers, wished to emphasise the fact that care must be taken in putting the Act into operation and not in any way to encourage delay. Indeed he expressly stated that the council were desirous of carrying through the necessary inquiries at the earliest possible date. The reference to "the advice of the Board of Agriculture" was to our circular letter of 1st January last, a copy of which is doubtless in the possession of my hon. friend.

      Small Holdings Act—Hours for Holding Inquiries.
      MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, if it can be shown that the interests of any applicants have, in fact, been prejudiced owing to the hour at which an inquiry has been held, the Board will require another inquiry to be held; and whether, in the event of the committee finding it inconvenient to hold inquiries at hours suitable to the applicants, they will direct the Commissioners, in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by the Act, to ascertain for themselves the extent of the demand.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: If there is any reason to think the interests of applicants for small holdings have been prejudiced by the hour at which inquiries have been held the Board will ask the county council concerned to afford the men other opportunities for an interview. These inquiries are held for the purpose of ascertaining the suitability of applicants, and there does not appear

      581
      to be at present any necessity for the Commissioners to hold meetings in order to ascertain the extent of the demand.
      MR. MORRELL: As it is the primary duty of the Commissioners to ascertain what the demand is, will the Department consider the advisability of repaying expenses incurred by county councils when they are left to do the work?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That is a statement that the Commissioners do not do the work they ought to do, and I differ from it entirely.
      MR. MACKARNESSasked if the Board of Agriculture had any information showing how many councils hold the inquiries in the evening so that labourers can attend.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked for notice of that Question.
      MR. MORRELL: Have the Commissioners ever visited the County of Oxford?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, Sir, certainly.

      Somerset County Council—Small Holdings Committee.
      MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that at a meeting held by the small holdings committee of the Somerset County Council, the chairman of that council said that, if compulsory powers are resorted to, the cost of the exercise of such powers will increase the expense of acquiring the land, and thereby increase the rent of the land; whether it is a fact that the Board will repay to county councils all legal expenses and surveyors' fees in connection with the acquisition of land, and whether this applies equally whether the purchase is made compulsorily or by agreement; and, if so, whether he will circularise the councils accordingly.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are informed by the clerk of the Somerset County Council that their chairman stated that the cost of the
      582
      exercise of compulsory powers would fall on the small-holders, subject to any repayment made by the Board. The reasonable costs of compulsory purchase as in the case of purchase by agreement will be repaid by the Board and need not therefore increase the rent. A circular letter to this affect has been issued to county councils.

      Grants to Sea Fisheries Committees.
      MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state why, notwithstanding repeated promises that their claims would be considered, no provision whatever has been made for a grant to the local sea fisheries committees in whose hands the administration of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Acts is placed by law; and can he promise that an early consideration will be given to their claims.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to refer him to my reply on the 23rd instance, to a Question on the same subject by my hon. friend the Member for South-East Lancashire.

      The Beef Trust and 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 on 17th and 24th June, when no markets were held at the Deptford Cattle Market, there were present in the lairages of that market 1,200 and 1,400 head, respectively, of cattle from the United States and Canada, the property of, or controlled by, the American Beef Trust firms, and that, although there were many English buyers present, the cattle were not offered for sale; whether he is aware that these cattle have since been slaughtered and put into cold storage by and for the trust, to be placed upon the market at prices at present entirely under their own control and regulation; and whether, in the public interest, the Board will institute some inquiry into the question of the meat supply of this country.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware that there were a certain number of cattle in the lairages on the dates mentioned and that they were subsequently slaughtered, but they do not know what was the ultimate destination of the carcases. They were not retained in cold storage at Deptford Wharf. The Board do not think that any advantage would be gained by the institution of the inquiry proposed.
      MR. BOWERMAN: Is it not the case that the withholding of cattle from sale under these circumstances was a breach of the regulations governing the Deptford Market? Can the hon. Baronet give the House any substantial reason for the refusal of the Board of Agriculture to institute any inquiry, especially having regard to the serious rise in price of meat in London?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I cannot answer the first Question. I must ask for notice of it. As regards the advisability of having an inquiry into the Meat Trust, it is on all fours with the desirability of inquiring into all trusts which are likely to raise the price of food and other commodities. I rather think the question is under the serious consideration of the President of the Board of Trade.
      LORD R. CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman not consider on behalf of the Government the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into this very serious matter?
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That Question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

      Bolingbroke Hospital.
      SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether at the time the Charity Commissioners gave their sanction to the payment by the trustees of the Weir Charity of the sum of £5,000 out of the trust fund to the governors of the Bolingbroke Hospital, the proposed scheme under which the payment was purported to be made had been published by the Commissioners as
      584
      required by Section 6 of The Charitable Trusts Act, 1860, in order that persons interested might have the opportunity given to them by that section of objecting to the scheme; and whether he will state under what statute, and under what section thereof, the Commissioners have, or claim to have, power to authorise payment under a prospective scheme before the proposed scheme has been published and definitely settled in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned Act.
      MR. TREVELYAN: The proposed scheme in the matter of the Weir Charity has been drafted and will very shortly be ready for publication. It will be published so as to ensure full opportunity to all persons interested of making objections or suggestions, and any such objections or suggestions will be carefully considered. The circumstances in which the Charity Commissioners sanctioned the payment in question were explained in the Answer given by me to a Question by the hon. Member on the 23rd March last.
      SIR HENRY KIMBERpressed for an Answer to the last part of the Question.
      MR. TREVELYANsaid he thought his Answer sufficiently covered the point; otherwise, it would be necessary to give the details of a large number of sections.

      Cost of Irish Administration.
      CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state the amount of the increased cost of administration to the Treasury and the counties affected respectively, consequent on cattle-driving, outrages in which firearms have been used, boycotting, and other forms of intimidation in Ireland since the present Government was returned to office.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Royal Irish Constabulary was increased last autumn by 400 men, and is now being further increased by 350 men, with the object mainly of dealing with cattle-driving. The cost of these additional men will be approximately £47,000 per annum, of which a moiety will fall upon

      585
      the counties concerned. There will be further charges for travelling, conveyance of prisoners, and such matters, some of which will be borne by the Constabulary Vote, and some will fall upon the counties. It is not possible to apportion the charges between the different classes of offences.
      CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: When will there be an opportunity of discussing in this House these extraordinary charges?
      MR. BIRRELL: On a day allotted to Irish Estimates.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is kept in formed of the number of outrages in which firearms are used, the extent to which cattle-driving is being carried on, the spread of boycotting and other forms of intimidation in Ireland, as well as the judicial comments on the existing state of affairs made from time to time by His Majesty's Judges; and will he state how long the Government intend to permit such lawlessness to continue before taking adequate steps to uphold the law and afford due protection to the lives and property of the loyal, peaceful, and industrious minority in Ireland.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask him whether he has any reason beyond their own assertion to believe that this minority is loyal; whether he is aware that on the disestablishment of the Irish Church they threatened to kick the late Queen's Crown into the Boyne, and whether the hon. Member himself did not threaten to raise a bloody war if the Government continued a particular course, and does he think that it is correct to describe this minority as a peaceful one?
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I explain I never used such an expression? I said that if the Government pursued the course they were at that time taking, a bloody war would follow, and I am sorry to say it has proved only too true.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): In answer to the
      586
      Question on the Paper, the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. If by the latter part of the Question the hon. and gallant Member means to inquire whether the Government intend to put the Criminal Law and Procedure Act into force, the reply is in the negative. The Government have taken, and will continue to take, all possible measures within the ordinary law for the preservation of the peace, the punishment of offenders, and the protection of the persons and property of all classes of his Majesty's subjects.
      MR. MOORE: Have the proceedings taken under the ordinary law proved to be adequate?
      [No Answer was returned.]
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: How long do the Government intend to go as they are doing?
      MR. ASQUITH: That depends to some extent on the length of time the Government holds office.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: Are we to gather from that that during the tenure of office of the present Government they will take no further steps to put down lawlessness in Ireland?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Irish Universities Bill.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the Government's intention to proceed further with the Irish Universities Bill under the circumstances that in Committee an Amendment has been introduced by which public money may be expended in supplying sites for churches and chapels within the walls of the new Universities, in contradiction of the pledge given on behalf of the Government that none of the money voted by Parliament would go to denominational purposes.
      MR. BIRRELL: It is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Universities Bill, and when the Report stage is reached the hon. and

      587
      gallant Member will have full opportunity of discussing the point to which he refers.

      Cork Corporation Surcharges.
      MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has issued a sealed order surcharging Members of the Cork Corporation for the cost of cabling the condolences of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Cork to the Mayor of San Francisco on the destruction of the greater part of the latter city by earthquake; and whether, as head of the Local Government Board, he will take steps to prevent any such further breach of international courtesy and interference with the rights of Irish municipalities.
      MR. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Local authorities are prohibited by statute from defraying any such expenditure out of the rates, and the Local Government Board are obliged to see that the law is carried out.
      MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is there any such thing known in an English municipality?
      MR. BIRRELL: I imagine it would be.
      MR. MOONEY: Has it not been the practice of the English Local Government Board to insist on the inclusion of a clause in every private Bill going into this House giving this power to municipalities?
      MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware of it.

      Mr. Griffith's Ballintogher Estate.
      MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in July of last year, as the result of an arrangement come to in Judge Ross's Court, the estate of Mr. J. Griffith, situate near Ballintogher, county of Sligo, was inspected by an official of the Estates Commissioners, with the view of having the property purchased for the tenants;
      588
      and, if so, what steps, if any, have since been taken to bring about the completion of this bargain.
      MR. BIRRELL: The estate in question is for sale in the Land Judge's Court. The Estates Commissioners have had it inspected and are at present considering their inspectors' reports with a view to making an offer for purchase.

      Irish University Bill.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to submit the Irish Universities Bill to a National Convention in Ireland, as was done in the case of the Irish Councils Bill; and, if so, for what date will the Convention be summoned.
      MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: Then how does the right hon. Gentleman know the Bill will be acceptable to the Irish people?
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Because it is opposed by the hon. Member himself.

      Commission on Irish Bank Notes.
      MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the custom pursued by the Bank of England, and of other banks in London, to charge commission on the exchange of Bank of Ireland, National Bank, or other Irish bank notes; is he aware that this practice has been extended to Irish banks doing business in London on the exchange of their own notes for cash; and whether he will state if this custom is the result of a Bank of England regulation or an inter-bank arrangement, or, if not, upon what statute law it is founded.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,.): The holder of such a note is not entitled to claim payment in Great Britain. If a London bank obliges him by cashing a note, I understand that it usually makes a charge of 1d. to 2d. for doing so. I am not aware of any statutory enactment either authorising or prohibiting such a charge.
      MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a charge of 1d. in the £, and does he know that banks in London are debarred from negotiating these notes although willing to do so?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of any statutory Act either authorising or prohibiting such a charge.
      MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the bank say they are debarred from doing so by the action of the Bank of England?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: So far as I am aware it is not a fact that the Bank of England interferes in the matter at all. They make what charge they like. There is no statutory power one way or the other.

      Tied Trades.
      MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the system under which wholesale millers, tobacconists, provision merchants, and others are in the habit of establishing numbers of tied houses where the tenants are compelled to carry on their business in accordance with the conditions laid down by such wholesale firms; and whether he will consider the desirableness of introducing legislation to deal with the matter.
      MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware to what extent the state of things described in the Question actually prevails, and I see no necessity for any legislation on the subject.

      Government Contracts and the Fair Wages Clause.
      MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the firm of Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, Limited, of Barrow-in-Furness, is on the list of Government contractors; if so, whether he is aware that the firm have a clause in the indentures of their apprentices prohibiting their apprentices joining a trade society during the apprenticeship term; and whether the Government will make representations to the firm with a view to the withdrawal of the prohibition.
      MR. ASQUITH: The firm are on the list of contractors to the War Office. I am not aware of the existence of the clause in the indentures referred to; and the matter is not one in which I should feel entitled to intervene.

      Income-Tax.
      MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether income-tax is at present charged upon fines and premiums demanded by ground landlords upon the expiration of leases as a condition of their renewal.
      MR. ASQUITH: Income-tax is assessed on fines which fall within the charge imposed by the 5th Rule of No. II., Schedule A., Income-Tax Act, 1842. A premium charged on granting an ordinary lease for years, which carries with it no right to the renewal of the lease, is not treated as a fine within the meaning of the Rule.
      MR. BOTTOMLEY: Then the Answer means that when a landlord inflicts a heavy fine for the renewal of a lease he pays no income-tax on it?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That depends on the position dealt with in the last part of my Answer.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Mr. William Jones; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. King.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
    Special Report brought up, and read.
    Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 204.]
    Bill, as amended, re-committed, to a Committee of the whole House for to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]

    NEW BILL.
      BAIL BILL.
      "To amend the Law relating to release on Bail," presented by Mr. Secretary Gladstone; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]

      OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
      Clause 4:
      MR. SMEATONmoved to insert "net" before "income" in subsection (a). He desired to make it clear that only the available net income should be taken into account. The Amendment was intended to cover cases where people paid into clubs. As everybody knew, the working men in the country paid their pence in subscriptions to coal clubs, medicine and doctors' clubs, boot and shoe and clothing clubs, co-operative clubs, and so forth; and these subscriptions enabled them to obtain necessaries cheaply. Such payments reduced their incomes, and ought, therefore, to be deducted. No doubt the deductions would only be in pence; but then, the sliding scale of a pension also went down to pence; let them be fair to the thrifty.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 6, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'net.'"—(Mr. Smeaton.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'net' be there inserted."
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,)said the Government could accept the insertion of the word proposed. It was certainly the intention of the Bill that the yearly value of a man's income should be taken into account, and that it should not include any outgoings. The word "net" as applied to profits had a meaning which was fairly well understood, but as applied to income it would seem to require some definition. It was quite clear that rent
      592
      and cost of living were not to be deducted from income for the purpose of the Bill, and to insert the word "net" without any explanatory phrase or word would certainly not do. The intention of the Bill was clear, and they could not accept that word, which might give rise to an interpretation dangerous to the whole clause.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was sorry the Government would not agree to the Amendment. It was quite clear in reading over the whole of Clause 4 that it would be very difficult to ascertain what a man's means really were within the meaning of the clause. He would give a case in illustration. Supposing an old man or an old woman subscribed to the Post Office for a small sum to be paid at death. Was that to be deducted, or not? He took it that the proposer of the Amendment assumed that income meant the available net income that the elderly person was really going to receive and could spend, whereas by the clause as it stood, there were no limitations and no definition, and there was nothing to show that small outgoings such as he had suggested would be allowed to be deducted so that the net amount might be ascertained. It was obvious that if they had two or three people whose means hovered about the limit, and who had some little outgoing, those expenses would be included, unless Parliament made it clear by putting in the word "net," that such outgoings were not to be calculated in the income. He was in hopes when he saw the Amendment that the Government would accept such a simple way of doing ordinary justice, and he very much regretted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had not accepted it.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not quite follow the objection which the Government had to the Amendment. Supposing a person was left the benefit of a small property, and received the income from that property, but was bound to pay out of that income some small sum to another person, what would his income be taken as under the clause as it stood?

      593
      The net income would mean merely what they received for themselves after allowing for deductions, but was it quite certain that the word "income" by itself would mean the net income, and not the gross income? He was not certain whether there was not a technical meaning attached to the word "income" in law in connection with the Income-Tax Act, and if there was, and if the definition under the Income-Tax Act could be applied under the Bill, considerable injustice might be done, because the income for the purposes of income-tax included in certain cases money which the person clearly had not got to spend, i.e., it was rather the gross income of a business before making certain deductions which the business involved, than the not income available to be spent by the proprietor.
      MR. L. HARCOURTsaid it was the intention of the Government and of the Bill that only clear income or clear annual value should be treated under this section, and he was advised that that would be the effect of the words as they stood. Although the word "net" as applied to profits had a definite meaning, it had no such definite meaning as applied to the word "income," and it might give rise to the suggestion that from the income should be deducted the cost of living, etc., and the Government regarded the word as too dangerous and too wide to insert in this case.
      MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked what was the meaning of a "clear" income. Take the case of a middle class man who had insured his life; he deducted his insurance money for the purposes of the income-tax. Supposing those old persons who came under this clause were insured for their funeral expenses, which, was really a form of life insurance, would the premiums they had paid for that benefit be regarded as part of a clear income or be excluded?
      MR. LYTTELTONsaid that in the case of house property of a rather common class, large deductions were generally made for unlets, for the collection of rents, and for such outgoings as repairs,
      594
      etc. Would the term "income" be the income after those charges had been satisfied or not? He would certainly have thought the income would be the gross rental receivable from those cottages, and that the landlord would not be entitled to deduct the expenditure necessary to command that rent.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said he could not give an answer to a very complicated conundrum of that kind, nor did he think it was altogether a question for the Law Officers. It was more a question for the Inland Revenue, who had been interpreting these things in the past. With regard to insurance, he would say the Inland Revenue would deduct any payment made in respect of that insurance. There was a very elaborate set of regulations which had accumulated for years, and he would be sorry to answer the point of the right hon. Gentleman straight off. He would not like to commit himself, but he did not think the case would be likely to arise under this Act, which would not take in men who had property of that kind. They might, of course, get a man who owned a cottage, and he did not know what the regulations of the Inland Revenue provided in a case of that sort, but he should think they would follow the general principles adopted in the case of income-tax, with this exception, that it was likely they might give a more liberal interpretation under this Act.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the answer of the right hon. Gentleman showed that they were on rather a delicate point, and one requiring more serious consideration than had been given to it. Clearly the Government had not considered it, because the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to answer, and said the Law Officers could not be expected to answer, and, therefore, he presumed they had not gone into it. What was the answer as far as the right hon. Gentleman had been able to give it? As regarded insurance, he thought the Inland Revenue would interpret anything in the nature of insurance as being entitled to an exception, following

      595
      the principles adopted in regard to income-tax, and that the Inland Revenue might, in fact, go a little farther in these matters than they would under the Income-Tax Act. But the Inland Revenue had nothing whatever to do with the administration of his Act. The Excise officer was, the Prime Minister interrupted, an officer of the Inland Revenue, but that was really a correction of his statement of the flimsiest character, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had announced his intention to transfer the whole of the Excise officers to the Customs. The Customs was not the Board of Inland Revenue, and as a matter of fact the Excise officer in this case was not put forward as an official who was to act under directions from either the Board of Customs or the Inland Revenue; he had to act to the best of his knowledge and judgment in consultation with or in correction of the local pension committee, and if they differed, the determination of the dispute rested with the President of the Local Government Board. Accordingly the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing to do with the matter, and the Board's precedents in connection with the income-tax could hardly be said to be binding on the Local Government Board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the precedents in connection with the abatements allowed from income-tax in respect of the premium paid on an insurance policy would be followed. That was a statutory abatement, and the Inland Revenue only allowed it because there was a statutory provision to that effect, and the very fact that they only allowed it because of that would, he thought, be their justification for saying that where there was no statutory provision clearly Parliament did not intend them to do it. Under those circumstances he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, for he thought it was clear that the word "income" by itself would not do. He would ask the Law Officer, who had now happily arrived, to assist them to find a suitable word.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)did not think there was any necessity for the assistance of the
      596
      Law Officers. It was not a technical matter, and anyone acquainted with income-tax legislation, as he was, knew that the word "income" was rarely used in the Act. For that reason he thought there was a great advantage in putting it in this section, because it was not fettered by technical interpretations or legal associations. He understood by income what a pension committee or the Excise officer would say was, as a matter of common sense, the clear income of the person in question, and if they put in "net" he thought it would be a great mistake. Although he thought that, as a rule, the Excise officer would consider he ought to follow the spirit of the deduction allowed under the Income Tax Acts, it was much better in the interests of all concerned that they should not put in a hard and fast definition to prevent an elastic interpretation of the clause. In the case of cottage property, it was clear they could not regard the man's gross receipts as being his income, and the case of insurance premiums had been, expressly provided for by statute in regard to income-tax, and he thought a pension committee would form the same opinion about it.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know whether leaving things to the common sense of the committees was the best way to avoid litigation, and the speech just delivered showed the extreme need of some guiding words. They had before them two illustrations of the difficulties that might ensue from the use of the word "income" only. Speaking as a man totally ignorant of the technicalities of the law, it seemed to him quite possible that if he were on one of these pension committes he should, from a common sense point of view, say the income from the cottages would be what was commonly called the net income, i.e., the gross income less the necessary outgoings, and in that he agreed with the Prime Minister. But he was not so clear about the insurance matter. He had the utmost sympathy with those who insured their lives in order to provide for a cost which might occur after death, or for their successors in any form, but unless they put in statutory words and said that the ordinary income-tax regulation

      597
      was to apply in this case, he asked Committee whether they thought a man's income was to be exclusive of what he paid for insurance purposes. He though common sense led them to the opposite view. Very likely old people would save what they could and put it by rather than insure directly with an office, but the House was not going to deduct such savings. What they put by themselves for expenses which would occur after death, the House did not deduct from their income. If, however, the money went into a society, they did deduct it. He did not think common sense made it clear that a proper distinction was to be drawn between these two cases. The Prime Minister prided himself on the fact that this phrase was not legal English, but common-sense English, which he properly distinguished from legal English, and they were dealing with common sense persons who were to distribute the fund. But let them compare that argument with the argument of the First Commissioner of Works. He said "net income" might lead the ordinary person to indicate a clear income, but it was a legal term which might be misinterpreted. He would have thought not, but he would accept the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman and make a suggestion. The First Commissioner of Works, appealing to a common-sense audience, talked about a "clear" income. Then let that be put in to the clause and it would hit off the common-sense of the committees who would have to deal with the matter. If "net" income was a legal definition, and they did not want to deal with the legal aspect, then let the commonsense word suggested by a commonsense Minister to a commonsense House of Commons express the meaning of the Government.
      MR. ASQUITHsaid the insertion of that word would not in the least assist the solution of the problem; the committees would still have to construe it according to their own ideas.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether it was not necessary to put in some words in order to solve this problem. His right hon. friend had spoken of the insurance which many might be expected to make in the way of life assurance. He thought it was as stated by the hon.
      598
      Member for Leicester, but he was not certain. They were clearly likely to make insurance against sickness. They were far more likely to pay so much a week to insure against sickness, which was a far more pressing anxiety. He presumed that that would not be excluded from their means. With all respect to the Prime Minister, he adhered to his view with regard to what would be the effect of the Bill where there was no experience of these matters. The income-tax basis did not provide for any deductions for payments made to provide against sickness and for medical relief. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the money he paid for doctors' bills was no part of his income?
      MR. ASQUITHsaid the income-tax did not regard insurance premiums as income.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Gentleman who introduced the income-tax into the discussion said that the Excise officers would follow the precedent of the Income-Tax Act. His first observation upon that was that they would only follow it so far as the powers of this Bill corresponded with the powers of the Income-Tax Act, and this Act did not allow them to grant exemptions for payments made for life insurance. He suggested that some words should be put in to carry out the obvious intention of the Government in the matter.
      MR. ELLIS DAVIESasked for further information as to how income was to be arrived at. In the case of insurance premiums they were according to the Prime Minister to be allowed to be deducted as under the Income-Tax Acts, but the income of cottage property was not to be the sum at which it was assessed to income-tax, but the rental after deducting all cost of repairs, as it was known that the cost of repairs was in excess of the sum allowed in income-tax assessments. There was also another class to be dealt with. How was the amount of income of persons in occupation of land to be arrived at. More than 80 per cent. of the farmers in his constituency held less than 50 acres or paid less than

      599
      £50 rent. On the basis of the income-tax their profits were deemed to be one-third of their rent. Was that the basis upon which the pension officer was to go? Was the profit of a farmer paying £50 a year to be put down as £16 13s. 4d.? If so, neither he nor the farmers would object. At the present moment, however, so far as he understood the law a elucidated by the Prime Minister, one basis was to be adopted for arriving a the income of a person with cottage property, and another for arriving at the income of a tenant farmer. In dealing with such a complicated matter which was likely to lead to litigation and injustice, there should be precision of definition. He did not at present see how the income was to be arrived at.
      SIR F. BANBURY: said the income of a tenant farmer was arrived at by taking a proportion of his rent.
      MR. ELLIS DAVIESsaid the income of a tenant farmer is deemed to be one-third of his rental.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid that in the case of nine out of ten tenant farmers it would be nothing like that, but the person who was eligible for a pension was liable to be assessed on that basis. He contended that it would cause considerable hardship, because a great many people would be deemed to have an income they did not possess. If the word "net" was put in, it would certainly not include provision made for sickness or burial, nor would it include the payments suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester. If provision was to be made for that there must be a separate Amendment to deal with it. The only question for the Committee to consider at present was whether the word "net" should be inserted in this way. "Net" was a plain, simple, business word which every business man understood. "Net amount" meant the actual amount put into the pocket after all charges had been met, and available for spending. Its introduction would be a guide to the pension committee, and would not fetter them. He supported, therefore, the suggestion that it should be put in, although it was
      600
      not a legal word, in order to make the matter clear.
      SIR E. CARSONas one who had had some experience in administering Acts of Parliament, did not think the insertion of either "net" or "clear" would strengthen the clause, without adding of what the amount was net or clear—of medical attendance, of repairs of cottages and so on. He did not see how the income-tax argument had any bearing upon the Bill. The income-tax set up an artificial income and laid down specifically what should or should not be taxed. If the Excise officer in administering the Bill was to work out a system, that was saying that he and not Parliament was to legislate. Committees might take most divergent views. One might exclude one set of payments, and another, another. It was Parliament that decided what should be included in deductions from income for taxing purposes. Even if that was not true, they could only deduct up to a sixth of the income. It was a purely artificial matter, and the whole question of profits under the Income-Tax Act was strictly regulated by Parliament. His own view was that they should leave the Bill us it stood. They would have Excise officers in the different districts setting up different standards of income and deductions, and in the end they would probably have to come back to the Local Government Board, the President of which would ultimately become the legislator in regard to the matter. The net conclusion of the whole argument came to this, that by leaving the word "income" as it was, without either the word "net" or the word "clear," they did not know what they were voting for.
      MR. ASQUITHsaid that he agreed with every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He did not wish it to be supposed that he had said or suggested that in determining what was income, either the pension committee, the excise officers, or ultimately the Local Government Board should feel themselves bound to determine the matter by the artificial provisions of the Income Tax Act. The only reason he lad referred to it was to show that the problem under the Act was to ascertain hat part of a man's profits which was

      601
      really income; that was, the absolute profit, after all deductions which the Income Tax Act allowed from profits had been made for the purpose of ascertaining that which, from the point of view of the State, should be regarded as income and assessable under the Income-Tax Act. That was the problem presented by the Income-Tax Act, and he referred to that, not as laying down a rule, but as showing a useful precedent. He quite agreed that it would be better that the word "income" should appear simply without an epithet prefixed. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the only way of really working the thing out would be, not to prefix a vague epithet like "clear" or "net," but to have a schedule allowing statutable deductions. But however carefully that schedule was drawn they would find that they had omitted something which ought to be included, and included something which ought to have been omitted. There was a well-known legal maxim that the mention of one thing meant the exclusion of another, and would introduce an endless chaos of interpretation. Was it not, therefore, far better to leave the interpretation of a particular case to the conjoint opinion of the pension authorities, or to the Excise officers, and in the case of differences, to leave it to the patriarchal control and jurisdiction of the President of the Local Government Board to determine the matter.
      MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he agreed with the last two speakers in this matter, but he suggested that the better way to deal with the question was to have a general reference to what was the past year's income. In that way they would get a distinct figure to deal with, after the deductions in respect of payments to friendly societies, rent, etc., whereas to deal with the income of the coming year would be entirely speculative. Dealing with the past year, the receipts could be produced, and he submitted that if they desired to give the pension authorities and officers some indication as to how the income was to be arrived at, it would be more suitably done by specifying friendly society payments, and all outgoings of one sort or another, doing this at the end of the subsection rather than in the part they were now considering.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the word "income" as it stood in the Bill was clearly not sufficient to meet the case raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, which the Prime Minister, as he understood, had expressed the desire and the intention of the Government to include. Therefore, he proposed, when they reached the proper point, to move, after the word "excluding," to insert the words, "any sums payable on premiums of insurance against sickness, death, or funeral expenses." That would specifically meet the case, which was a very exceptional one, and would not, he thought, be open to the objection raised by the Prime Minister, namely, that if they mentioned one thing they would exclude others. This was a case which stood by itself, and was altogether apart from the ordinary outgoings which had been spoken of. He thought it right to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice of his intention to move.
      MR. HUNTsuggested that after the word "income," the words might be inserted, "clear of all necessary outgoings."
      MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he would suggest another way in which the matter might be met, and which might not be open to the objection raised by his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University. He would like to know the view of the Solicitor-General as to the use of the word "available" income, after deduction of reasonable payments and expenses. If they did not get a decision on this point to-day, it was one of the matters on which the Bill might perhaps be recommitted on Monday.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid they were being asked to decide this point on very insufficient information. The First Commissioner of Works had told them that if they left the word "income" alone it showed clearly what was meant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he rather thought that an allowance would be

      603
      made by the pension officer in respect of insurance payments, but was not quite certain, and that an allowance might be made in respect of repairs to the old man's cottage, but he was not quite certain of that either. Then the Prime Minister had told them, in the first instance, that the rules and regulations which affected income-tax would probably be taken into account by the pension officer; but when he rose again the right hon. Gentleman took that back, and said the rules and regulations as to income-tax had nothing to do with this point. He thought they were reasonably entitled to have some leading from the Government. The Prime Minister had concluded by practically saying that the Government insisted on the word "income" being left alone, and that neither the word "clear" nor "net" should be put in. Yet it was admitted by the three Ministers who had spoken that the subject was being left in the greatest possible confusion. The answer of the Prime Minister had rather indicated to them that it would be in the discretion of the pension officers, of whom there would be some hundreds all over the country, to deal with some of these points. In view of the Bill having been so loosely drawn, in view of the different statements of Ministers, and in view of the vague state in which this point had been left, he thought they were entitled to protest, and to say that they were, at all events, clearly of opinion that the income should be "net," after those reasonable deductions which a poor old man or woman should be allowed to make in ascertaining the amount of income for the purpose of this clause, namely, payments to friendly societies, the weekly payments to a burial fund, and so forth. They were entitled to ask that the word "net" should be accepted, or in the alternative that the Minister in charge of the Bill should undertake that on Report some words would be put in which would clearly define what the income was that was to be taken into account, and how it was to be arrived at, what elements were to be included, and how the deductions were to be allowed. Unless something of that kind were done, they would be perpetrating a piece of injustice calculated to
      604
      raise the greatest possible inconvenience and trouble all over the country. If, however, the Government, undertook to deal with this question properly on Report they might be able to make clear what income it was intended should be taken into account. Unless the Government were prepared to give one or other of these two assurances, he should certainly vote with his hon. friend opposite.
      SIR JOHN RANDLESsaid the one thing most clear about this matter was its obscurity, and if the Committee could not make clear the situation he did not see how the pension committees and Excise officers were to see their way through the fog. The word "available" had been suggested by his hon. friend, and that possibly might not be open to the objection of want of clearness. Not being a lawyer he was not able to make the point clearer, but he thought that some words might be introduced which would make the position less obscure. Somebody would have to decide it and if the committee did not it would be shelved, and the burden placed on somebody else's shoulders. Refusal to accept the Amendment did not end the difficulty. The pension committee would have to come to a conclusion on the matter if the House of Commons did not, and it was by no means an easy matter to come to a clear conclusion. Tot homines tot sententiœ. Almost as many opinions had been expressed as there had been speakers. "Net income " had a different meaning according to the tribunal that might have to decide the matter. "Clear" also had no definite meaning. He was rather driven to the conclusion which had been suggested that they ought to define either by way of exception or by introducing a schedule and putting into it exactly what they intended it to mean. The Prime Minister, he knew, said the schedule would introduce endless chaos of interpretation, but he thought the contrary would be the fact, and that there would be endless chaos if they did not do something. He could not see the difficulty himself of introducing exceptions or elaborating a schedule. He knew it meant trouble, and what the Secretary for War called clear

      605
      thinking, but it was the bounden duty of the House of Commons to put the matter as clearly as possible for the benefit of the pension committees, otherwise very grave injustice might be done. It would make all the difference into what category a pensioner fell, whether they did or did not carve out certain outgoings from his income. Payments to friendly societies for death funds had been instanced. If they were not allowed to carve those out of the income it might cut a man out of an old-age pension altogether, and he hoped even now, almost at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute, the Government would help the committee. It was not a matter of party disputation or recrimination. They all wanted to do the best with the Bill as it had been put before them.
      To leave "income" would not do. It would leave it to someone else to work a way out of the fog, which the House was not able to do.
      MR. SMEATONsaid that after the debate that had taken place, if he could get an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some regulations would be issued for the guidance of the pension officers, so as to allow them to make a liberal reduction on the lines suggested, he was prepared to withdraw the Amendment. If not, he should go to a division.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 310. (Division List No. 147.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

      Fell, Arthur

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Forster, Henry William

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

      Ashley, W. W.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Haddock, George B.

      Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanier, Beville

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

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

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Smeaton and Mr. Watson

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Moore, William

      Rutherford.

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Bennett, E. N.

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Agnew, George William

      Barnard, E. B.

      Bertram, Julius

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Barnes, G. N.

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

      Alden, Percy

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Ambrose, Robert

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Beale, W. P.

      Boland, John

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Beauchamp, E.

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Brigg, John

      Barker, John

      Bell, Richard

      Bright, J. A.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Gulland, John W.

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir. J. T (Cheshire)

      Hall, Frederick

      Marnham, F. J.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Halpin, J.

      Massie, J.

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Mond, A.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Montagu, Hon. E. S.

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Cameron, Robert

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morrell, Philip

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

      Harwood, George

      Muldoon, John

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Murnaghan, George

      Chance, Frederick William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Hazel, Dr. A. E.

      Murray, Capt. Hn A.C. (Kincard

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Myer, Horatio

      Cleland, J. W.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Clough, William

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Nicholls, George

      Clynes, J. R.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Hodge, John

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Cooper, G. J.

      Hogan, Michael

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hooper, A. G.

      O'Dowd, John

      Crean, Eugene

      Hope, John Dean (Fife, West)

      O'Grady, J.

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Horniman, Emslie John

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Hudson, Walter

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Crossley, William J.

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Cullinan, J.

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

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

      Jowett, F. W.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Kekewich, Sir George

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

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Kelley, George D.

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

      Dillon, John

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Pullar, Sir Robert

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      Radford, G. H.

      Duckworth, James

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Duffy, William J.

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Lambert, George

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Lamont, Norman

      Reddy, M.

      Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Erskine, David C.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Essex, R. W.

      Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

      Rees, J. D.

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwick)

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

      Ferens, T. R.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Lupton, Arnold

      Robinson, S.

      Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Lynch, H. B.

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Gill, A. H.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

      Rowlands, J.

      Ginnell, L.

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      M'Callum, John M.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Glover, Thomas

      M'Crae, George

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Maddison, Frederick

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Sears, J. E.

      608

      609

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Watt, Henry A.

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

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Sheehy, David

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Weir, James (Galloway)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Thomasson, Franklin

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Tomkinson, James

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Toulmin, George

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Snowden, P.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Wiles, Thomas

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Verney, F. W.

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

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Vivian, Henry

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Winfrey, R.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Walsh, Stephen

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Walton, Joseph

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Summerbell, T.

      Wardle, George J.

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Waring, Walter

      Elibank.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan

      MR. CHIOZZA MONEYmoved to insert in the first line of subsection (a) the word "unearned" so that, in calculating the means of a person for the purposes of this Act, it should be the unearned income only that should be considered. He said his object was to save the applicants from the tender mercies of the pension committees. He looked upon those committees with some alarm, and anyone who read the various sections of Clause 4 would conclude that when these incomes had to be decided, in accordance with the sliding scale, the task would be difficult indeed. He desired to exclude from the provisions of this Clause all those persons who were earning their incomes. Subsection (a) was worded—
      "The income which that person may reasonably expect to receive."
      He submitted that an old man of seventy to seventy-one could not be reasonably expected to earn any income for any considerable length of time, and this, taken in conjunction with the proviso that—
      "That income in the absence of other means of ascertaining the income, being taken to be the income actually received during the preceding year"—
      would be very unfair to the old men earning a few shillings a week. Obviously the power to earn income decreased very rapidly after seventy, and if an old man was earning 9s. or 10s. a week in 1908, he could not reasonably be expected to earn as much in 1909. The pension committee under
      610
      this clause would have to take it that he would be able to earn that income in the succeeding year. He invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to compare the respective positions of an old man of seventy, possessing a house worth£200, bringing in 6s. a week, and an old man of seventy earning 11s. a week. The latter would receive 3s. under the sliding scale, whereas the owner of the house would receive 5s. a week. Therefore the property owner would be in a superior position as compared with the man earning his income. The object of this measure was to have regard to the past services of a man to the community. The man earning his income was still performing services to the community, and he ought to receive his pension over and above any amount he might be earning. That man ought to receive the 5s. a week, quite apart from the 10s. or 11s. he received as wages. He would be quite willing to accept some definition of "unearned," although that had not been considered necessary in the case of the income-tax. He was also willing to accept a limitation as to the incomes of those to whom this particular provision should apply. As an alternative he suggested that instead of saying "the unearned income" they should Say "the income in the form of rent or interest which that person may reasonably expect to receive."
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 6, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'unearned.'"—(Mr. Chiozza Money.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'unearned' be there inserted."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that obviously it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He rather complained that it had been moved without any estimate being given as to what it would cost. He thought the Government was entitled to ask hon. Members who moved Amendments of this sort what, in their judgment, would be the cost, because if they did not give that information the Committee was not in possession of all the case. He wondered whether the hon. Member had the slightest idea of what it would cost to accept this Amendment without any limitation.
      MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he had stated most clearly that he was quite willing to limit it.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had to consider the Amendment on the Paper. The Lord Chancellor might receive a pension of 5s. a week, or the Attorney-General, so long as they spent all their earnings. A man in business might be earning as much at seventy years of age as at fifty, because his business might have developed. A workman, if he worked hard and broke down in health after managing to save enough money to build a house, was to be penalised under the Amendment. That was so unfair that he did not think it was necessary to dwell any further upon it. Again, the Amendment would not only add at least another £750,000 to the cost of the Act, but it would be chiefly for the benefit of the well-to-do. He hoped the Committee would confine the Bill to the more destitute instead of to those who were better off.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINagreed that it would be impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Member who moved it, however, had called attention to a very real difficulty, and had he confined his observations to that point his case would have been a good deal stronger. As an illustration, the hon. Member inquired how a pension authority would calculate under this Bill the income of an old man
      612
      who had in the past year been able to earn a few shillings a week, and had secured an average wage during the year of 8s. a week. The continuance of that would be dependent upon the goodwill of an employer, because such wages would probably be paid, not merely for present services, but in recognition of a long life spent on an estate or an old connection with the works. Consequently such an income would be largely dependent upon the continued existence of the person from whom it was received and also upon the continued good health of the recipient. The hon. Member would avoid any difficulty by excluding that case altogether.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to point out a serious difficulty that would arise if the Amendment were not accepted. Supposing an old man of sixty-nine was earning wages amounting to a few pence less than 10s. Instead of continuing to work that man under this Bill would deliberately give up his job in order that on reaching seventy he should not have an income of 10s. a week, whereas if the word "unearned" were inserted he would go on earning that money. It was very desirable that he should be encouraged to do that, and be allowed to continue to receive his pension. Why should such an Amendment not be considered on the ground that the cost had not been worked out? If the Bill were passed in its present shape every person approaching seventy years of age would immediately give up any little occupation he might be carrying on and in which he was earning a few shillings a week, and society generally would be all the poorer for the loss of that useful labour which old people should be encouraged to perform. He thought they should have had more encouragement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Amendment had been accepted, it would have been made clear that if a man in the country was earning half-a-crown a week as a scarecrow, or something of that sort—[Laughter]. There were people in society who were not earning half-a-crown a week, and he thought the Committee might have some respect for the old man who was earning half-a-crown a week in a humble occupation of that kind. Why should he be

      613
      precluded from receiving a pension, and thereby penalised because he was doing a little work? If the Amendment was pressed to a division, he would vote for it.
      Question put, and negatived.
      LORD R. CECILmoved to amend subsection (a) by inserting after "the income which that person may reasonably expect to receive" the words "as of right." The first difficulty he had in his mind was that in the case of a man who was receiving 10s. or 12s. a week as a pension, or from other sources. Unless some such words as he proposed were inserted—he was not sure that the words he proposed were the best for the purpose—the result would be that the State would be making a present to the employer of the difference between 10s. or 12s. a week and 8s. a week. If a man was receiving 12s. a week before this scheme came into operation, his total income under the sliding scale would be 13s. That was clear from the sliding scale, and unless they made an Amendment of this kind it appeared to him that it would be the interest of all those people, whoever they were, whether employers of labour or charitable agencies, to reduce the payments to 8s., so that their pensioners would be in precisely the same position as now. That was a difficulty which must be met in one way or another. There was another difficulty if this clause remained as it was. So far as he could see the unhappy pensioner would have to bring into account every little present he received. If he got 10s. as a Christmas box that would have to come into the account; and, if he was allowed a little tea and sugar by an old employer, that also would have to come into the account. He did not think the framers of the clause had any idea of the stringency of its terms. Every conceivable thing was brought into account by the Bill. He was not exaggerating, as hon. Members would find if they turned to the Bill. Subsection (a), which they were discussing at present, merely dealt with cash, and it would bring in the Christmas-box. Subsection (b)—
      "The yearly value of any advantage accruing to that person from the use or enjoyment of
      614
      any property belonging to him which was personally used or enjoyed by him."—
      would his the person who was living in a house of his own. Subsection (c)—
      "The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him"—
      meant that if he had£5 in a stocking, it would have to be brought into the account. Subsection (d)—
      "The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person"—
      would include tea, sugar and milk. That was a very severe clause indeed, and he suggested that the Government must do something to limit it, otherwise if the unhappy pensioner did not make a return of all these things, he would come under the penalties of the Act, which were very severe. Clause 9 provided that any person who, for the purpose of obtaining an old-age pension, made a false statement or a false representation would be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with hard labour. He did not believe the Government intended that, but at the same time that was the proposal of the Bill. He begged to move.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 7, after the word 'receive, to insert the words' as of right.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was perfectly clear from the speech of the noble Lord that this Amendment was not at all relevant to subsection (a), but to the subsections which came later in the clause. The noble Lord's criticism was not directed to the subsection with which they were now dealing as to income, but to the subsections dealing with benefits and privileges. If that was the case, the Amendment ought to be moved at a later stage. He could not follow the noble Lord in his criticism of the later subsections. He did not think it was a convenient method to discuss subsection (b) when dealing with an Amendment to subsection (a), If they did so they would

      615
      get into such a state that it would be absolutely impossible to get on with business. They would be able to discuss the whole matter if they would only discuss it a little more concisely. He thought the Committee could have discussed the whole of this clause in the seven or eight hours they had at their disposal. He agreed that the points raised by the noble Lord would have to be discussed, and he would give explanations when the later subsections came on. There were only two or three points of substance in the clause, and with the assistance of the noble Lord and of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen they were fair matters for clearing up, but if he started to clear up subsections (b), (c), and (d), before they disposed of subsection (a)——
      LORD R. CECIL: What about Christmas boxes?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is 10s. in cash, and I do not agree that that comes under subsection (a). As a matter of fact it would not come under subsection (b) either.
      LORD R. CECIL: It would come under subsection (a).
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it would not in his opinion. If a man made his income from tips, he would include that. But that was a matter for discussion. There were some who were really paid in tips. There were waiters who were supposed to pay for being allowed to enter certain restaurants, because they looked to the tips for their income. All that sort of thing had to be considered by the pension officer and the pension committee. That was why it would be absolutely impossible to deal with every specific case in a clause of this kind. These matters would have to be left—he would not say to the discretion of the officer, but to the consideration of the officer, and that was why he could not accept the words of the Amendment. He had taken the trouble that morning to take four or five of the earlier Amendments on the Paper and to count what the additional cost would be if they were carried. He thought the Committee would be interested to know——
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is now proceeding to refer to other Amendments. Is that in order?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman would be very well advised not to give these figures, because it is exactly that kind of information which widens the area of discussion and makes it impossible for me to keep it within proper limits.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his point was this. The difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to find the money. When he was confronted with these Amendments which involved additional cost he was bound to point out to the Committee, subject to the Chairman's ruling, that it was impossible to say what all these accumulated additions would amount to, but it was certain that they would amount to such a preposterous sum that it would be quite impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to face the task of finding the money. He would deal with the later Amendments when they came to them. The first Amendment would have demanded£750,000; and here was another amendment by the noble Lord which asked for£500,000 to meet the case of some 40,000 persons—not very poor persons at that—who were receiving 10s. or 11s. a week pensions as old labourers on estates. The Committee would see that these two Amendments, which involved an additional £1,250,000 to the charge on the Exchequer, were moved not even with any confidence, because, as his hon. friend the Member for Paddington said: "Any other sort of words would do; it is not the words I ask the Committee to adopt." The noble Lord asked the same thing: "I do not think these words are very well expressed; the Government may take another form of words." But when it was proposed to add an additional £1,250,000 to the national expenditure hon. Members ought to be a little more careful. These were the kind of drawbacks to such Amendments; they went on by stages at something like £500,000 per Amendment. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was extremely inconvenient to discuss the Bill in Committee under the existing methods. But whose fault was that? It was certainly not the fault of those on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the course taken by hon. Gentlemen in moving Amendments by which they could make their voices heard on a subject of special and particular interest to them, or, it might be, on subjects differing from that dealt with by his noble friend which would cause great hardship and cruelty to many people in the country. Hon. Members ought not to be condemned for so doing, because that was the only possible chance they had of getting a hearing at all in defence of these poor people. If there was any trouble at all in this matter it arose from the course the Government decided to take from the first and before they had oven seen an Amendment on the Paper.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is not germane to the Amendment before the Committee. It is out of order to question the decision of the House.
      MR. CHAPLIN: I was not referring to the action of the House, but to the action of the Government.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That is the old excuse. The House has passed the Resolution, and it is not competent for the Committee to reflect on it.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid that when the right hon. Gentleman challenged the procedure of hon. Members on that side of the House, he thought he was within his right in defending them against the charge made against them. He did not intend to discuss this particular Amendment on that occasion. As to the estimates which the right hon. Gentleman had made in regard to the cost of this and further Amendments——
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not refer to further Amendments.
      MR. CHAPLIN: Well, in regard to the Amendment they were discussing
      618
      now. If the right hon. Gentleman found himself in difficulty because Amendments were moved entailing further cost on the Treasury and further provision to be made by the Government, again who was to blame? Not hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. Their complaint had been from the outset that the Bill had not been thought out as it ought to have been. If it had been, the right hon. Gentleman would have foreseen the necessity of making provision for these cases of hardship about which great complaints were made. The justice of his observation had been proved over and over again, because the right hon. Gentleman had given way. and willingly given way, to them in the course of the debates.
      MR. RAWLINSONsaid he had abstained from taking part in these discussions, for he felt that no legal right was given under the Bill at all at present and therefore the discussions were merely of words. The pension was to be given by means of a relieving officer or pensions committee, just as poor relief was now given by the boards of guardians; therefore the discussions on legal points were perfectly out of place. But the Amendment moved by his noble friend raised a most important point—looked at from the point of view of this very extraordinary section about ascertaining a man's income and the concrete instance given by the noble Lord. Supposing by some sort of fortune or good luck a man had a legacy left him in one year of, say, £25, or that he happened to have had a benefactor, or a friendly old employer, who had given him a dole of£20 or£30; if the benefactor died and it was well known that that man would never again receive a legacy or dole, under this extraordinarily drawn scheme that man would be excluded from the benefit of the pension, because they would be bound to take his income as the exact amount of money actually received during the preceding year. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not have meant that. That was not merely a legal technicality; the point went to the root of the meaning of the section. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not mean that any absolutely

      619
      voluntary payment made to a man during the year 1908 would exclude that man from receiving a pension in 1909. If that was not meant, then the words proposed by the hon. Member must be inserted in this line, and also in line 11. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's shaking his head that that was not, in his view, the meaning of the section, but he pressed to have some words put in to make it clear that any voluntary payment made during the year would not prevent a man getting his pension in the following year.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he thought his hon. and learned friend had not given his usually vigilant care and attention to the section under review. He agreed that "income" was a very vague word. It occurred in many statutes for different objects. It had received a rather different scope in such statutes as the Insolvent Debtors Act and other Acts, where "income" had to be construed in each case according to the general purpose of the statute. "Income" under the Income Tax Act would not cover voluntary payments unless they were of the character of a clergyman's Easter offerings or a waiter's tips. In each particular case it was left to the assessor to say what was the character of a particular payment which was to be treated as income. In this case they could not give a perfectly precise and accurate definition of the word. All that they could do was to define the tribunal, and to say that in this case they were going to have a particular person, the pension officer, who was to be entrusted with a wide discretion governed by the general meaning of the clause. What was the general meaning of the clause in so far as the Amendment was concerned? A great deal had been said about voluntary payments which might be made in one year and next year be taken as part of the income; but if one looked at the clause as it was they would arrive at substantial agreement that where there was a legacy it would not be treated as income. There were undoubtedly some cases in which it might be argued that a voluntary payment should be treated as income— "the income which a person might reasonably expect to
      620
      receive." That again covered some of the cases mentioned by the noble Lord. As to the case of a mere casual tip, that would not necessarily enter into the anticipated income for the succeeding year.
      LORD R. CECILsaid he agreed that he was putting the case of a casual gift. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knew, there were a large number of cases where it was the custom to give a small sum regularly at Christmas.
      SIR W. ROBSONsaid that matters of that kind, having regard to the complexity of human relations, could not be dealt with to a degree of precision. They should be left to the discretion of the pension officer. Then by steps and stages they arrived at the income which might reasonably be expected next year. A mode of ascertaining the income in the absence of other means would be by taking the amount of the previous year, and if he as Excise officer had to construe the section he would exclude voluntary gifts unless there was reasonable likelihood of their recurring. Absolute uniformity could not be obtained or provided for. In the succeeding subsections property was dealt with, and in the last the yearly value of any benefit or privilege, and there was quite enough to indicate to the pension officer the way in which he should set about ascertaining income apart from voluntary and casual payments.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there could not be a greater contrast than between the speech they had just heard and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee was indebted to the Attorney-General for arguing upon the different sections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had waived aside with an obiter dictum as irrelevant, and, indeed, suggesting that his noble friend had introduced them into the discussion for the purpose of wasting time.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdenied that he had said so.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman, with some

      621
      show of irritation, had said there would be plenty of time to discuss this point if hon. Members did not waste time by discussing subsections which were not relevant. The Attorney-General invited the Committee to look at subsections (b), (c), and (d). He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer before administering undeserved rebukes would consult the Attorney-General as to the meaning of the Bill he had in charge. He desired to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the effect of his arguments on a large class of benefactions enjoyed by people who might expect to benefit under the Bill. He agreed with the Attorney-General that it was impossible to meet every case by exact definition, but there should be certain guiding principles showing a clear idea of what was intended. It was quite true that the Excise officer was subject to the control of the President of the Local Government Board, and that that gentleman in turn was subject to the control of Parliament, but it would certainly be undesirable to have an annual discussion on the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the exact interpretation which he had or should have put on the words of the Act. Should there be taken into account for estimate of income such doles or gifts as were given by charitable institutions or individuals? It was probable that an old person would receive gifts for successive years to which he had no right, and for which he could make no claim. He did not quite know the attitude of the Government on this point. The Attorney-General, speaking of a casual gift, such as a Christmas-box, said he should not himself take into account anything unless there was a reasonable likelihood of the same thing occurring in the subsequent year. That was clear under the terms of the Bill. But ought it to be taken into account if there was a reasonable likelihood of its occurring. Ought they to take into account charitable gifts, either from individuals, friendly societies, endowed charities, or any source of that kind? In his opinion they ought not. Let them suppose that at the present time there was a charity which gave an old-age pension. Some societies did give pensions, and
      622
      others money grants and doles at certain stated intervals in the year. It was probable that the persons who received those gifts last year would receive them this year, and as long as they lived. The probability being admitted, ought those charitable gifts from those charitable funds and benefactions from private individuals to be taken into account. Surely they ought to be in addition to and not in subvention of anything the State might give. It was quite clear that there were cases in which such societies as he spoke of would desire to supplement the allowance given by the State. If such subventions brought the man within the limits of the sliding scale, were they at once to reduce the pension? They certainly ought not. The case in favour of not reducing the pension in the case of private benefactions was even greater. It was quite possible that though people might continue to make these charitable grants after the pension was given, they certainly would not do so if the only result was to relieve the Exchequer. Even if those gifts were taken into account there would not be the escape from the additional expenditure of£500,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, because people would cease to make gifts if they were made the grounds of reducing or refusing a pension. He should certainly support the Amendment.
      MR. HAROLD COXsaid there was an extraordinary contrast between the speech of the Attorney-General and the attitude taken up by the Government a couple of days before. The Attorney-General gave as a reason for rejecting the Amendment that all these matters must be left to the pension committee, and in their discretion they must decide what an income was. As the Government had adopted a sliding scale, that meant that the committee was to decide what pension a person was to have. A couple of days ago an Amendment was proposed to give discretion to the committee, an Amendment which he supported on grounds of humanity. The Government refused to accept that because they said no discretion ought to be left to the pension committee; but now, according to the Attorney-General,

      623
      everything was to be left to the pension committee. That seemed a very important admission. They now knew the mind of the Government. These pensions were not to be given as a right, and they were only charitable pensions to be given by pension committees instead of boards of guardians.
      MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the formidableness of this proposal could be measured by the fact that it would involve £500,000 a year. He did not think that they could escape that £500,000 a year. Instead of allowing the House to decide whether that £500,000 a year should be placed on the backs of the taxpayers, they were going to leave it to the chance selection of pension committees and pension officers, with the prospect, as the Attorney-General had reminded them, that was experienced in the case of the clergyman's Easter offering, which, like a shuttlecock, passed between the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeal, and eventually was decided on a final appeal to the highest Court of the Empire. The Attorney-General might revel in that prospect, but the humble pensioner would not regard it with the same delight, because what he required was a scientific way of deciding the question. These varying payments took the form of cash payments, and it would have to be settled some time or other how they were to be dealt with; but if they did not decide how they were to be dealt with for the purpose of calculating pensions, they would not only be throwing the duties of that House on to the shoulders of irresponsible subordinate officers, but they would be going further and putting power in the hands of the donors of these merely revocable and precarious payments to place this burden on the Exchequer. He hoped the House would make up its mind to settle this question once for all.
      LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid the clause as it stood would give an infinity of trouble, and lead to a good deal of injustice when the Imperial officer came to attend to the matter. He could not understand
      624
      the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said the Amendment would add 40,000 people to the pension list. He could not conceive that there would be any poor persons at all in the country over seventy years of age whose income would be over 7s. or 8s., and then they were to get 4s. or 5s., as a graduated scale had been adopted. His belief was that the working of the Act in country districts would show that everyone's hand would be against the Imperial officer of the pension committee, and that everyone would be in league to defeat the Exchequer. They could picture an old man of seventy, probably very hard of hearing, and not having the benefit of a very good board school education, such as was now given, being called before the Imperial officer, or pension committee, to make out what his income was last year, and what his income might reasonably be expected to be next year. Would he remember the few extra days he had been employed threshing, or the time when he went out with a battue? It would not be to the old man's interest to remind the authorities of the facts, and how were they or the Imperial officer to find out? When they came to the question of the Poor Law the whole question was absolutely different. The greater number of the guardians were fairly large ratepayers, and it was in their interests, when a man applied for relief, to find out all about him, to see whether he was really destitute, so that they might not spend the ratepayers' money wrongly. But in this case every man who came before the pension authorities would have his hand against them; every hand in the district would against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Certainly in the country districts the number of people with incomes of 8s. 6d. or 9s. would be nil, and they would find plenty with incomes of 7s. 6d. of 8s. in order to get the 5s. He could not conceive how they were to arrive at the amount of a poor old man's income when he was called up to give evidence of what money he had earned. He might have forgotten that he had been employed two or three months in the year previous, and the end of it would be that the old man would have given a false return, for which he would be liable to six months imprisonment, although

      625
      it was perfectly certain that no magistrate and no jury would convict. He could not conceive that the Government had given proper attention to the subject, and he would be surprised if the Imperial officer was able to decide points in dispute to the satisfaction of both parties—the old man of seventy and the representative of the taxpayers.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that this point was of such importance that they would like to have the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon it. In Ireland a large section of the population were assisted by their friends in America. In some cases they sent a few pounds, perhaps£5, and the remittances came fitfully. Under this scheme it would be difficult to arrive at an understanding of what the pension officers were to do in the matter. The Attorney-General had said that such a sum as£5 coming to a person in Ireland from America would not be taken into account as part of the income. If that was the view of the Attorney-General, he thought it was necessary that the Government should put something to that effect in the Bill. Sometimes as much as £100 was sent from America to poor families in Ireland, and, according to a later subsection of this clause, if it was to be read literally, the sum which was received last year as income was to be taken as foreshadowing what the income would be next year. Of course, the pensioner would then be precluded from receiving his pension. The man who received the £100 might invest it in securities at home, and if he received only 3 per cent. it would be classed as income and he would be precluded from receiving the pension in the succeeding year. He thought the Government ought to face the problem of charitable contributions and be done with it. Were they to pass this clause without any definition whatever, or were they to accept an Amendment such as was suggested by the noble Lord, who wished to put in the words "as of right," which at all events would do something to place a limitation as to what a person's income was? This subsection, like many other parts of the Bill, was a mystery. It had been so hurriedly drafted that the Government
      626
      themselves could not explain it. It was left to the Opposition to make the Bill workable, and when they did their best to correct mistakes in drafting they were told that they were wasting the time of the House. He though that if they wanted to pass this subsection the words suggested by his noble friend ought to be inserted.
      SIR F. BANBUEYsaid he was afraid that he could not support the Amendment of his noble friend. The hon. Member for Preston had shown that the Government were inconsistent in refusing his Amendment a day or two ago, and now they were going for a different reason to refuse the Amendment of his noble friend. He did not expect consistency from the Government, and he therefore listened to the arguments advanced on each Amendment, and did not bother to consider whether they were consistent with what had been said previously. He had come to the conclusion that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unanswerable. There were many cases in which 15s., 17s., 18s., or a £1 a week was given to old servants or old employees. There was no legal liability on the part of the donors, who could withdraw the payments, and the recipients had no legal means of enforcing them. If his noble friend's Amendment were carried, all these people would be included, and they would be receiving in addition to 15s., 17s., 18s., or a£1 a week another 5s. a week. That was a very serious burden to place on the taxpayer, and he did not think the people themselves were in a sufficiently necessitous position to call for their having the extra 5s. Take the case of a person receiving 13s. a week. His noble friend said that the man's income would be reduced to 8s. in order that the balance might be made up with the 5s. paid by the State. Generally speaking, he agreed with his noble friend, but on this occasion he really must support the Government. He found himself in a curious position. He had voted twice for the Government on the previous day, and apparently he was to do so again. He really thought, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would excuse his saying so, that his argument ought to have some weight with the House. They could not go on piling up these additional sums of

      627
      money. He stood there endeavouring to do his duty by the nation as a whole.
      SIR E. CARSONasked whether, in the computation of incomes, purely voluntary allowances would be included. He understood the Attorney-General thought they would not, and he would have assumed that himself from the word "income." He should assume that if he told a man he might rely on his giving him 10s. a week for the rest of his life, that was not within the meaning of the section.
      SIR W. ROBSONsaid he had dealt with the subject somewhat fully before. He thought in the great bulk of cases voluntary payments would not be treated as income. But the Committee would hardly expect him to go over the same ground again. There were some voluntary payments which he could well imagine would be treated as income where they came within the wording of the Bill as being reasonably likely to recur. But he refrained from laying down any universal proposition with regard to voluntary payments.
      LORD R. CECILsaid that in view of the failure of the Government to answer the two points that he had put, he would have no alternative but to proceed to a division. Let him just re-state those two points, so as to make it quite clear. The first was that unless they had some such provision as this they would be exposing any pensioner who did not disclose the fact that he received 10s. as a Christmas gift, not only to imprisonment, but to repayment of the money. It was simply to protect the pensioner from a harassing prosecution, it might be, by a village enemy. He was satisfied that some such words must be put in to deal with that case, unless they were going to run the risk of grave injustice. The second point was that unless they put in some such words they were in effect making a grant not to the old and poverty-stricken industrial labourers, as they were called, but to those who were paying at this moment pensions to those men. He agreed that his words might go a little too far, but as the Government
      628
      were evidently not disposed to meet them at all in the matter, he would have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
      SIR W. ROBSONsaid the noble Lord had inadvertently used phraseology which might give rise to some misapprehension with regard to the application of penalties under the Bill. He had said that if an applicant for a pension made a false return he would be liable to this, that, and the other. But he was not called on under the Bill to make a return. What he was called upon to do was to refrain from making false representations. There was a very material difference. The penalty was not for failure to make a return. It attached only to a positive mis-statement
      LORD R. CECIL: If he says his income is so much a year, and does not include in it the 10s., or whatever it may be, it will be a false statement.
      MR. RAWLINSONwanted to make perfectly clear the point they were at now. The Attorney-General had said that voluntary payments which were reasonably likely to recur would be treated as a man's income. The case which he had in his mind was that of a man who was receiving three sums of 4s. each from his three sons. What he wanted to make perfectly clear was that the Bill meant to treat that as income and the Amendment proposed that it should not be treated as income, and that the applicant should be entitled to his pension just as if his sons were not making these onerous contributions.
      AN. HON. MEMBER: They could reduce their allowance.
      MR. RAWLINSONpointed out that the clause stated that in the absence of other means of ascertaining income, it should be taken to be the income actually received during the preceding year. In this case the 12s. would be taken as being his income for the next year.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 298. (Division List No.148.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Haddock, George B.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Ashley, W. W.

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Balcarres, Lord

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

      Hill, Sir Clement

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

      Barnes, G. N.

      Hills, J. W.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hodge, John

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesal

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Hudson, Walter

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Jowett, F. W.

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Butcher, Samuel Henry

      Kelley, George D.

      Seddon, J.

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

      Kerry, Earl of

      Shackleton, David James

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Snowden, P.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

      Stanier, Beville

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Stanley Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Cave, George

      Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

      Starkey, John R.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

      Summerbell, T.

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

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

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

      Clynes, J. R.

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      M'Calmont, Colonel James

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Walrond, Hon Lionel

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

      Mason, James S. (Windsor)

      Walsh, Stephen

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

      Duffy, William J.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wardle, George J.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Moore, William

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Younger, George

      Fell, Arthur

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Gill, A. H.

      Nield, Herbert

      Viscount Valentia and Mr.

      Glover, Thomas

      O'Grady, J.

      Forster

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Agnew, George William

      Bennett, E. N.

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Alden, Percy

      Bertram, Julius

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Ambrose, Robert

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Armitage, R.

      Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

      Cameron, Robert

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Black, Arthur W.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Boland, John

      Chance, Frederick William

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Brigg, John

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Barker, John

      Bright, J. A.

      Clough, William

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Brodie, H. C.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Brooke, Stopford

      Collins, Sir Wm. J. (SPancras, W.

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Beauchamp, E.

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cooper, G. J.

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Idris, T. H. W.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Cox, Harold

      Jackson, R. S.

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Crean, Eugene

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      O'Dowd, John

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Crossley, William J.

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

      O'Shee, James John

      Cullinan, J.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Kavanagh, Walter M.

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

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

      Laidlaw, Robert

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

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Lambert, George

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Lamont, Norman

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Dillon, John

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Pullar, Sir Robert

      Duckworth, James

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Radford, G. H.

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Dunne Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

      Erskine, David C.

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Reddy, M.

      Essex, R. W.

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Lundon, W.

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Lupton, Arnold

      Rees, J. D.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Ferguson, R.C. Munro

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Maclean, Donald

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Flynn, James Christopher

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

      Robinson, S.

      Foster, Rt Hon. Sir Walter

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

      M'Callum, John M.

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      M'Crae, George

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Fullerton, Hugh

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

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Maddison, Frederick

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Ginnell, L.

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Scaris brick, T. T. L.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Marnham, F. J.

      Sears, J. E.

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Massie, J.

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Meagher, Michael

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

      Hall, Frederick

      Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Halpin, J.

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale

      Middlebrook, William

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Mond, A.

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Mooney, J. J.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Harvey W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Harwood, George

      Morrell, Philip

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Morse, L. L.

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Muldoon, John

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Murnaghan, George

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Henry, Charles S.

      Myer, Horatio

      Tennant, H J. (Berwickshire)

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

      Napier, T. B.

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Nicholls, George

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Higham, John Sharp

      Nolan, Joseph

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Tillett Louis John

      Hogan Michael

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Tomkinson, James

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Nuttall, Harry

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

      Toulmin, George

      Horniman, Emslie John

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Verney, F. W.

      632

      633

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

      Weir, James Galloway

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Vivian, Henry

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      White, J. D. (Dum bartonshire)

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

      Walton, Joseph

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Winfrey, R

      Waring, Walter

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Joseph Pease and Master

      Watt, Henry A.

      Williamson, A.

      of Elibank.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

      MR. MILDMAYmoved to amend the clause by excluding from the calculation of means "any sums of a less annual value than £40 received in consideration of previous contributions to a registered friendly society or trade union." He said that some time since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted through the Chief Registrar to ascertain what were the views of great friendly societies with regard to various points in connection with the introduction of a scheme of old-age pensions. The Registrar put certain questions to the societies, and with regard to the bulk of those questions the societies were unwilling to commit their members in view of the divergent views of the same. On one point only did those applied to feel at liberty to express a strong and decided opinion. On one point only were they absolutely unanimous. They were agreed as to the great harm which would result to the cause of thrift if it were enacted that the receipt of a weekly allowance from a friendly society should wholly or in part disentitle an individual to the receipt of a pension, and very rightly so, for how was it possible more effectually to discourage thrift amongst the poor than by providing that by their very efforts to be thrifty, by their very self-denial, exercised probably at the cost of their own comfort, a poor man should penalise himself, should deprive himself of the pension to which he would otherwise be entitled? The Bill as drafted was the very reverse of an incentive to thrift. It penalised thrift. If the Government thought fit to accept his Amendment, the Bill would then give the poor every incentive to thrift, every incentive to add by contributing to a friendly society to the 5s. that would come to him in old age, and which after all was but a small pittance. Allusion had been frequently made to case of New Zealand, where the
      634
      pension scheme was already in existence What was the provision in the New Zealand Act? It was as follows—
      "Income shall be deemed to include personal earnings, but not any payment by way of sick allowance or funeral benefit from any friendly society."
      In consequence of this provision old-age pensions had not prejudiced the position of the friendly societies. In New Zealand the Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows was just as active as it was at home, and what said their Report? It was to the effect that—
      "Since the carrying of an Old-Age Pension Act the operations of the Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows have increased at a rate of five times as great as in any other country."
      It might be asked why thrift through a friendly society should be specially guarded. Why should not individual thrift be guarded in the same way? That criticism had been made by those sitting around him, but he held that the communal thrift inculcated by a friendly society, based on the mutual interests of members, was entitled to even more consideration than the thrift which was stimulated solely by the interests of the individual. And, moreover, they had already conceded this principle in the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act, which had been passed some years since, and by which guardians of the poor were enabled to neglect any sums up to 5s. received weekly from a friendly society. He now came to the Amendment. Why had he fixed £40 as the limit? He had been informed that there were a large number of members of friendly societies who had contributed for a sickness benefit of over 12s. per week, receipt of which would, of course, debar them from a pension. It might be said, why not lay down that the limitation of income should not take into account any sums received as sick pay or superannuation pay from a friendly

      635
      society or a trade union? In view, however, of their declarations, the Government would probably be unwilling to go thus far. They would insist upon some limit. Some trade unions, he believed, gave a superannuation grant of 10s. to 15s. a week. Fifteen shillings per week meant£39 per annum, so that his limit of£40 admitted of the individual receiving 15s. a week from a friendly society without penalisation. He had sufficiently detained the Committee. Be it remembered that putting aside trade unions, with regard to which other members would speak, the work of friendly societies was enormous, he might almost say wonderful. Their membership amounted to 6,000,000; their funds were £50,000,000 sterling; the payment of annual benefits amounted to £5,000,000. How important it was in the interests, not only of friendly societies, but of the State that this good work should not be hampered! Still more important was it that the thrift which a man practiced to provide for himself in times of sickness or old age should not be made the excuse for depriving him of a pension which would be paid to a less thrifty man. And now with regard to expense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the day before that no Amendments of this kind ought to be proposed without calculation of the cost, but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, it was impossible for them without expert aid to calculate the cost. But with regard to the expense, speaking for himself, he (Mr. Mildmay) would rather see some reduction in the general amount of pension voted: he would rather see this, distasteful as it would be to him, than he would see such unjust, such unequal, he might say such impossible provisions in the Bill as had been passed by the House of Commons the day before. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said on the previous Wednesday that further concessions were impossible, but he was hoping that they had been pondering over the dictum of the hon. Member below the gangway sitting upon the Labour Benches, to the effect that consistency was but a scurvy virtue. Indeed the Government had often given them cause by their actions to think
      636
      that they were not averse to taking that view at times. Seriously the whole House, and he was certain the whole country, were anxious for some such concessions as were foreshadowed in this Amendment, and he most sincerely hoped that the Government would consider the possibility of acceding to it.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 7, after the word 'cash,' to insert the words 'excluding any sums of a less annual value than forty pounds received in consideration of previous contributions to a registered friendly society, or trade union, and.'"—(Mr. Mildmay.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. L. HARCOURTsaid he would explain why the Government could hardly be expected to accept this Amendment. In their opinion they could not exclude from the income test only those societies mentioned in the Amendment. If they did so they would be driving thrift into a narrow and specified channel—he did not say it was a bad channel—and would there by be discouraging small investments in industries of all kinds. To distinguish income derived from thrift, or savings, or whatever they liked to call it, from other income was almost impossible in many cases. He would give a rough example. How were they to decide what were savings in the case of a mail who inherited some years ago, say from his father, £150, who had saved another £150, and put both sums into a house or a cottage, or an investment of that kind? How were they to decide how much of that was due to his own savings or thrift, and how much was due to what he had inherited from his father? Were they going to decide off-hand that the £150 which was inherited was in no sense savings? It might be regarded as savings because he had not spent it.
      MR. MILDMAY: That is outside of my Amendment.
      MR. L. HARCOURTsaid he was sorry if he had wandered outside of the Amendment. If the hon. Member's Amendment was accepted, it was clear that other Amendments must be passed to extend to all investments. It was impossible

      637
      to make out a selected schedule for this purpose. It would have to be extended to building societies and to many other societies of that kind, including saving-banks and co-operative societies, and even to investments in gold mines. People's ideas as to thrift in the matter of investments might vary, and if this was extended to sums received from friendly societies and trade unions, it would have to be extended to other concerns beyond what in the ordinary sense were termed provident institutions. It might reasonably take the form of putting money into the stock-in-trade of a small business from which a person earned his income. A man might have his savings invested in a small cottage, or he might have put them into something which would help him to earn enough to live upon. Contributions to the societies mentioned were taken in the Bill as proof of thrift, where it was necessary that an applicant for a pension should produce proof of his thrift; but to exclude those societies from the income test and not to exempt also investments of savings in building societies and co-operative societies would be an unreasonable thing. He was informed that if the Amendment was accepted 20,000 additional persons would become eligible for pensions at the cost of a quarter of a million sterling.
      SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not intend to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, to exclude sums received "from any investment made out of the savings of that person."
      MR. CHAPLINsaid the only substantial objection which the First Commissioner of Works took to the Amendment was that it was so limited. That was a difficulty which could easily be got over. The Amendment might easily be widened, and before he concluded he would move to insert words which would remove the objection which the right hon. Gentleman entertained. He would propose to enlarge the scope of the Amendment by moving to omit all the words after "friendly" in order to insert "provident or other society or trade union, or from such other approved provision against old age, sickness, or infirmity as may be recognised as proper
      638
      provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act." He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could take exception to these words, because they were the words of an Amendment which the Government moved and carried last night after the guillotine had fallen. It was quite true that the Amendment was moved last night in regard to another matter, but he thought that rather strengthened his position. The Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night introduced words by which the disqualification of the idler for a pension was upheld, but the right hon. Gentleman made the concession that if a man in that position had contributed for ten years to a friendly or other society, or had given other proof of thrift, he was to obtain the benefit of the old-age pension scheme. The First Commissioner of Works had now informed the Committee that contributions to a friendly society were to be taken as proof that a man might be entitled to a pension.
      MR. L. HARCOURT: Not disentitled.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer went a great deal further than that the other day, and, therefore, he could not see how the Government could refuse to accept this Amendment. On 19th June a deputation from friendly societies waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was the last man in the world to lack appreciation of the services rendered to the community by friendly societies; on the contrary, he was making membership a qualification, for a friendly society would be able to put on their notice paper: "Membership of this society is a certificate for old-age pensions." Under these circumstances he did not understand on what ground the Government offered any hostility to the enlargement of the Amendment by the addition of the words which he was going to move. The object his hon. friend and himself had in view was to remove the discouragement of thrift which was so manifest in the Bill, and which, if allowed to stand, must have the most injurious effect on the community. The First Commissioner of Works calculated the cost of the Amendment at a quarter of a million sterling.
      MR. L. HARCOURT: I am informed that I greatly under-estimated the cost.
      MR. CHAPLIN: That only confirms what we have said over and over again, that this Bill has never been thought out by the Exchequer.
      MR. L. HARCOURT: It was my blunder. I had the correct figures here, but I misquoted them.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid that even so the loss of revenue would be far less injurious to the community than the harm that would be done to the friendly societies by the direct discouragement of thrift contained in the Bill. Upon that there was evidence to any extent they pleased. The statements with regard to the views of the friendly societies on this point were put before the House. What was the drift of their opinion on the question of thrift? Taking them all through, according to the best calculation he had been able to make, they were more than two to one of opinion that the Bill, in its unamended form at all events—for he insisted that very little improvement had been made since on the subject of thrift—was extremely injurious in that aspect. He had been told that although the large majority of the friendly societies were of that opinion, on the other hand if the number of members were counted the majority were in favour of a non-contributory scheme, and that that was a matter that ought to be taken into consideration, and that that would make this reference less unfavourable to the Government. But the largest friendly society in the United Kingdom, the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, gave no answer to that return. It was not needed, because the Grand Master at their recent annual conference—and silence gave consent to his words—stated as clearly and definitely as he could that a non-contributory Bill was as mischievous as could be, and that he was entirely opposed to the plan of the Government. He could quote any number of other cases if necessary. He had quoted a good many on the Second Reading of this Bill; but he did not think it was necessary to say more in support of his hon. friend's Amendment. He proposed himself, with the permission of the Committee, to
      640
      move as an Amendment to the Amendment of his noble friend, "To leave out after the word 'friendly' the rest of the Amendment, and to insert 'provident or other society or trade union or from such other body provision against old age, sickness or infirmity as may be recognised as a proper provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act.'" He begged to move.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid he would have to alter the form of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment so as to exclude "trade union."
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
      "To add at the end, the words 'provident or other society, or from such other approved provision against old age, sickness, or infirmity, as may be recognised as proper provision for this purpose by regulations under this Act, and'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. CAVEsaid it was rather surprising to him that the Government, which only the previous day proposed and carried an Amendment to the effect that investments in friendly societies should be taken as a sign of thrift, should object to this Amendment. His right hon. friend had referred to the returns made by the different friendly societies, and he would read to the Committee the resolution which since the return had been unanimously passed by the conference of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows—
      "That this annual conference of the Manchester Unity Friendly Society, while approving the proposal to provide State pensions for aged and necessitous workers, strongly urges upon the Government and the House of Commons the desirability of ensuring that no person who would otherwise be eligible for the State allowance shall be deprived thereof because of the receipt of sickness or superannuation benefit from a friendly society."
      That was in substance the proposal of his right hon. friend. The case really lay in a nutshell. They were all in favour of encouraging thrift; and the majority of the friendly societies were agreed that if the income received from them by members was included as income

      641
      under the Bill thrift would be discouraged. If a man felt that his contributions to his society and the income which would result from these might deprive him of a pension he would be very likely to think it useless to save money in that way. The result of the Government scheme, as it stood, would therefore be to discourage that form of thrift which consisted in becoming a member of a friendly society. The only serious argument against the Amendment was that if they protected that kind of saving there was no reason why they should not protect other kinds. The answer was clear. Investment in a friendly society was the particular form of saving most prevalent among the people whom this Bill was intended to help; and the Amendment said that if a man saved in that way he should not be penalised. Further, the exception proposed depended on facts which could be readily ascertained, it involved no prying into a man's personal means, and if carried it would help the friendly societies. A similar provision had had the effect in New Zealand of very substantially increasing the membership of the friendly societies; and he felt that if the Amendment were not carried the membership of the friendly societies in the United Kingdom would be likely to go down. The Government were in some danger of putting a penalty on thrift which the Amendment would, to some extent, avoid, and he was sure the public would consider it a great improvement on the Bill.
      MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he was very glad to hear the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen above the gangway in favour of old-age pensions, but he wondered how it was that they had not had an old-age pension scheme before them during the long years they were in office. Although they might regret the past, it was quite evident that when their friends were in power again they were going to have the very best scheme of old-age pensions ever heard of. All the same he felt that he must support the Amendment. As one who had been connected with friendly societies and a trade union all his mature life he believed there was some justification for the demand for the exemption of the income derived from them in calculating income for the receipt
      642
      of an old-age pension. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if exemption was given to members of friendly societies, why not also give exemption to the income of a man in a small way of business or who had invested his savings in a house? There was all the difference in the world between the two cases. Take his own case. Before he could draw his superannuation allowance he had to pay into his society or trade union for forty years and could not in all that time make use of his money. But a man in a small way of business got the use of his money all the time. He did not profess to speak for the party to which he belonged, but only as an old member of a friendly society, and he thought the Government should as far as possible meet their views.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,on a point of order, said that the Amendment which was last put from the Chair was an Amendment to an Amendment dealing with friendly societies. It was very inconvenient to discuss friendly societies on an Amendment of a totally different character. His suggestion was that his words should be added to the Bill and that then they should discuss the whole subject. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was an extension to other forms of thrift.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it was not common, even usual, and certainly favourable to debate, when an Amendment was moved to the original proposition, to discuss both the Amendment and the original proposition, so that the debate should cover the whole ground.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid that this was a matter in which he could meet the convenience of the Committee if he could find out what was desired. He had no objection to the Amendment to the Amendment being discussed with the original Amendment provided the decision was taken at the same time. [Cries of dissent.] If that did not meet with the convenience of the Committee they must take the strict course, and when they had decided upon the Amendment to the Amendment they could discuss whatever was left.
      COLONEL LOCKWOODasked whether it would be in order now to discuss the Amendment of his right hon. friend.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman wished to add certain other words. The first thing to be decided, if the Committee objected to discuss the two things together, was whether the words were to be added or not. If they were added, the whole thing could be discussed.
      MR. GOULDINGappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and let the Committee take a decision upon the great issue of trade unions and friendly societies, which many of them desired to see tacked on to the Bill.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid the answer to that appeal was that the Government had stated that as to the original Amendment moved there could be only one reply: that it could not possibly be accepted because then other societies would have to be added.
      MR. CARLILEsupported the appeal of his hon. friend that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment. He contended that the great friendly societies and trade unions were in a totally different category from the other organisations to which his right hon. friend had referred. The hold which the trade unions and great friendly societies had over the workmen of the country was that in making their contributions the workmen knew they were not only making contributions in their own interests, but that, side by side with the mutual provident arrangement for themselves, they were able to help their comrades in other directions. It was because his right hon. friend had placed these in the same category as the other forms of thrift that he objected to the Amendment. They ought not to be included with others of a selfish nature.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, as he understood the matter, if his right hon. friend did not withdraw the Amendment it would be impossible to have a discussion
      644
      on the real issue, the great friendly societies, and that, to many Members on both sides of the House, would be a matter of regret. He suggested, therefore, to his right hon. friend that he might bring up this separate proposition in a separate form. If the Committee permitted him to withdraw his Amendment now he could bring it up again on the Report stage. He therefore suggested that the Committee should allow his right hon friend to withdraw. [Cries of dissent.] He perceived that the House did not wish to take the discussion on the real issue. If that were the case two or three Members could prevent the discussion if they chose. If that course was taken, his right hon. friend, if he accepted the suggestion, should endeavour to have the two questions divided, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of discussing the other. The responsibility for failure would not rest with him, but with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with the Government who raised obstacles when the Bill was recommitted. He suggested to his right hon. friend that he should throw the responsibility on the Committee for preventing a decision being taken on these two issues, and that he should now ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid he was most anxious to meet what appeared to meet the general view of the Committee, and, above all, the wishes of his right hon. friend. He might just repeat that he would never have dreamt of tacking his Amendment on to this if it had not been that all the methods of the procedure of the House had been upset. In these days they were driven to move Amendments in a totally different form from that in which they would have moved them if free speech had not been restricted. He had moved the Amendment in this form because he had no guarantee that if he did not move it now he would ever be able to move it at all. Under these circumstances he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was filled with admiration at the conduct of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon and his magnanimity in

      645
      withdrawing his Amendment, not in deference to the opinion of his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, but in deference to the appeal of his colleague the Member for tariff reform and Worcester. He was reluctant to intervene to emphasise the hon. Member's appeal, but the spectacle of the rift between Wimbledon and Worcester was simply heart-rending.
      MR. SHACKLETONhoped the right hon. Member would not withdraw his Amendment. He himself was anxious to have the opportunity of supporting the Amendment. As a member of both a trade union and a friendly society he did not ask for a special privilege for these societies. There were hundreds of thousands of people in this country who had not the opportunity suggested in the first Amendment. There were thousands of women who never had the opportunity of joining a friendly society or trade union. What was the position? Two organisations or two methods of investment had become popular, especially among women. Where there was no opportunity of joining a trade union they put their money into a co-operative society, and when the small dividend accrued it was left to accumulate to make provision for their age. Were they to be debarred from the privilege enjoyed by a man with £3 a week who had joined a trade or friendly society? Another method of investment had been provided by some municipalities, who gave labouring men and women an opportunity of investing in the municipal funds by accepting small weekly sums. The Committee should be very careful not to make exceptions of people who could afford more, and he hoped they would vote on the Amendment, and take the test upon that point. In their zeal and energy to amend this their new friends on the Opposition Benches were deserving of support. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stick to his guns. He had a good course in hand now.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether they ought not to have some reply from the
      646
      Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman's supporters whether or not they were in favour of the Amendment. It was quite clear that every one who had invested in the form stated would be disqualified, and therefore, it remained with hon. Members opposite to say whether or not they would accept the Amendment.
      MR. MADDISONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension altogether. He said he wanted an answer. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had given him an answer. The Leader of the Opposition wanted a clear issue, but he could not have that unless the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon was passed. That was the whole point. The original Amendment confined itself to two points, and his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe had shown that they could not have a clear issue until they had an Amendment which did not merely include two forms of thrift but all kindred forms of thrift. Just imagine the mute friends of friendly societies, these new-found enthusiasts for old-age pensions, these champions of thrift—[An HON. MEMBER: We are as old as you are]—had actually forgotten the various forms of thrift, and their memory only took them to two until they were joined by the hon. Member for Clitheroe. Up and down the country there were tens of thousands of people who did not get into trade unions, but who invested their little savings in co-operative societies, and were still promoting the best interests of industry by so doing. If they were to have a clear issue they could not have the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon withdrawn.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Committee was in rather a difficult position. The Government did not think it necessary to defend their attitude or to explain it. They left their case to be argued by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on one side or the other. Hon. Members sitting around him on those benches had been attacked by the hon. Member for Burnley, who said that they were now interested for the first time in

      647
      the subject of old-age pensions and friendly societies. There was not a shadow of foundation for the hon. Gentleman's statement, which it was difficult to criticise in Parliamentary language. Though the hon. Gentlemen had offered some provocation by the language which he had employed, he would pass on to deal with what he had attempted in the way of argument. The hon. Member had said that they could not get a clear issue if they withdrew his right hon. friend's Amendment. He knew that the House was not going to allow his right hon. friend to withdraw it, but, if the House permitted him to do so, they could take a separate vote on the two propositions which were now before them. They could divide first on the Amendment of his hon. friend behind him, which confined the exemption to thrift which had taken the form of contributions to friendly societies and trade unions, and they could divide subsequently on the separate proposition which his right hon. friend the Member for Wimbledon was anxious to make. Was there any reason why a distinction should be made between these two kinds of thrift? The hon. Gentleman below the gangway and the hon. Gentleman opposite said there was none. But already the House had repeatedly made the distinction which his hon. friend the Member for Devonshire was now seeking to introduce. The distinction was embodied in the law of the country when they were dealing with the present Poor Law relief, and it was embodied in this Bill by the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. As to the original Amendment the Government had announced that they would not accept that Amendment. His right hon. friend had moved the Amendment which made the ground of the argument of the First Commissioner of Works and of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who had just spoken, that the original Amendment was limited and restricted, and that, therefore, they ought to take every form of thrift, whatever it might be. That was a perfectly reasonable proposition. It was one in regard to which there was a great deal to be said, and which was well worth arguing in that House. But was it because they might accept the proposal
      648
      that the Government insisted on so amending the original Amendment that they refused the right to his right hon. friend to withdraw his proposal? No; it was because they could reject the whole Amendment as amended more easily than they could reject the original Amendment if it stood alone. And they were going to see Members of the Government and their followers go into the lobby in support of the proposition of his right hon. friend, not because they desired to accept it, but in order to deprive the House of an opportunity of voting on another Motion which they were actually unwilling to accept, but still more unable to resist.
      MR. GOULDINGsaid they had been repeatedly told by the Government that when any Amendment was moved extending the Bill, those moving it ought to put themselves in a position to state what their course was going to be. Now they had a right to ask the Government, who had all the machinery at their backs, what they estimated would be the cost of the extension which would be made to the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Devonshire with the addition made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. They wanted to know what was going to be the actual cost, because the First Commissioner of Works had made a bungle of the figures. The moderate Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonshire dealt with the specific cases of individuals who had exercised thrift and had saved the country hundreds and thousands of pounds in rates. The right hon. Gentleman had turned and said that he could not support this moderate proposal because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon had extended the proposition by including a vast number of other people, and that the expenditure would consequently be too prodigious; therefore, he was going to ride off on that issue. The right hon. Gentleman was a keen campaigner in the country, but he did not think that the working classes would be led away by a mockery of that kind. The people of the country who had exercised thrift, and the friendly societies without exception, had asked that their efforts should be rewarded by the recognition of their

      649
      right to the old-age pension. No amount of subterfuge or of talking on the Amendment of his right hon. friend would release the Government or hon. Members below the gangway from the charge of having deliberately ignored the unanimous re request of the great friendly societies throughout the country. He had risen to ask a question to which he thought he had a right to a specific answer from the Government, and that was what was the accurate estimate of cost they made on the original Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Devonshire.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's speech is largely out of order. We have now only to consider whether these words are to be added. The hon. Member has no right to ask what will be the expense of the original Amendment.
      MR. GOULDING: Am I not entitled to ask what is the estimated expenditure on the original Amendment, and what will be the total expenditure with the Amendment of my right hon. friend added to the original Amendment?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Strictly speaking, we are on the point as to adding these words, and the only question which arises is what is the extra cost of that addition.
      MR. GOULDING: That is my request. What will be the total expenditure on the Amendment if amended by the addition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon? I would like to point out to you that we are in this difficulty. The Government, through the First Commissioner of Works, distinctly stated in this House that inaccurate figures had been given with regard to the Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that. We must settle this matter first. We cannot dispose of that question until we have settled this one.
      MR. GOULDING: If the Amendment of my right hon. friend is added to that of my hon. friend the Member for Devonshire, shall we not then be in a position to get an accurate statement of the cost of
      650
      the original Amendment, and am I not entitled to ask what is the cost of the joint Amendment?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Not now. Thai question might be asked later, but I have no means of enforcing an answer. It will be a perfectly relevant and proper question when we have settled whether these words should be added or not, whatever the result of the decision may be.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Committee might have imagined from the indignation of the last two speakers that this was some proposition of the Government. They would hardly believe that their anger was because the suggested words were moved by one of the leaders of the Opposition. This was not the Government's Amendment at all. It was the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, and simply because it had been suggested that these words should not be withdrawn, but that they should be added, all the vials of the wrath of the Member for Worcester, of both the Members for Worcester, had been poured upon the Government. An Amendment was moved which sought to set up some sort of preference for two specific forms of thrift to the exclusion of others. Banks, building societies, co-operative societies—every form of thrift was to be discouraged except the two which were so near the hearts of hon. Members opposite.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to order. I wish to ask whether, after your ruling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to discuss the original Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be discussing the original Amendment.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was imply giving a plain narrative of the facts. That was the proposition. Then came his right hon. friend, who answered on behalf of the Government and pointed all this out—that it discouraged every other form of thrift. Then the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman saw the force of that argument. He wanted

      651
      to be fair and just—and justice was justice to all, not merely to those privileged communities which his hon. friend was so much in love with. He was convinced, and instantly moved an Amendment that included them all. That was the position. It was due to the logic of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. Why should they be abused because the right hon. Gentleman had a clear and fair mind? Of course, they knew perfectly well why the Amendment was moved, and why all this indignation was expressed. It was because they thought they had got the Government in a hole, and it was in pursuance of the policy which had been pursued from the start of moving wild, illogical, irrational Amendments without any sense of responsibility, or any regard at all to the cost to the revenue, in order to be able to say to every class in turn, "We voted for you, and those wicked Radicals voted against you." All he could say was that it served them right, because it was purely a manœuvre. The right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly angry with the hon. Member for Burnley because, he said, he had rather taunted them with what they had done in the matter of old-age pensions. He would like to know what they had done, except to talk about them at bye-elections. That was the position. They were entirely responsible. If they were going to vote at all, let them vote for a clear principle. The noble Lord, he knew, was very anxious and eager to push these logical principles home, but he thought it would be a difficulty for the Government. Here was a test. Did he really say it was fair to discriminate in favour of trade unions against friendly societies and co-operative societies and every other form of thrift? Yet he would vote for it. Why? Not because he was a greater believer in trade unions than in other forms of thrift, but because it was putting the Radicals in a difficulty.
      LORD R. CECIL: Why not?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the principles they were now called upon to vote for, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, who
      652
      had the courage of his convictions, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, who had so consistently supported the Government——
      SIR F. BANBURY: May I point out that I voted with the right hon. Gentleman once to-day, twice yesterday, and I am going to vote with him on this Amendment as well?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was the sort of support that one liked to get. Now there was a clear and definite principle before the Committee, that every form of thrift, without any exception, and every saving should be exempted. The moment they added the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon to this proposition, he would be in a position to point out to the Committee what that really meant. But let them see clearly what they were voting for, and vote for some definite principle and not for a mutilated suggestion.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was one advantage in closure by guillotine which he had never suspected before. It had given them the opportunity of hearing from the Minister in charge of the Bill the kind of speech and the kind of temper which those in charge of a Bill usually restrained from fear of prolonging debate, but which the right hon. Gentleman opposite knew he could indulge in with absolute impunity. It mattered not in the least how he stoked the fires of controversy; in fact, the more the debate was prolonged the better for him, and the fewer the difficulties in which the Government found themselves. His amazement at the performance they had just listened to was redoubled by the fact that unless his eyes wholly deceived him it was the same right hon. Gentleman who had just delivered an inflammatory oration who had asked him to move the closure on the debate ten minutes ago.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, I did not ask that.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he might have been mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had got a passion for clear issues, and it was for that reason that

      653
      he declined to have the first proposition put with regard to friendly societies and trade unions, and subsequently the Amendment of his right hon. friend He was not content with explaining what he called his object. They all knew what was his object. He need not go through all those oratorical figures in order to disguise the result. But why should the right hon. Gentleman indulge in perfectly unfounded attacks upon the Opposition, following the example of less responsible persons on both sides of the House below the gangway? "Who are these people," said the right hon. Gentleman, "who now profess some regard for trade unions?" He would tell him who they were. They were the people who had passed all the best legislation for trade unions. [Cries of "The Trade Disputes Bill."] He said all the best legislation. Every Labour man in the House knew that what he was saying was correct. "Who are these people," the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "who expressed this new-found regard for thrift?" Had they ever been behind hand in showing their interest in friendly societies and in helping thrift? A more foolish, inappropriate, untrue, and irrelevant charge never was brought by a Minister anxious to advance business before the House at a moment like that. And then as a climax the right hon. Gentleman, borrowing the thunder of two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, said: "Who are these people who desire to extend the provisions of a pension scheme? They are the people who have never produced a pension scheme." It was perfectly true that since, largely under the guidance of his right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham, the pension question came to the front, during the remaining years of the Unionist Government no pension scheme was brought forward. They were perfectly aware that they had not the money to carry it out, and he presumed that for three years after they left office, hon. Gentlemen opposite had not the money to carry it out. If they had, why did not they do it? Why did they frame their Bill in terms which notoriously inflicted enormous hardship on people on the margin, if they had the money? Had they got the money now? He admitted he belonged
      654
      to a party which did not bring forward schemes for old-age pensions which they had not the money to pay for. But why that should be dragged in to smooth the path of debate utterly surpassed his power of understanding. The simple facts of the case were these. There were two propositions with which the House was now concerned, the Amendment of his right hon. friend and the original Amendment. It would be, he thought, better if they could divide upon those two propositions separately. The Government, for obvious purposes of manœuvre, were determined to divide upon them together. They might have money—and let those who professed this wonderful friendship for the friendly societies note this—they probably had money to deal with the Amendment of his hon. friend behind him. They believed they had not money for the larger proposal of his right hon. friend. They were, therefore, determined to do nothing for the friendly societies, and they thought they could escape an obligation, which they could not escape if that proposition was dealt with alone, under cover of the financial difficulties which the larger proposition imposed on them. This new-born love of logical symmetry, which had never oppressed the Government at any previous stage of the Bill—this passion for driving every proposition to its extreme logical consequences—which now beset them, was really a plan for not making their money go as far as it would go. Let the friendly societies thoroughly understand the position. Apparently, the Government thought they had a case for saying it would not go the length of his hon. friend's proposition. The Government were determined to sacrifice the friendly societies upon the altar of logic; and upon the altar of logic alone they were prepared to deal a blow at the great friendly societies which under the pension scheme existing in New Zealand flourished. [Cries of "Order."] That was what the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to do. They had money enough for the members of friendly societies, but had not, or thought they had not, enough to go the whole length of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman he Member for Wimbledon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he could

      655
      show that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon involved such a great expenditure of money that the House would be forced to reject it. The refusal of the Government to allow these two questions to be voted upon separately was simply a dodge by which the interests of the friendly societies might be sacrificed under cover of the financial necessities of the country.
      MR. MILDMAYasked if he was in order in asking that the cost of his Amendment might be given. He thought they should have that information before they were asked to vote. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman merely as a matter of courtesy, and he could not see any reason why he should decline to accede to his request.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: How can I give an estimate in regard to an Amendment moved only an hour ago?
      Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
      Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he could not give them an estimate of the cost of the Amendment. Perhaps he could give them an estimate of the cost of the original Amendment. It was most important that they should have the correct figure, because the First Commissioner of Works had put it at£250,000, and he stated subsequently that he had made a mistake and had given the wrong figures. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the right figures in his possession.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he went through the Amendments with such information as he had at his disposal, and he had received an estimate from the Treasury. The Treasury estimated that the first Amendment would increase the number of pensioners by 100,000 people. That would make a very serious addition to the cost of the Act. It would mean another £1,300,000. But when he came to the addition that would be made by
      656
      accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, the cost was absolutely prohibitive. The Amendment of that right hon. Gentleman was practically unlimited. It was estimated that some 400,000 people would come in under the ten-shilling test, and it would be a most moderate estimate to say that the Amendment as a whole now before the Committee meant an additional £2,600,000, Of course, he had to trust very largely to guesswork on the part of the officials. But he could not possibly accept the Amendment, either in its original form or in the more logical and equitable form in which it had been placed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon.
      MR. JOWETTsaid it appeared to him to be a most reprehensible proceeding for a member of the Government to prevent a vote being taken on the more restricted issue, and himself compel the wider issue alone to be divided upon, knowing all the time that he did not intend to support the wider issue. The right hon. Gentleman had purposely taken that course in order to keep the other issue from being put. It had been alleged that the Amendments from the Labour Benches were not bona fide.] [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He might say that the intentions of those present wore bona fide, and they wished to support them with all the power they could bring to bear. With regard to the action of the hon. Member for Clitheroe, he understood that the hon. Member intended to vote for the wider issue now raised and not the narrow issue.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have now got beyond whether the wider or the narrower issue was to be taken.
      LORD R. CECIL: Surely it was in order to give reasons why they should support the wider issue.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was dealing with the action of the Government on the Amendment which is settled.
      MR. JOWETTasked what else could he deal with. As a private Member he

      657
      wished to protest against the way the business was being conducted. Surely they had a right to vote on any issue which was put before them, and he was now being deprived of that right by the action of the Government for the deliberate purpose of saving hon. Members
      opposite the trouble of going through the division lobby.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 149.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.

      Gill, A. H.

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Glover, Thomas

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gretton, John

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Balcarres, Lord

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Renton, Leslie

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Haddock, George B.

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

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

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Richardson, A.

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

      Harris, Frederick Leverton

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hodge, John

      Seddon, J.

      Butcher, Samuel Henry

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Shackleton, David James

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

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Hudson, Walter

      Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

      Cave, George

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanier, Beville

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Jowett, F. W.

      Steadman, W. C.

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

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Summerbell, T.

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      M'Calmont, Colonel James

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Walsh, Stephen

      Crooks, William

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Moore, William

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Nield, Herbert

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      O'Grady, J.

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Fell, Arthur

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Mildmay and Mr. Hills.

      Forster, Henry William

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      NOES.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Bell, Richard

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Agnew, George William

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Bennett, E. N.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Armitage, R.

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Cameron, Robert

      Ashley, W. W.

      Bertram, Julius

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Bethel, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Chance, Frederick William

      Astbury, John Meir

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Clough, William

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Brigg, John

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Barker, John

      Bright, J. A.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Brodie, H. C.

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Barnard, E. B.

      Brooke, Stopford

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

      Barnes, G. N.

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

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

      Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Lament, Norman

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Crossley, William J.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Schawnn, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

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

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Sears, J. E.

      Duckworth, James

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Seely, Colonel

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Lyell, Charles Henry

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

      Essex, R. W.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Maclean, Donald

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Everett, R. Lacey

      M'Callum, John M.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Findlay, Alexander

      M'Crae, George

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Fuller, John Michael F.

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

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Fullerton, Hugh

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Maddison, Frederick

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Massie, J.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Gulland, John W.

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Hill, Frederick

      Middlebrook, William

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Tillett, Louis John

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      Mond, A.

      Tomkinson, James

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Toulmin, George

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Morse, L. L.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdae)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Verney, F. W.

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

      Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard)

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Myer, Horatio

      Vivian, Henry

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Napier, T. B.

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Wardle, George J.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Nicholls, George

      Waring, Walter

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

      Henry, Charles S.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Watt, Henry A.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Partington, Oswald

      Weir, James Galloway

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Paulton, James Mellor

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Hooper, A. G.

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Pollard, Dr.

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Hyde, Clarendon

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

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

      Williams, Osmend (Merioneth)

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

      Jackson, R. S.

      Pullar, Sir Robert

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Radford, G. H.

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Wilson, J. W. Worcestersh, N.)

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

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

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Rees, J. D.

      Winfrey, R.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Roberts, Charles H. (Linclon)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Kelley, George D.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Robinson, S.

      Elibank.

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Lambert, George

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      MR. ASHLEYmoved an Amendment to provide that in the calculation of a person's means there should be excluded any sum not exceeding £26 5s. a year received
      660
      from the Crown as a pension for services in the Imperial forces of the Crown. He said that the arguments which had been used that afternoon in support of other Amendments

      661
      applied with, equal force to this Amendment. Soldiers and sailors who were in receipt of pensions should not have those pensions taken into consideration when they were claiming old-age pensions. There were two special arguments in support of the Amendment which he wished to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first was that a soldier's pension was really part of his daily pay. He enlisted for a certain period at so much per day, and the State said to him that at the end of that period he would receive so much by way of pension for the rest of his life. He thought it was rather unfair to take into account in this connection the money which a soldier was entitled to receive in respect of services which he had rendered to the country. That was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment, but there was a stronger, and that was that every English man or woman, according to the views of every hon. Member, was entitled to a pension of 5s. a week at seventy years of age. What did the soldier or sailor do? He undertook the liability of meeting dangers and discomforts far in excess of those which the ordinary citizen had to face. He undertook to fight the battles of his country, to serve for long periods in unhealthy climates, to undergo irksome discipline, and to risk his life in the service of his country. Therefore, he was entitled, over and above what civilians were entitled to, to have some extra remuneration for those services which he rendered to the State. He imagined that under the Bill as it stood any pension which a soldier or sailor received for the loss of an arm or a leg in the service of his country would be taken into consideration in estimating whether he should have an old-age pension or not. That would really be a very hard case if he was to be debarred from receiving a portion, if not all, of the old-age pension which other citizens were entitled to receive. They were constantly hearing of soldiers and sailors going into the workhouse. This year a large sum of money had been raised privately to take old soldiers and sailors out of the workhouse. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept the Amendment in its entirety, he would urge him to give some indication that
      662
      he would meet the case of the men who received extra pension in respect of the loss of an arm or a leg in the service of the country. At the present moment very great difficulty indeed was found in recruiting for the Army and Navy, and if it were made widely known throughout the country that a man who had served his country well would receive a money compensation for the loss of a limb and that the whole of the benefits would not be taken away when he reached seventy years of age, but that he would receive a pension of 5s. a week, it would not only remove a sense of injustice but would have a beneficial effect on recruiting. He begged to move.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 7, after the word 'cash,' to insert the words 'excluding any sum not exceeding £26 5s. a year received from the Crown as a pension for services in the Imperial forces of the Crown.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the hon. Member had spoken as if this was a Bill to deprive old soldiers of an old-age pension. On the contrary, this Bill gave to those old soldiers, or a vast majority of them, the opportunity of receiving a pension of 5s. a week. There would not be many of them who would be excluded owing to having an income of 12s. a week. He had no desire to disparage the services of our soldiers and sailors, or the manner in which they risked their lives for the honour of the flag; but miners and sailors in the mercantile marine also risked and sometimes lost their lives in the service of their country. Fortunately the loss was the exception, and he hoped it would become more and more the exception.
      MR. ASHLEYsaid that the miner's wages and the soldier's pay could not be compared. The miner was paid several times as much as the soldier or the sailor.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the soldier and the sailor were guaranteed their wages and, in certain cases, a pension

      663
      throughout life; but he was not comparing the two cases at all. The miner was exposed to all sorts of accidents, but the State did not guarantee a pension to him for the rest of his life. He had always thought it a great scandal to this country that we should allow men who had fought on many a field of battle to die in the workhouse. He did not think that any Britisher could feel anything but a thrill of shame that the heroes of Balaclava, for instance, should be allowed to die in the workhouse. But this Bill would, at any rate, prevent that in the case of old soldiers in the future. There would be a guarantee of 5s. a week to the old soldier when he attained the age of seventy, in addition to his pension from the Army. Say that his pension was 1s. a day, that would be 7s. a week, and unless he received something from another source which made his income more than the limit, he would always get his old-age pension. He knew that there were cases of hardship, but while he would not for a moment disparage the services of the old soldier or sailor, it would be impossible for him to draw a distinction between him and the men who served the State in civilian occupations at the risk of their lives, such as miners, railway servants, and sailors in the mercantile marine, who had likewise to scramble for a renewal of their employment, it might be every six months, or who, if they met with an accident which disqualified them from work, secured in most cases only a little miserable allowance. Under these conditions he did not think he would be justified in accepting the Amendment.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he saw the difficulty in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed, but he did not think that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman had quite done justice to the old soldier or sailor of the Royal Navy. He would put to the right hon. Gentleman two considerations which he had entirely omitted from his view. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about the heavy casualties which certain trades involved, and had quoted as illustrations miners and seamen of the mercantile marine. But the State had provided in these cases that a man should receive compensation for injury,
      664
      or that his relatives should receive compensation for his death caused by such injury. Soldiers and sailors in the service of the Crown were, however, excluded from the provision which Parliament had thought necessary to make for civilians in such events. Again, did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself feel that the State owed something to those who worked directly for it? Parliament had already recognised higher obligations to those whose services had done something useful during their life-time to the country.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Those pensions were granted for special services.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Quite so; but that destroyed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention that there was no distinction to be drawn between the members of the military and naval forces of the Crown and civilians, like miners and sailors of the mercantile marine, who ran equal risks and served the State indirectly in private employment. He was sorry that in connection with this Bill they could not do something special for those who served the State in the forces of the Crown, either in the way proposed by his hon. friend, or, as he should have preferred, in the direction of making the old-age pensions awardable to such people rather higher than those who had given no direct service to the State. This was not a matter on which he felt he could, under the circumstances, press the Government very hard; but he could not pass the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observations without saying that they had already recognised higher obligations to those who served the State directly than to those who served the State indirectly.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGwished to add to the appeal made by his hon. friend in favour of something being done, no matter how little, to differentiate between the ordinary classes of working men who reached the age of seventy, and those who served in the Army, Navy, and Marine Forces of the Crown. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he did not wish to draw any unfair comparison between those who served

      665
      their country directly, and those who served their country indirectly. But it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was making an unfair comparison between them all the time. The right hon. Gentleman's point was that miners accepted their employment on certain conditions, but these conditions generally were very favourable, because they received a higher rate of wages than any other class in the community, and they had therefore a chance of putting by money, or joining friendly societies. But in the case of soldiers and sailors serving with the colours, they were unable to put by for their old age. In the case of those who were recompensed after they had retired, that was not because they were destitute, but because a certain amount of pay was withheld from them during their service. Very few firms in civil life stopped from their men pay which they gave back in the shape of a money grant or bonus when the men left their employ. If the hon. Member carried the Amendment he would be the best recruiting officer in the kingdom, because if those who desired to join the military or naval forces knew that compensation for injuires received in active service would not be taken into consideration as part of their income for the old-age pension, a better class of men would come forward. If these words were added in favour of those who had performed a service for the country it would not only be a great incentive for them to join the colours or the Navy, but have a very material effect on those who had joined. He did not think the comparison made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between the men in the mercantile marine and the men in the Navy was a good one. The services were vastly different. The right hon. Member had said that the former had to scramble for existence, but, as a matter of fact, they had a choice which did not exist in the Navy. In the Navy a man was always under the command of the officers, but in the mercantile marine, if after a voyage, a man did not like his ship, he could choose another. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was the same as his objection to many others. It was that he was unable to say what the cost would be, but in
      666
      this case it would be very slight, and in any case a slight modification of the sugar duties would provide the funds. One-tenth of the£3,500,000 in question there would be sufficient to provide for the Amendment. The Government seemed to be afraid to make any exception whatever. All who had spoken from the Treasury Bench had said it was better to make no exception in this matter of calculating the means of those who were to receive a pension. But even from that standpoint a gracious concession on the part of the Government to this particular class would have a very great effect in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman now representing the Government took the responsibility of accepting the Amendment, which he was quite able to do, he was sure his action would meet with the highest approval of the great bulk of the community.
      LORD BALCARRESthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really missed the point of the Amendment. He had compared the soldier and the sailor with the ordinary artisan, the man in the coal-pit and the factory, and the sailor in the mercantile marine, and had said that they had an equally good claim as had the soldier and the sailor. With that, however, he could not agree. If a man in a civil occupation lost his life, his heirs received a very substantial sum under the Compensation Acts. No such benefit was reaped by the relatives of a soldier or a sailor who lost his life in the service of the country. That in itself entirely vitiated the simile of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A still more cogent argument missed by the right hon. Gentleman was that these pensions were not pensions in the sense that an artisan received a pension from a man who had employed him for many years. Ninety per cent. of these pensions was deferred pay. The ordinary soldier was compelled to submit to a certain reduction of his daily pay for the purposes of the pension that was given to him, and the fact that he received deferred pay at the end of his life entitled him to be included in the category of thrifty, just as much as the man who derived his deferred pay from a friendly society. When the right hon. Gentleman said that a soldier, because

      667
      he had 1s. a day, was to have a reduced pension, he was unjust, because that man was only getting the money he had earned, which he would have earned, and could have spent, had he been in a civil occupation. It was an error to suppose that all soldiers received only 1s. a day pension, and would receive 5s. a week later on. There were a large number of non-commissioned officers and soldiers who had special compensation for disablement and wounds who received the sum mentioned in the Amendment. If this pension was of right a reward for services rendered to the community, then he submitted that these soldiers and sailors had served the community just as much as the man who had been in a civil avocation. He could not understand why this Amendment was refused, unless it was the serious underlying cost.
      MR. ASHLEYsaid that now the First Lord of the Admiralty was present he wished to put a particular point before him, as he was the person responsible for the Navy. He could conceive the Government refusing to accept his Amendment in its entirety for the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
      which was that if he accepted it it would be difficult to refuse other Amendments. He did not agree with it, but he accepted that statement. But a great hardship was entailed on the man who received a weekly sum of money because he had lost a limb or had been incapacitated by wounds received in the service of his country. A man who had lost his leg in the Crimea would be arriving at the age when he would receive a pension under this Bill. But he was to get no advantage out of the money he received from the Government for his wound. That was to be taken into consideration by the Excise officer in allocating the pension. It was very hard that he should not have the old-age pension in addition to the amount received from the Government for the loss of a limb.
      MR. MYERsaid the scheme of old-age pensions was for those who were unprovided for, and that was the Answer to that Question.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 278. (Division List No. 150.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Harris, Frederick Leverton

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hills, J. W.

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)

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

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanier, Beville

      Bull, Sir William James

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Kerry, Earl of

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

      Cave, George

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

      Thornton, Percy M.

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

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

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

      Mac Caw, William J. Mac Geagh

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

      McCalmont, Colonel James

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset W)

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

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

      Courthope, G. Lloyd

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Moore, William

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

      Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Nield, Herbert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Fell, Arthur

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Ashley and Captain Craig.

      Forster, Henry William

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Agnew, George William

      Armitage, R.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Barker, John

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Gill, A. H.

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Glover, Thomas

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Barnard, E. B.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Massie, J.

      Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Meagher, Michael

      Beale, W. P.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Meehan Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Gulland, John W.

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Bell, Richard

      Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

      Middlebrook, William

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Molteno, Percy Alport

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

      Hall, Frederick

      Mond, A.

      Bennett, E. N.

      Halpin, J.

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

      Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      Morse, L. L.

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Hardy, George A. (Suffork)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Black, Arthur W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

      Murnaghan, George

      Boland, John

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

      Myer, Horatio

      Brigg, John

      Harwood, George

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Bright, J. A.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Napier, T. B.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Brodie, H. C.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Nicholls, George

      Brooke, Stopford

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T(Cheshire

      Henderson, Arthur Duncan

      Nuttall, Harry

      Bryce, J. Annan

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

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Henry, Charles S.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Hodge, John

      O'Dowd, John

      Byles, William Pollard

      Hogan, Michael

      O'Grady, J.

      Cameron, Robert

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Hooper, A. G.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Chance, Frederick William

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Partington, Oswald

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Hudson, Walter

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Clough, William

      Jackson, R. S.

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Clynes, J. R.

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Pollard, D.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

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

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Pullar, Sir Robert

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Radford, G. H.

      Cox, Harold

      Kelley, George D.

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

      Crean, Eugene

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Lamont, Norman

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Crooks, William

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Rees, J. D.

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Crossley, William J.

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Richardson, A.

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Lundon, W.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Duckworth, James

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Robinson, S.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lynch, H. B.

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Macdonald, J M (FalkirkB'ghs)

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Maclean, Donald

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Essex, R. W.

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

      Ffrench, Peter

      McCallum, John M.

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

      Findlay, Alexander

      McCrae, George

      Sears, J. E.

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. (Reginald

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Seddon, J.

      Fullerton, Hugh

      McMicking, Major G.

      Seely, Colonel

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Maddison, Frederick

      Shackleton, David James

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      670

      671

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Thorne, G. K. (Wolverhampt'n

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Tomkinson, James

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Toulmin, George

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

      Verney, F. W.

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Vivian, Henry

      Wiles, Thomas

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Steadman, W. C.

      Walsh, Stephen

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Walters, John Tudor

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

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

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Wardle, George J.

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

      Summerbell, T.

      Waring, Walter

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Winfrey, R.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Weir, James Galloway

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Thomasson, Franklin

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Elibank.

      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he rose to move an Amendment of which he had given notice earlier and which would place him in the peculiar position of making a proposition which would be accepted by the Government. He was sorry neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom were present at the earlier portion of the debate, was present now. He moved to exclude from the purview of the pension committee "any sums payable as a premium of insurance against sickness, death, or funeral expenses." The Amendment arose out of a discussion they had at the beginning of the afternoon on what constituted income. In rejecting the proposal to add the word "net" before "income," the Prime Minister, answering a point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, said that any premium paid by workmen for insurance against death would not be considered as part of a man's income for the purpose of this section. He based that argument upon the analogy of the reduction allowed for life insurance from income for the purpose of Income-Tax Assessment. Personally, he did not think the analogy of the Income-Tax Act could be imported into this Act because the Income-Tax Act had that exception under special statutory provision, which was not repeated in this Act. The most that could be said against that part of his proposal was that it was not necessary, but the Prime Minister would not and could not contend that the analogy of the Income-Tax Act could be extended to that large and more common case of the payment of some little weekly premium
      672
      in order to ensure the person against sickness or to cover funeral expenses. He said that it was the intention of the Government to exclude all those payments, and he (Mr. Chamberlain) therefore moved to put into the statute what was the intention of the Government.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 7, after the word 'excluding,' to insert the words 'any sums payable as a premium of insurance against sickness, death, or funeral expenses, etc.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MC-KENNA,)said he was sorry to disagree with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. If this particular form of exception were included in the Bill the result would be to exclude from the consideration of the pension committees any other expenditure of a similar kind which ought properly to be taken into account and deducted from the total income of the recipient. There was, also, a particular objection to the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment on their merits. Take the case of a man who paid 3s., which was only a moderate sum, for insurance against death, funeral expenses and sickness.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a man of seventy who has just

      673
      joined. I am talking of a man who had done it all along.
      MR. MCKENNAsaid an applicant who had for a long period of time insured against death had an asset of very considerable value—a realisable asset—and his case was certainly not one of hardship which should be dealt with under the Bill. He was a possessor of property. The realisable value at the age of seventy of an insurance against death in any insurance office was considerable.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is giving a new interpretation to the clause. Does he mean that a policy of insurance against death, being, as he said, valuable property, is such property as was contemplated in subsection (c) as might bring in yearly income and would, therefore, have to be taken into account?
      MR. MCKENNAsaid he was not at the moment saying anything which had any relation to subsection (c), because they were not discussing subsection (c). Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman would be able to raise that point on subsection (c) and ask whether that would be an item of property, and no doubt his ingenuity would enable him to suggest many other difficult questions as to what did and what did not constitute property. But dealing with this particular Amendment, the case of the old applicant who must have at least 15s., was not a case calling for the special commiseration of the Committee, and they could not make reductions whereby he would be entitled to an additional 5s. An old applicant earning 15s. a week and paying so much for insurance, if he lost his power of earning through sickness, would instantly receive a pension.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No. It must be calculated on his income for the year.
      MR. MCKENNAsaid the Bill did not say that, except in the absence of other means of ascertaining the income. If he was able to obtain an income of over 15s. a week for the whole year he was not properly a subject, under the limitations
      674
      of the present Bill, to receive a pension. The right hon. Gentleman was asking that these pensions should be given to a class of persons who were much better off than many people who were excluded, and it brought them always back again to the same question that where they had a limited amount of money it was not fair to spend it upon persons who were less proper claimants, when they necessarily excluded those who had a greater claim. On these two grounds, that these words would be a direction to the pension committees which would exclude their power of making allowances in every case where allowances ought properly to be made, and that they affected a class of persons who, prima facie, ought not to receive pensions when others were necessarily excluded, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed further.
      MR. GOULDINGsaid that during the whole of these discussions he had never heard such an extraordinary answer given to a reasonable proposal. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he had never had any access at all to friendly societies, and knew nothing about the class of men who joined them. He started with a person with 15s. a week, who would be excluded, in the first place, and then said he would be paying 3s. a week to a sick and death fund in a friendly society. To add to his ignorance of the whole thing, he said that this asset the individual could put up for sale by auction. It was a farce to treat the whole proposal in that way. Everyone knew perfectly well that when payments were discontinued the whole asset went back to the institution.
      MR. MCKENNA: This is not limited to friendly societies.
      MR. GOULDINGsaid the right hon. Gentleman was playing with words. The class of persons who came under the Bill were not those who joined the great insurance companies that the right hon. Gentleman would join. They were talking of the insurance and friendly and thrift societies which were accessible to these individuals in the villages and towns with which they were connected. All these cases were of people who had contributed against

      675
      sickness and death for years before they reached the age of seventy. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to quote any case of an individual of seventy years of age joining a friendly society for the first time for sickness and for death insurance. The right hon. Gentleman had not treated this case at all fairly. Early in the evening an Amendment was moved from his own side of the House to insert "net" income. They were told that was too vague and uncertain, and would not be understood. Now his right hon. friend had picked out words which actually met and covered the identical case they were asking to meet, namely, that of individuals who had done everything in their power in the exercise of thrift so as to provide against sickness and death, and that the contributions they had made should be deducted and should not be classed as income. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some further answer. He had not touched at all the question of the sliding scale which had practically been adopted, though whether a pensioner was placed in the Is., 2s., 3s., 4s., or 5s. category depended on whether such a policy was accounted an asset. Unless they got some satisfactory answer he hoped his right hon. friend would go to a division.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would like to deal with another aspect of the case. His hon. friend had treated it from the point of view of the smaller friendly society and insurance company, but he would like to meet the First Lord of the Admiralty on his own ground, because, as far as he could see, unless some such words as these were inserted in the section, it simply meant that every policy-holder would have to surrender his policy immediately the Bill came into force if he wished to benefit, because if a man had insured his life in one of the larger insurance companies and had paid premiums during the last thirty or forty years the Commissioners would immediately say: "I understand you have a policy on your life for£400. It is true you began when a boy, and only pay a small premium, but the value is£300 and we must put 4 per cent, on that, and deduct it from the
      676
      amount on which your pension is to be calculated." A more sorrowful state of things could not exist. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government had not the funds, and it would be far better if he had given that as his excuse rather than entered into details which did not hold water at all from any business point of view. If he had said his instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer——
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already referred to that on previous Amendments, and we are dealing here simply with the question of premiums on insurance.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would immediately stop, only they had different Cabinet Ministers in charge of the Bill at every step they took, and not only that, but they had had different explanations of this particular clause from every Minister who took charge of it.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the hon. Member must remember that we are not dealing with the clause but with the Amendment.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he had almost finished. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was at all satisfactory, and if his right hon. friend went to a division he should certainly follow him.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that after the announcement of the First Lord he must take a division. He was not wedded to his own words if the same result could be attained by other words which pleased the Government better, or if the Government gave a distinct promise that under the regulations which they had to frame this point should be covered. But the First Lord of the Admiralty refused to enter on its merits but merely on the words. If he meant that he would accept other words he did not say so.
      MR. MCKENNA: No, I cannot say I will accept other words until I see them, but I say on the merits of these words, which are not in the least confined to friendly societies but cover all cases of insurance by any person in

      677
      any society, that their acceptance could not be considered. I gave another ground for non-acceptance of these or similar words that they would be binding on the pension committee.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdoubted whether they would prevent the committee from making allowances which they certainly ought to make. They had discussed certain allowances which they ought to make on the question of net income, and these it was explained by the Prime Minister were not income at all. The outgoings on cottage property, for instance, were no part of the income from cottage property. If the Bill was left as it stood it would not be within the discretion of the pension authority to exclude those payments from their consideration of a man's means. That was quite clear. When a Government saw that a good point was raised, and they wished to meet it, although they were unable to accept the particular form of words, the usual course was for the Government to undertake to bring up words of their own, framed after consultation with the Government draughtsman. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these words were impossible, but he might produce as many possible alternatives as he liked, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would always say that he had no skill in drafting, and, therefore, he could not accept those alternatives. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was pleading for something more to be given to the people who must be comparatively well offhand on that ground he had objected to his Amendment. Now what was the proposal? It was simply what the Prime Minister himself had declared to be the intention of the Government. He did not want to be disagreeable to Ministers who were satisfying the needs of humanity, but it was intolerable that the First Lord of the Admiralty should come down now when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were temporarily absent, and not having heard what the Prime Minister had said earlier in the debate, practically rule out what the Prime Minister had deliberately stated was the intention of the Government. He, therefore, appealed to the Government to carry out the declared
      678
      intention of the Government as expressed by the Prime Minister. He put it to the Solicitor-General that if he meant to be helpful he could go to the Government draughtsman and get words which would carry out the intention without the objections to which it was said the Amendment was open. He appealed to the Solicitor-General who was present when the Prime Minister spoke earlier in the evening to confirm the statement he had made.
      THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)thought the right hon. Gentleman would not be serving his purpose well by pressing for the inclusion of these words, because by a maxim well known to the law if they included one exception of this kind it would be the only exception they could make. He understood the Prime Minister to say that in his view in arriving at a man's income, premiums of this kind would be deducted on the analogy of the income-tax provisions. The danger of the Amendment would be that the pension society would be instructed that they must make this one deduction and that would exclude them from making any other deductions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment to a division.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid that in some respects the speech of the Solicitor-General was entirely satisfactory. If he could agree with him that the Bill allowed the deductions spoken of, then he thought the answer would be satisfactory. He could not see, however, where the Solicitor-General founded the right to allow these deductions in the words of the Bill. The Government said that this was to be excluded from the calculation of income, but they refused to put it in the Bill. Was that not a very small matter? What they had arrived at was that in calculating an income under the Bill they were to deduct this contribution for insurance against sickness and for funeral expenses, and why on earth should they not be able to put that into the Bill? That was all they asked for. Did the Solicitor-General mean to tell them that the resources of drafting were not equal to putting in a proviso allowing this deduction, and

      679
      at the same time allowing other matters to be deducted which ought to be deducted. He was not a draughtsman, but he knew there were many Acts of Parliament which gave them a lead in the Act. He suggested that the Amendment should read "excluding among other matters." Any person acquainted with the consideration of statutes would then see that it had an indication that not only were they to deduct premiums for insurance and funeral expenses, but any other matter of a like character that ought to be deducted. The matter was perfectly plain and simple. If they wanted to give a lead to this great Imperial officer who was to be a kind of appellant tribunal from the Law Officers and everybody else, then they should accept his suggestion. There was another objection which the First Lord of the Admiralty made to this proposal. He said that the words proposed by his right hon. friend were too wide, and were not confined to friendly societies. Only about an hour ago they had almost a scene in the House because something was too narrow. It would be far better for the Government to be candid and honest with the House of Commons and tell them plainly that they did not mean these things to be deducted. It would be far better for the Government to say: "We have only got a certain amount of money for the purposes of the Bill. We have never thought over all these difficulties, and we must stick to the Bill." Right hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well that if they wanted to make these matters clear on the face of the Bill, they could do so in five minutes by consulting the draughtsman.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in order to meet the difficulty he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in order to move it in a new form.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 7, after the word 'excluding to insert the words 'among other matters any sums payable as a premium of insurance against sickness, death, funeral expenses, and.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RAWLINSONsaid that nobody who read the subsection could doubt that insurance premiums would not be deducted from a man's income. The word "income" had been continually defined in legal matters as the amount of money that came into a person's pocket. Could anybody say that a man's income was so much a year unless there was a provision in the Bill allowing him to deduct the payments made for premiums against sickness or death? He ventured to say that the Bill would be unworkable without such a provision. If that was so, surely, if the Government meant these deductions to be made, words ought to be inserted in the Bill to that effect. He expressed no opinion as to whether these deductions should be made or not. All he wanted to make clear was that unless these words were put in, no pension officer would have the slightest right to make these deductions.
      MR. JAMES HOPEsaid it was clear from what his hon. and learned friend had said that on the words of the Bill no deductions could be made in respect of payments of insurance premiums. He was a layman, and he did not wish to go deeply into the question, for the contest in this matter was between two lawyers, but he thought the Solicitor-General might attempt to reply to his hon. and learned friend. There was obviously doubt and difficulty in the matter. The whole Committee were agreed that what they wanted to understand was what was the actual income which a man possessed, and which he was able to dispose of from week to week. When he suggested that the word "available" might be inserted the Solicitor-General was dumb on that point. In last Parliament when sitting in Opposition the hon and learned Gentleman was never wanting in arguments on any point.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member speak to the Amendment?
      MR. JAMES HOPEsaid there was doubt as to the meaning of the words in the Bill. The Committee appeared to be unanimous that income should be clear available income for the purpose of week to week payments. In view of

      681
      that doubt, and of the fact that this matter could not be brought up on Report, he asked the Postmaster-General, the senior Minister present, to give an assurance that the first subsection which dealt with money matters would be considered on the recommittal of the Bill.
      MR. PIKE PEASEasked whether the pension committee would have to define what income was, or
      whether there would be a standard by which they would define what income was.
      MR. MCKENNAsaid it would be for the pension committee to define what income was.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 298. (Division List No. 151.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Fell, Arthur

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Ashley, W. W.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Balcarres Lord

      Gretton, John

      Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Balfour, RtHn, A. J. (City Lond.)

      Harris, Frederick Leverton

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

      Hills, J. W.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanier, Beville

      Bull, Sir William James

      Kennaway, RtHon. Sir John H.

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Kerry Earl of

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

      King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)

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

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Cave, George

      Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Walsh, Stephen

      Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A.(Worc.

      M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

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

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

      Marks, H. H. (Kent)

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Collings, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm'gham)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Moore, William

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Nield, Herbert

      Viscount Valentia and Mr.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Foster.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Clough, William

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Boland, John

      Clynes, J. R.

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Agnew, George William

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Brigg, John

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

      Armitage, R.

      Bright, J. A.

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Astbury, John Meir

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Brodie, H. C.

      Corbett, C. H. (Suss'x, E. Grinst'd

      Barker, John

      Brooke, Stopford

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Brunner, RtHnSirJ.T(Cheshire)

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cowan, W. H.

      Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Cox, Harold

      Beauchamp, E.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

      Crean, Eugene

      Bell, Richard

      Byles, William Pollard

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Cameron, Robert

      Crooks, William

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

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Bennett, E. N.

      Chance, Frederick William

      Crossley, William J.

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Bethell, SirJ.H(Essex, Romf'rd

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Cleland, J. W

      Devlin, Joseph

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Lambert, George

      Radford, G. H.

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Lamont, Norman

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Dillon, John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Rees, J. D.

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

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

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Richardson, A.

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Essex, R. W.

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Lynch, H. B.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Maclean, Donald

      Robinson, S.

      Findlay, Alexander

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Flynn, James Christopher

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      M'Callum, John M.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Fullerton, Hugh

      M'Crae, George

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      M'Killop, W.

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Gill, A. H.

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

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

      Glover, Thomas

      Maddison, Frederick

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Sears, J. E.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Seddon, J.

      Gulland, John W.

      Massie, J.

      Seely, Colonel

      Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton

      Meagher, Michael

      Shackleton, David James

      Hall, Frederick

      Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen'sCo.)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Harcourt, Rt.Hn.L(Rossendale

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Middlebrook, William

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

      Mond, A.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

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

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Montagu, Hon. E. S.

      Stanley, Albert. (Staffs, N. W.)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Steadman, W. C.

      Harwood, George

      Murnaghan, George

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Murray, Capt. HnA.C.(Kincard.

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Myer, Horatio

      Summerbell, T.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Napier, T. B.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

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

      Nicholls, George

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Henry, Charles S.

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Hodge, John

      Nuttall, Harry

      Tomkinson, James

      Hogan, Michael

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Toulmin, George

      Horniman, Emslie John

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Verney, F. W.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Vivian, Henry

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      O'Dowd, John

      Walton, Joseph

      Hyde, Clarendon

      O'Grady, J.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Wardle, George J.

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Partington, Oswald

      Waring, Walter

      Jackson, R. S.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Pollard, Dr.

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Kelley, George D.

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk E.)

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      Laidlaw, Robert

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

      Wiles, Thomas

      684

      685

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

      Wills, Arthur Walters

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

      Joseph Pease and Master of

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

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Elibank.

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Winfrey, R.

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved as an Amendment to substitute the word "receivable" for the word "payable" in the first subsection of the clause. He did so in order to make sense of the subsection and probably carry out what was intended, because it was obvious that the persons mentioned in the subsection would receive and not pay any sum on account of an old-age pension under the Bill. It was quite clear that a mistake had been made in regard to the word.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 8, to leave out the word 'payable,' and insert the word 'receivable.'— (Mr. W. Rutherford.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'payable' stand part of the clause."
      MR. L. HARCOURTsaid it might be interesting to the hon. Gentleman if he pointed out that a sum receivable by one man must be obviously payable by another. He saw no objection to the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved an Amendment providing that account should be taken of the "average" income received. He thought that the subsection (b) as it stood would in some cases act rather unfairly. Suppose that owing to the receipt by a pensioner of a small windfall in one year, and perhaps the promise that something would be done for him the next year, the position of the pensioner might be endangered, and unless the word "average" was inserted he might be barred from receiving a pension altogether. The Attorney-General had said that a gift from an unexpected source would not be considered as part of a man's income, but that did not appear in the Bill, and the pensions committee might not give that interpretation to income in the case of a windfall in any one year, say, of£40. The pensioner would be protected from forfeiture
      686
      of his pension if the income was averaged over three years, as in the case of the Income-Tax Returns. He begged to move.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 11, after the word 'the," to insert the word 'average.' "—(Captain Craig.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'average' be there inserted."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the hon. Member had not put this Amendment on the Paper, and had certainly not thought it out. Supposing an old man who had been working for two and a half years earning fairly good wages suddenly broke down. He could come before the pensions committee and plead that he had earned nothing for that year, and would receive a pension. But if his earnings were to be averaged on the previous three years income he would be excluded from a pension. He could not accept the Amendment.
      CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he quite admitted that it would cut both ways, but he thought it would soften the hardship in many cases if the average of three years was taken.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. SMEATONmoved to leave out subsection (c) of the clause, which refers to the account to be taken of the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to the person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him. The subsection seemed expressly designed to decrease the rapidly diminishing number of pensioners and to make a trap into which they might fall. It made pensions dependent on hypothetical profits which were to come from nebulous property. He could imagine persons who had an old horse which was past work and was pensioned off being asked by the pension officer why they did not put him to work.

      687
      Or a man might have a small shop in which a cheap class of articles was sold, and the pension officer arriving at a hypothetical income on the basis that if he charged more for his goods, the man would make a better income. Or, when an aged pair had had a little cottage given them by their children or grandchildren, in which to live during their declining years the pension officer might come and say "Why don't you let that cottage at a good rent and you live elsewhere?" In such cases the pension officer could make the income practically what he liked. He urged the Committee to wipe the sub-clause out altogether; it was not a sub-clause that did credit to the Government.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 16, to leave out subsection (c)."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
      Question proposed, "That subsection (c) stand part of the clause."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his hon. friend imagined every conceivable use for this subsection, except the one for which it was intended, and he should have thought obviously intended. The illustration of an old horse was rather a remote one. He did not think that that horse could be invested in such a way as to make a great income. The illustration of the shop, too, was almost ludicrous. The clause was intended to get at the man who hoarded up his money in an old stocking instead of investing it. A man who did that in preference to investing it, he thought, ought not to come in for an old-age pension. That was a case that had constantly to be dealt with now by boards of guardians. If he could discover that, the pension officer was quite right to say: "You are not the sort of person who should have a pension."
      MR. WALTER LONGregretted extremely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used that argument. There was not a shadow of proof that a board of guardians had ever refused relief because the man to be relieved had hoarded money.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: They could take the money.
      MR. WALTER LONGsaid they did so after they had granted the relief. But the pension officer was going to refuse a pension 0n that ground. The power was to be exercised, not by elected local bodies, not even by the pension committee, but by the pension officer, who was to be an Imperial officer, not subject to the control of the local authority, but to the control of another Imperial officer. The whole of the investigations into a man's means were to be made by what was somewhat euphemistically called an Imperial officer. He was a revenue officer, and a man whose business it was to get blood out of a stone if possible. He was the man whom the Government was going to charge with the duty of ascertaining whether applicants for pensions had hoarded away sums of money. He doubted very much indeed whether the words of the clause would carry out the intention of the Government. Of course, if they did not, when they came to them, the Government, after the declarations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be compelled to amend them. The pension committee, therefore, would be a sort of fraud, simply existing to carry out the directions of the pension officer. No pension could be granted under subsection (c) unless the pension officer was satisfied the man had not hoarded away some source of income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the boards of guardians, and referred to the case most familiar and most difficult of all. Under the law as it stood, a board of guardians could only relieve a man if he proved to be destitute. There were many cases where a man in his better days had invested his savings in purchasing the house in which he lived. That house was letable and had a rental value. If the board of guardians administered the law as it stood, they ought to call upon that man to get rid of his property before they gave him relief. Some boards did this, but others did not, and the Local Government Board never, so far as he knew, interfered, although they did not carry out the letter of the law. These cases would occur over and over again. Would the Excise officer say to a man: "You have no right to a pension, because you have a cottage which you should rent

      689
      to somebody else?" If this inquiry were not to be made, the subsection ought not to be put in the Bill. It was perfectly clear that this was on all fours with the law which governed boards of guardians, and which in some cases they carried out. The Government might have other intentions, but that had nothing to do with an Act of Parliament. The pension officer and the pension committee would have to carry out the Act regardless altogether of the intentions of the Government, and if this subsection were in the Act, Excise officers could come down on the man who applied for a pension and who had saved enough money to buy the cottage in which he lived. In hundreds of villages near towns cottages could be let at rents far higher than those paid by the cottagers. Did this subsection mean that the Excise officer was to go to a man who owned a cottage and say: "You charge yourself the local rent,£3 10s. a year, but if you choose to let your cottage to an artisan out of the town, you can get£10 or£15 per year; why do not you do it?" The man had, perhaps, lived there all his life, all his children had been born there, and he wanted to live there till he died, and he had no means besides the cottage. If the subsection stood, and it was interpreted as other similar sections, the Excise officer would be compelled to say: "Until you realise your property and turn it to the best use, you are not eligible." He could not understand why the Government adhered to the subsection. What good was it going to do? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were men who had hoarded money. There were, of course, cases here and there, but they were isolated cases, and they might very well be neglected. Boards of guardians in such cases where they gave relief under the Poor Law were able to recover the cost of the maintenance of the individuals. He hoped the Government, in order to catch these few cases, were not going to impose a duty on the pension officer which, if he carried it out, would result in great hardship upon some of the most deserving. He did not believe they would save money. He regarded the subsection as mischievous and dangerous.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid there were thousands of old couples who had things in their cottages which, if they sold them, would realise£20,£30,£40, or£50. Any collectors would give these sums for them; but owing to their associations the old people would not part with them as long as they lived. Were these things to be capitalised and the interest taken into account before the old people were given their pension? They would find, for instance, an old clock, perhaps a hundred years old, for which collectors would give more and more money, or an old brass warming pan for which collectors in America and England would give£10 People would even give a good deal for old brass candlesticks, which originally cost perhaps 1s. In some cottages there was old china and many other things. A few months ago he was in a cottage in Devonshire, and there were things there which would realise£50 or£60 at least. Were they going, like an auctioneer, to appraise the saleable value of these things, and say to these poor women: "You might invest that for profitable use and if you do not we shall charge you so much per cent, on the capitalised value and reckon that as your income." He thought the Government had better leave that out altogether. He asked them not to inflict this hardship.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was a sample of the hypercriticism to which the Bill was subjected. Every conceivable case of possible hardship was first imagined, and then exaggerated a hundredfold. His right hon. friend conceived the case of a pension officer—a kind of Shylock—who went into a poor man's cottage and told him he had to sell a piece of furniture which had come down to him from his great-grandfather.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGS: He is directed to do it by the Bill.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked the Members for Birmingham kindly to restrain themselves till he had finished. First of all this officer who was responsible to the House went scouring like an ogre through the country, visiting every little hovel and cottage, and said: "Sell out this valuable warming-pan;

      691
      no pension for you." Would hon. Gentlemen mind looking at the Bill? He was very glad the necessity for that had dawned on Gentleman opposite. This was simply a proposal which was in the most liberal scheme that had ever been devised for old-age pensions. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] Had hon. Members any notion what scheme that was? He was referring to New Zealand. They were cheering something else. In the New Zealand scheme they reckoned capital. The Government did not go as far as that.
      AN HON. MEMBER: Only up to£150.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member really was not relevant in his interruption. Before a man could be excluded under this provision it must be proved that he had got, not a grandfather's clock which he could sell for£10, but at least£850.
      MR. WALTER LONG: Why?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman asking why. For the simple reason that his capital must be such as would produce 8s. a week, and all the Amendments put on the paper suggesting that they were going to compel the labourer to sell every stick of his furniture were not fair to the Committee or to the country. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin mean to tell him that the guardians, if they knew a man had£850 with property, which would produce in any reasonable investment£20 16s.——
      MR. WALTER LONG: That is not in the Bill.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is not.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman mind telling me what he means?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Committee to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that Questions had been put to him by two right hon. Gentlemen, and he thought he was only acting civilly in responding. He had sat down to enable the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell him in what respects he had misrepresented him.
      MR. WALTER LONGsaid the intervention of the Chair had made it impossible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement was that there must be capital producing the gross income he had mentioned. He denied that, and he denied it still. The income fixed by the Bill might be derivable from several sources. Assuming that a man had a grant of 9s. a week, of which there were thousands of cases, from any particular source, especially from an employer, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the hoarded property would have to be£850? Two shillings a week or less than the estimated rental of a cottage would bring him over the margin.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that now the right hon. Gentleman had shifted his ground. It was not hoarding property at all, but income derived from other sources.
      And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, "That subsection (c) stand part of the clause."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 327; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 152.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Agnew, George William

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Alden, Percy

      Armitage, R.

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Astbury, John Meir

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Kelley, George D.

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Barker, John

      Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)

      Erskine, David C.

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Essex, R. W.

      Lambert, George

      Barnard, E. B.

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Lamont, Norman

      Barnes, G. N.

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Barran, Roland Hirst

      Ferens, T. R.

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Beale W P

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Beauchamp, E.

      Findlay, Alexander

      Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

      Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Bell, Richard

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Beliairs, Carlyon

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Bennett E. N.

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Gill, A. H.

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Glover, Thomas

      Lynch, H. B.

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Mackarness, Frederic C.

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Maclean, Donald

      Brigg John

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Macpherson, J. T.

      Bright J A

      Gulland, John W.

      McCallum, John M.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

      McCrae, George

      Brodie, H. C.

      Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

      McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Hall, Frederick

      McMicking, Major G.

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

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn L. (Rossendale

      Maddison, Frederick

      Brunner, Rt. HnSirJ. T (Cheshire

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

      Massie, J.

      Byles William Pollard

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Cameron, Robert

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

      Menzies, Walter

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Harwood, George

      Micklem, William

      Cawley Sir Frederick

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Middlebrook, William

      Chance, Frederick William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Mond, A.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Montagu, Hon. E. S.

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Montgomery, H. G.

      Cleland J W

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Clough William

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      clynes, J. R.

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

      Morrell, Philip

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Henry, Charles S.

      Morse, L. L.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

      Morton Alpheus Cleophas

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

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Cooper G. J.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Myer, Horatio

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

      Hodge, John

      Napier, T. B.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Nichols, George

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Hooper, A. G. (Fife, West

      Nicholson CharlesN.(Doncast'r)

      Cotton Sir H. J. S.

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Cowan, W. H.

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Nussey Thomas Willans

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Nuttall, Harry

      Crooks William

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Crossley, William J.

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Partington, Oswald

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifin)

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Paulton James Mellor

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs Leek)

      Davies Timothy (Fulham)

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Jackson, R. S.

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

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thamp'tn)

      Dewar Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Philipps, Owen C.(Pembroke)

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

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Pine, Duncan V.

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      Pollard, Dr.

      Duckworth, James

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      694

      695

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

      Shackleton, David James

      Walters, John Tudor

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Walton, Joseph

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Wardle, George J.

      Radford, G. H.

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Waring, Walter

      Rainy, A. Holland

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Scares, Ernest J.

      Wason Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmann'n

      Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Rees, J. D.

      Steadman, W. C.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Wedgwood, Josiah. C.

      Richards, F. (Wolverhampton)

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Richardson, A.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Summerbell, T.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      Robinson, S,

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Rowlands, J.

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

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

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n

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

      Scaris brick, T. T. L.

      Tompkinson, James

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Winfrey, R.

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      Toulmin, George

      Wodehouse, Lord

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

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Sears, J. E.

      Verney, F. W.

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Vivian, Henry

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Seddon, J.

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      Seely, Colonel

      Walsh, Stephen

      Elibank.

      NOES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Ashley, W. W.

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

      Moore, William

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

      Fell, Arthur

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      Balcarres, Lord

      Forster, Henry William

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Nield, Herbert

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

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      O'Grady, J.

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

      Gretton, John

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

      Haddock, George B.

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Harris, Frederick Leverton

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Ratcliff, Major R. F.

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hills, J. W.

      Renton, Leslie

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Butcher, Samuel Henry

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

      Hunt, Rowland

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Jowett, F. W.

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Cave, George

      Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Keswick, William

      Stanier, Beville

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

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Starkey, John R.

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

      Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)

      Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

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

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

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

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

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      M'Calmont, Colonel James

      Valentia, Viscount

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Cross, Alexander

      Marks, H. H. (Kent)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

      696

      697

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

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Frederick Banbury and Mr.

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Younger, George

      George D. Faber.

      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and on any Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 3, line 22, to leave out from the second word 'of,' to the end of line 25, and to insert the words 'a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
      Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
      MR. BOWLES: On a point of order, I desire to say that the Amendment which you have put from the Chair is an Amendment of which notice has not been given.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Notice has been given, but it is not correctly put on the Paper as to form.†
      MR. BOWLESagain rose to order, but as the Chairman also remained standing the hon. Member could not be heard amid the cries of "Order" and "Sit down."
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Emmott, will you inform the Committee what is the Question which you have just put and which we could not hear? I understand it is not the Amendment as it appears upon the Notice Paper.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The question I have to put is Clause 4, line 22, to leave out from the second "of" to end of line 25, and insert "a married couple living together in the same house the
      † The form in which the Amendment appeared on the Paper was as follows:—
      "In page 3, line 21, at end, to insert, (2) In calculating the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple."
      698
      means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple." What the Government propose is on the Paper. They put in a new subsection and eliminate subsection 2. In the new subsection which they propose they use several of the initial words of subsection 2 and, therefore the correct form is as I have put it.
      LORD R. CECIL: On a point of order. The words of the guillotine Resolution are perfectly clear. They are that the only Amendments which can be put are Amendments moved by the Government "of which notice has been given."
      THE CHAIRMAN: The question has been put.
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of order, may I call your attention to the words immediately succeeding those which have just been quoted by my noble friend? They are that "but no other Amendments."
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which I have put is an Amendment of which notice has been given. [Cries of "No" and "Yes."]
      The Committee divided—
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid: Mr. Emmott, I call your attention to the fact that the doors were locked in the "No" Lobby, while the Members were still being permitted to go into the other Lobby. [Loud cries from the OPPOSITION Benches of "Farce, farce."]
      THE CHAIRMANsaid the doors could not be closed immediately if it was blocked with Members.
      As the Tellers were advancing to the Table after the division—
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I desire to call your attention to a fact on which I should

      699
      like to have your ruling, and I ask you if it does not upset the division which has just been taken. When you gave your order for the doors to be shut your order was obeyed for the "No" lobby, but not obeyed with regard to the "Aye" lobby. The result of this was that many Gentlemen who desired to vote "No" were prevented from doing so, while no similar disability was imposed on the Gentlemen who desired to vote "Aye." In these circumstances I would ask you whether it would not be proper that the division should again be called and carried out according to the rules of the House.
      THE CHAIRMAN: So far as the usual orders given from the Chair are concerned they were given in the ordinary
      way. I understand that a complaint is made by the right hon. Gentleman that the doors of the "Aye" lobby were not closed as quickly as those of the "No" lobby. It is my desire that the attendants should close the doors as quickly as possible, but it was obviously impossible that the doors of the "Aye" lobby could be closed as quickly as the doors of the "No" lobby because of the crowd of Members. What has happened in this case does not invalidate the division. We cannot have it again. [OPPOSITION cries of "It is not a division at all," and "It is a farce."]
      The Tellers then approached the Table, and the figures were announced:—Ayes, 378; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 153.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

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

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P..

      Agnew, George William

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Alden, Percy

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Dillon, John

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

      Buxton, Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Allen, Chares P. (Stroud)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Duckworth, James

      Armitage, R.

      Cameron, Robert

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H'nry

      Chance, Frederick William

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Astbury, John Meir

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

      Barker, John

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Erskine, David C.

      Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Essex, R. W.

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Barnard, E. B.

      Clough, William

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Barnes, G. N.

      Clynes, J. R.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Beale, W. P.

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

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Beauchamp, E.

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Fndlay, Alexander

      Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Cooper, G. J.

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Bell, Richard

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

      Fuller, John Michaael F.

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Fullerton, Hugh

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

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Bennett, E. N.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Cowan, W. H.

      Gill, A. H.

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Romf'rd

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) j

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Crean, Eugene

      Glover, Thomas

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Black, Arthur W.

      Crooks, William

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Boland, John

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Crossley, William J.

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Bramsdon, T. A.

      Cullinan. J.

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Brigg, John

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Gulland, John W.

      Bright, J. A.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Brodie, H. C.

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

      Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

      Brooke, Stopford

      Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Hall, Frederick

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

      Devlin, Joseph

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

      Brunner, Rt. HnSirJ.T(Cheshire

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

      Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd.)

      McKillop, W.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      McLaren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

      McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Rees, J. D.

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

      McMicking, Major G.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Maddison, Frederick

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

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Richardson, A.

      Harwood, George

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Massie, J.

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Meagher, Michael

      Robinson, S.

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen'sCo.

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Menzies, Walter

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Henry, Charles S.

      Middlebrook, William

      Roe, Sir Thomas

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

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Mond, A.

      Rowlands, J.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Montague, Hon. E. S.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Hodge, John

      Montgomery, H. G.

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Hogan, Michael

      Mooney, J. J.

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Hooper, A. G.

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Morrell, Philip

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

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Morse, L. L.

      Sears, J. E.

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Muldoon, John

      Seddon, J.

      Hudson, Walter

      Murnaghan, George

      Seely, Colonel

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Shackleton, David James

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick B

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Myer, Horatio

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Jackson, R. S.

      Napier, T. B.

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Nicholls, George

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

      Nolan, Joseph

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Stanley, Nn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Joyce, Michael

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Steadman, W. C.

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Stewart, Halley (Grennock)

      Kekewich, Sir George

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      Kelley, George D.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Lambert, George

      O'Dowd, John

      Summerbell, T.

      Lamont, Norman

      O'Grady, J.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Partington, Oswald

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Levy, Sir Maurice

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

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

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

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Tomkinson, James

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Pollard, Dr.

      Torrance, Sir A. M.

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Toulmin, George

      Lynch, H. B.

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

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

      Verney, F. W.

      Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Vivian, Henry

      Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

      Maclean, Donald

      Radford, G. H.

      Walsh, Stephen

      Macpherson, J. T

      Rainy, A. Rolland

      Walters, John Tudor

      Macveagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Walton, Joseph

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

      Raphael- Herbert H

      Walton, Joseph

      McCallum, John M.

      Rea, Russe11 (Gloucester)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

      McCrae, George

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

      Wardle, George J.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Reddy, M.

      Waring, Walter

      702

      703

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N)

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Winfrey, R.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Wodehouse, Lord

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Weir, James Galloway

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      White, J. D. (Dum bartonshire)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Joseph Pease and Master of

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Elibank.

      NOES.

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

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

      Nicholson, Wm, G.(Petersfield)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Nield, Herbert

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Stanier, Beville

      Butcher, Samuel Henry

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

      Hunt, Rowland

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

      Younger, George

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

      Keswick, William

      Cross, Alexander

      Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Vis

      Dalrymple, Viscount

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

      count Valentia and Mr.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

      Foster

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

      Amendments proposed—
      "In page 3, line 28, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 381; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 154.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Bennett, E. N.

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Agnew, George William

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Alden, Percy

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Clough, William

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Clynes, J. R.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Boland, John

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Armitage, R.

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

      Bramsdon, T. A.

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

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Brigg, John

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

      Bright, J. A.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Astbury, John Meir

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Cooper, G. J.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Brodie, H. C.

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

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Barker, John

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

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Brunner, Rt.HnSirJ.T (Cheshire

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cowan, W. H.

      Barnard, E. B.

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Crean, Eugene

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Crooks, William

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Beale, W. P.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Crossley, William J.

      Beauchamp, E.

      Cameron, Robert

      Cullinan, J.

      Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Cawley, Sir Frederick

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Bell, Richard

      Chance, Frederick William

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Morse, L. L.

      Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

      Hudson, Walter

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

      Hutton, Alfred Eddison

      Muldoon, John

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

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Murnaghan, George

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

      Idris, T. H. W.

      Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

      Dillon, John

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Murray, Capt. HnA. C. (Kincard,

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

      Duckworth, James

      Jackson, R. S.

      Myer, Horatio

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Napier, T. B.

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

      Nicholls, George

      Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

      Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

      Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Erskine, David C.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Essex, R. W.

      Joyce, Michael

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Kekewich, Sir George

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

      Ferens, T. R.

      Kelley, George D.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Ffrench, Peter

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Laidlaw, Robert

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Findlay, Alexander

      Lambert, George

      O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Lamont, Norman

      O'Grady, J.

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Partington, Oswald

      Furness, Sir Christopher

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Gibb, James (Harrow)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Gill, A. H.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

      Lewis, John Herbert

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

      Glover, Thomas

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke,

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Lynch, H. B.

      Pollard, Dr.

      Gulland, John W.

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

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

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      Mackarness, Frederic C.

      Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

      Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

      Maclean, Donald

      Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

      Hall, Frederick

      Macpherson, J. T.

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

      Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

      Radford, G. H.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

      Rainy, A. Holland

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

      M'Callum, John M.

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      M'Crae, George

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

      M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

      Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn'ss-sh

      M'Killop, W.

      Reddy, M.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

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

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Harwood, George

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Rees, J. D.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Maddison, Frederick

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Mallet, Charles E.

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

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Manfield, Harry (Northants)

      Richardson, A.

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Massie, J.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Masterman, C. F. G.

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

      Meagher, Michael

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

      Henry, Charles S.

      Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen'sCo

      Robinson, S.

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

      Menzies, Walter

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Middlebrook, William

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

      Mond, A.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Hodge, John

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Rowlands, J.

      Hogan, Michael

      Montagu, Hon. E. S.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Montgomery. H. G.

      Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

      Hooper, A. G.

      Mooney, J. J.

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Morrell, Philip

      Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

      706

      707

      Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Sears, J. E.

      Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Seaverns, J. H.

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Seddon, J.

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

      White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

      Seely, Colonel

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Shackleton, David James

      Thomasson, Franklin

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

      Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

      Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Tomkinson, James

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Toulmin, George

      Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Verney, F. W.

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

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Vivian, Henry

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

      Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Walsh, Stephen

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

      Steadman, W. C.

      Walters, John Tudor

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

      Walton, Joseph

      Winfrey, R.

      Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

      Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

      Wodehouse, Lord

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Wardle, George J.

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Waring, Walter

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Wason, Rt. Hn. E(Clackmannan

      Joseph Pease and Master

      Summerbell, T.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      of Elibank.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Watt, Henry A.

      NOES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

      Moore, William

      Anstruther-Gray, Major

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Morrison-Bell, Captain

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

      Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

      Ashley, W. W.

      Fell, Arthur

      Nield, Herbert

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Ratcliff, Major R. F.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

      Gretton, John

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Guinness, Walter Edward

      Renton, Leslie

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Haddock, George B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

      Harris, Frederick Leverton

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hills, J. W.

      Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Stanier, Beville

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Starkey, John R.

      Butcher, Samuel Henry

      Hint, Rowland

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

      Cave, George

      Keswick, William

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

      Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

      Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

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

      Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

      Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

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

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

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      M'Arthur, Charles

      Younger, George

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      M'Calmont, Colonel James

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Cross, Alexander

      Marks, H. H. (Kent)

      Viscount Valentia and Mr.

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Forster.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Bill read the third time, and passed.

      Clause 5:—
      Amendments made—
      "In page 3, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'shall be deemed to accrue from day to day, and.'"
      708
      "In page 3, lines 33, after the word "weekly,' to insert the words 'in advance.'"
      "In page 4, lines 1, to leave out subsection 3,"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
      Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 6, agreed to.
      And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.
      MR. BOWLESsaid he desired to ask Mr. Speaker s ruling for the guidance of the House on the following matter. In the Resolution passed by the House on 17th June, in regard to the Old-Age Pensions Bill, it was provided—
      "That Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of these proceedings, put forthwith the question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the question of any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendment."
      He desired to ask whether, under that provision, it was open to the Chair to put to the Committee or to the House an Amendment in any form other than that which has been placed on the Paper by the Government.
      MR. SPEAKER: When the question arises I shall be very glad to give my decision upon it. [OPPOSITION cries of "It has arisen."] If the question has arisen, then it is one for the Chairman of Committees to decide.

      LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By ORDER).
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
      MR. RAWLINSONmoved that the Bill be read a third time on that day three months. He said that this was a very dull subject and he could hardly expect many hon. Members to take much interest in it, more especially at that late hour of the evening. As the House was probably
      710
      aware, the London County Council in borrowing money was placed in a peculiar position, for they had to come to the House for permission. Any other corporation in a provincial city or borough had simply to satisfy the inspector of the Local Government Board that the loan was desirable. During the last two years he had had the privilege of bringing before the House various questions upon London County Council money Bills, and he wished to know from the promoters the reason why such a large sum was required to be borrowed in one year. The House would see how desirable it was that a satisfactory case for borrowing should be made out. He might say that he had not the slightest intention of dividing the House upon his Amendment. The first question he wished to put was whether the total indebtedness of the London County Council was increasing from year to year or was it remaining stationary. The next question was whether the total indebtedness was increasing or decreasing at any particular time. Last year they were in the happy position of finding that the County Council rate went down from 36d. to 35d. in the£. Unfortunately this year the rate has gone up again to the old high standard and that required some explanation. There was another point to which he had previously called attention and which had since been taken up by other hon. Members in connection with other private Bills, and he understood that the Government were appointing a committee to inquire into the question. The County Council took power under this Bill as they did last year to borrow money from the sinking fund for fresh expenditure. That was a financial process which he adversely criticised last year, and he still held the view that if they had had a Sinking Fund to meet capital expenditure that fund ought to be invested in some outside securities so that if the concern became financially unsound they would be able to come upon that fund for the payment of debt. In the case of the County Council power was taken to borrow from the sinking fund and that bad example had been followed in the case of various private Bills and had attracted the attention of hon. Members

      711
      opposite, with the result that in one or two private Bills the practice had been stopped and he understood that the Government were now inquiring into the whole matter. Another point he desired to raise was the extended period of time allowed for the repayment of certain loans granted by the London County Council to boards of guardians. The period allowed was sixty years in some cases, and he thought such a period was excessive. With regard to the proposed new County Hall, the estimate for the site was£600,000, but up to the present there had been no estimate of the cost of the palatial building which it was proposed to erect. A sum of money was being borrowed this year for that building, and he thought the House should be informed by the promoters what the estimated cost of the building was. He noticed that there was a sum of£1,250,000 for loans in connection with tramways and other public improvements, and he should like to know how much of that was spent upon the subway from the Thames Embankment to Aldwich. He would also like to know what had become of the steamboats He happened to be a small shareholder in the old steamboat company which used to run steamboats on the Thames, and this municipal enterprise with steamboats was about as good an object lesson as they could get of the result of municipal management. The original steamboat company ran a service upon the river which barely paid expenses, but instead of subsidising and assisting that company to run the boats at a profit the London County Council elected to run a service of their own. The result was that no steamboats were running at all now, because the old company had been run off the river. There appeared to be no item dealing with this matter in the measure before them, and, therefore, he would like to know how much of the capital expenditure had been recovered, how many of the steamboats had been sold, and whether they had been, sold to
      712
      purchasers in this country or abroad. He thought it was the duty of the House of Commons to scrutinise very closely the large sums London County of money which the Council continued to borrow year after year. He moved this Amendment in no spirit of hostility and he would not ask the House to proceed to a division.
      SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Motion. He wished to emphasise what his hon. and learned friend had said in regard to the sinking fund. He was pleased to know that the Government had appointed a Committee to inquire into this practice. It was quite true that in regard to borrowing the London County Council were in a different position from other municipalities, but as that body was the largest of its kind it ought to set an example to all other bodies in regard to the manner in which it conducted its finances. There could not be any question that the habit of using the sinking fund for fresh borrowings was an extremely reprehensible practice, because it prevented the public knowing the extent of the Council's indebtedness. A corporation should only use the sinking fund by buying its own stock and cancelling it. If it did not do that, it ought to invest in trustee securities. If it did what the London County Council had unfortunately done, it would use it for the purpose of fresh borrowing for schemes such as new streets, or tramways, which were not realisable. They could not sell a sewer, an improved road, or a tramway, and, therefore, under these circumstances, the sinking and, for all purposes of a sinking fund, disappeared. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it encouraged extravagance. If a municipality wanted to raise£500,000, and did not wish to go into the market, the temptation to take it from the sinking fund was very great, and the money so obtained might be spent in extravagant

      713
      and unremunerative enterprises. He thought the House owed a great debt of gratitude to his hon. and learned friend for bringing forward this question. If the House went to a division, he would be inclined to support him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Treasury, could put a veto on this, at any rate, until the Committee which he had promised had reported.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out the word 'now," and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
      MR. GUINNESSsaid that the House would be relieved to know that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment did not intend to press it to a division. It was certainly of advantage that the methods under which the London County Council raised its moneys should be fully ventilated. He believed that if these methods were better understood, the County Council would be able to raise money more cheaply than if the public were in the dark on these matters. Parliament intended that closer supervision should be exercised over borrowing by the London County Council than in the case of other municipalities. Those who had taken an interest in the finances of the Council must have noticed that there was a large discrepancy between the amount of money actually spent and the amount authorised to be borrowed. That was because the Council was under obligation to state the outside figure which could possibly be required for a particular purpose. They were not allowed to transfer the saving under one head to meet the deficiency under another head. It was impossible to get a close estimate of the loans required by the local authorities. This year the Council was asking for considerably less than last year.
      714
      Although£5,260,000 was authorised last year, only£3,236,000 was spent. This year the County Council asked £1,410,000 less for its own purposes. The total amount in this year's money Bill was£6,495,000, but that included loans to other authorities, and also£1,749,000 on account of the first six months of next year. It was necessary in that way to cover the period between the beginning of the County Council financial year, the 1st of April, and the time when next year's money Bill would receive the Royal assent. He was sorry to say that the indebtedness of the London County Council had gone up, but it was satisfactory to note that it had not gone up at such a rapid rate as in the previous year. The net debt at 31st March, 1908, was£49,938,000 as compared with£48,313,000 at the corresponding date in 1907, and£45,234,000 at the corresponding date in 1906. The rate for County Council purposes was now exactly the same as it was the year before last. When the new Council came into office they were able to reduce the education rate by 1d., but it was found necessary to increase it again to meet the growing expenditure on that service. The most important point raised by hon. Members was the question of the sinking fund. He would point out that the Treasury had to be satisfied that moneys borrowed from the sinking fund would be replaced before they were required to pay off debt, and for that reason, so far as he knew, it would be impossible to borrow money for the purpose of any loan for sixty years The general purpose for which this money was borrowed from the Consolidated Loans Fund was to advance short loans to local authorities, and the Treasury before giving sanction always insisted on such arrangements as would ensure repayment to the sinking fund with interest before the maturing of the original loan. The County Council had no choice as to the insertion of this clause, because there was a Standing Order

      715
      of the House of commons regulating Private Bills which said—
      "No Bill promoted by the London County Council shall authorise any alteration in the mode of dealing with the Consolidated Loans Fund unless the Treasury specially report in favour of the alteration."
      Therefore, he thought they might assume that the Treasury had considered this matter, and that it was regarded as satisfactory. They were obliged to buy under this Bill unless they were able to borrow from the Sinking Fund, The hon. Member for Cambridge University had raised a point in regard to the County Hall which was to be built, and had alluded to the fact that there had been no Parliamentary Estimate of the cost. No Parliamentary Estimate was necessary, for by the Local Government Act, Section 55, local authorities were authorised to erect the necessary buildings. The County Council Site Act of 1906 was necessary to give the County Council power to acquire land compulsorily, and that Act authorised the expenditure of£600,000 on the site£384,000 had already been spent, and provision had been made for spending£175,000 this year. Hon. Members might be interested to learn that the present County Council had seen its way to decrease the estimate for building. The original estimate was to spend£1,600,000, but by means of restricting the building to a smaller site and not taking over the whole of the Holloway property, the estimated cost had been reduced by nearly£300,000. The hon. Member had also raised a point about the tramways, and had pointed out that some of the figures in the schedule were authorised under Parliamentary Estimates and others not. A good deal of the expenditure was authorised under the Tramways Act of 1870, and it was quite impossible to keep the expenditure under a special Act and under a general Act absolutely separate, because it was necessary to spend money on the assumption that
      716
      the tramways were a growing concern, and to have in view the general interest of the whole concern. The hon. Member had asked what the cost was of the subway from the Strand to the Embankment. Up to the 31st December last the cost had been£185,000, and the amount in the authorising Bill was£250,000. There was also a provision of£6,500 in the present Money Bill. A question had been asked about the steamboats. These were now for sale, and he thought it would be inadvisable in the public interest to make any suggestion as to what the County Council thought was their present value. The loss on the steamboat service last year was£50,000, and it was advisable that the steamboats should be sold as soon as possible. He hoped that, as the hon. Member did not propose to divide on the Bill, he was satisfied with the explanations now given.
      MR. B. S. STRAUSsaid he wished to ask the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds if it was a fact that the present County Council had repaid no less than£60,000,000 of debt, as at the last County Council election it was put forth by the present majority that the debt was£110,000,000. That had been shown not to be the case, and he knew at the time the figures then given were absolutely untrue and only issued for election purposes.
      MR. LEVERTON HARRISsaid that what had been stated was that£110,000,000 was the total debt of London, which included the debt of the Water Board and some other boards.
      MR. B. S. STRAUSasked if the statement that the debt of the London County Council was£110,000,000 was ever contradicted, or whether it was made for the purpose of misleading the electors.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid that that had nothing to do with this Bill.

      SOUTH-WEST SUBURBAN WATER BILL
      (By ORDER).
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
      DR. RUTHERFORDmoved that the Bill be recommitted. He said the instruction he had put on the Paper was on behalf of a small neighbouring town, composed almost entirely of working-class people, and he moved it on their behalf because the water charges were excessive there. He wished to speak on behalf of the Southall Urban District, Council. They did not wish to delay the Bill, and they did not desire to inconvenience any other districts supplied by this water company, but they had a serious grievance, which he would try and put before the House. To prove that this was a working-class district, in 1905, out of 2,911 properties, 2,457 were assessed at£20 and under. He understood that the question of excessive charges was going to be made a ground of opposition in the House of Lords by the Middlesex County Council, and if the Middlesex County Council said the charges were excessive, Southall, he thought, had all the more reason to feel that way. The present charges for water for domestic purposes were 8½per cent. on the rateable value. The Bill provided that it should be 7½per cent., but it was not an inclusive charge, and did not include baths, etc. The Metropolitan Water Board charges
      718
      were 5 per cent. on the rateable value. The demand of Southall was that they should be charged at the same rate as the Water Board charged, but they were prepared to accept 7½per cent., if it were an inclusive charge. When the matter was debated in Committee upstairs, Southall representatives offered to accept this, but they thought it was an inclusive charge, and as they now found it was not he asked the House to recommit the Bill. For water for public purposes the present charge was 1s. 3d. per 1,000 gallons, and under the Bill the same charge stood. The Metropolitan Water Board was only charging 6d., and the Southall Council demanded that they should have the same charge. But they were prepared to give way, and to meet this company, and to accept an average charge of 9d., that would be 6d. less than they were at present paying, So far as water for trade use was concerned the Bill provided that the charge should be 2s. This was very important, because the cost at present stood at 2s., and it affected the manufacturers at Southall most injuriously. The margarine works at Southall had found the cost of water to be so severe a strain on them that they had actually sunk their own wells and found their own water. This led to a reduction of the assessment and a loss to the local rates. He was informed, on the best evidence, that two manufacturers proposed to buy land in Southall to establish large factories there, and they were just on the completion of the purchase when they inquired into the water rate, and they found it was so great, for trade purposes, that they threw up the negotiations and declined to entertain them any more. This Bill, in its present form, damned Southall for trade and manufacturing purposes so long as it stood, and he hoped under the circumstances the House would think it reasonable to recommit the Bill. In a paper got out by the promoters, they suggested several reasons

      719
      for the acceptance of the House and several why the Bill should not be recommitted. They said—
      "The promoters accept loyally the decision of the Committee."
      Of course they did, because they had got practically all they asked for. His feeling was that the Committee had given away the consumers, and had too much considered the owners. The promoters further said that it was somewhat unusual for a Bill to be recommitted. He thought the Committee had made a grievous mistake, and sacrificed the public interest for the private company's. The promoters also said—
      "The Southall Council have their remedy in the second House."
      That was a strange doctrine to preach to this Parliament, that any public authority should have to find salvation in the House of Lords, and he trusted that the Southall Council would not be put to the serious cost and expense of appealing to the House of Lords. The promoters also urged that the interests of Southall were carefully considered upstairs, and there was a clause to protect them. The council, however, thought that instead of protecting it was practically strangling Southall. Further, the promoters said that the representative of the Southall Council had practically accepted the agreement, and said it would be satisfactory to the council. But when he accepted that agreement he understood that the charge of 7½per cent. would be inclusive, and afterwards he found it was not. The Committee were under some misapprehension. He believed the hon. Member for Stoke would be able to speak more clearly than he could as to what happened in the Committee upstairs. The council felt that the charge for baths was contrary to all laws of science and health, and Parliament laid down this principle quite distinctly and clearly last year, when they granted an Act to the Metropolitan Water Board, in which this provision was made statutory. He understood the
      720
      promoters also said that they could not afford to reduce their rates. Well, if they could not afford to do that, their business was to make way for those who could. The Water Board already supplied part of Southall, and naturally the council preferred that the Board should supply the whole of their area. If the Government would meet the Southall Council satisfactorily along the lines he had mentioned, they were prepared to come to terms with the promoters and to make the best of the matter. He trusted, for the reputation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that he would support the contention he had tried to lay before the House, and that, for the reputation of the House, they would not sacrifice the interests of public authorities and of the community to the interests of a private company.
      MR. JOHN WARDseconded. He was one of the members of the Committee appointed to consider the proposals contained in the Bill. With almost every remark of the hon. Member for Brentford he entirely agreed. During the early part of the consideration of the measure, the Committee came to the conclusion chat the company was a very shaky concern and had never performed its legal and statutory obligations in any shape or form, but unfortunately it had a great area of population under its control. The Committee took that into consideration, although he believed the preamble was only proved by the casting vote of the Chairman, who voted first also on the first division. While the Committee felt inclined, on the evidence presented to them as to the business methods of this company, to reject the preamble of the Bill, yet they felt it would place the locality in so serious a position that they could not take the responsibility. The company was a sort of one-man show. He thought a gentleman of the name of Howard first got

      721
      the concession, and gradually it had been extended and certain powers had been secured, and either never used or not carried out to their proper extent. The locality had had very good and serious reason to complain of the way in which the company had treated them for a long time. Southall was the only working-class district within the company's jurisdiction, and the great difficulty was that the Metropolitan Water Board supplied part of the neighbourhood at a uniform rate of 5 per cent. inclusive. The Bill passed through the House in 1906 made a uniform charge all over the Metropolitan Water Board area, and there was now a peculiar position of affairs. Here was a part of this working class neighbourhood supplied at an inclusive charge of 5 per cent, and if the proposals of the Southall Council, of 7½per cent., were agreed to there would be a difference of 2½per cent. Not satisfied with this 2½per cent, more than the Metropolitan Water Board charges, which were inclusive, the company wanted to charge, in addition, extra for baths and public service, and for half a dozen other things. His opinion was, having considered the whole subject, that the company ought to be well satisfied, seeing that the Metropolitan Water Board supplied a portion of the district for a uniform and inclusive charge of 5 per cent. The unfortunate part of the business of this Bill was that even if the recommendation of the hon. Member for Brentford were carried out, there would be one part of the locality of Southall supplied at the uniform and inclusive charge of 5 per cent., and the remaining part at 7½per cent. The Committee agreed to that, and so did the Southall Council, but it appeared that the Committee mentioned that they were prepared to apply to this locality the Sunningdale agreement. The company supplied Sunningdale, and some of them thought that meant an inclusive charge of 7½per cent., and the Southall
      722
      District Council thought so also. But the counsel for the company soon informed them that the Sunningdale agreement was not only a charge of 7½per cent. on the whole locality, but in addition these extras. A division of the Committee took place with reference to that, and he was not prepared to say what the decision of the Committee was regarding it, but it was eventually decided by a majority that these extras should be included in the Bill. Unless the company were prepared to accept the 7½per cent, he thought the House would be well advised to recommit the Bill.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out all the words after the word 'be,' and add the words 're-committed to the former Committee.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out 'stand part of the Question."
      MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that in regard to the reference made by the hon. Member for Stoke to the financial stability of this water company, he (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) was not in a position to criticise those remarks, but it seemed to him that they were an argument against the Committee granting the Bill to the company at all, and not an argument in favour of what was now proposed, of giving exceptional treatment to one of the eight local authority areas concerned, by this instruction now before the House. He understood that the Bill was four days before a competent Committee. The point now at issue was thoroughly thrashed out, and counsel and witnesses were heard, and all the arguments, which could not perhaps be put so fully to the House that night, were placed before the Committee, and the Committee came to a certain decision on grounds which appealed to the Committee and under circumstances which generally

      723
      appealed to the House, to support a Committee's decision. Now an hon. Member came, and by placing before the House arguments which he thought it was impossible for the House really to examine, endeavoured to maintain the claim he was unable to substantiate before the Committee. It was a very serious matter for the House on such a very cursory and superficial examination of the subject, to upset the careful and considered judgment of one of its Committees in this way. It was still more serious that the House, without being able thoroughly to examine the clauses of the Bill, should take upon itself to give special treatment to one of eight areas which were dealt with in the Bill, and especially as that special area had already had a large concession made to it by Clause 25. It would seriously interfere with the efficient progress of business in regard to Private Bills if the considered judgment of the Committee, based on four days careful examination, was to be upset by what he was bound to call—although he had no doubt they were perfectly sincere—ex parte statements.
      MR. WATERLOWsaid he was one of the members of this Committee, and wished to say a few words on the Question. The issue was very clear. It was that this particular district of Southall should be put on the same terms as the Metropolitan Water Board supplied to the surrounding and neighbouring districts.
      DR. RUTHERFORD: I said distinctly that we were prepared to accept more moderate and inclusive terms. We were prepared to meet the company half way.
      MR. WATERLOWsaid that that might be so, but the House had to deal with the Amendment on the Paper,
      724
      and if it were carried it would be an instruction to the Committee to do certain things, and consequently, although Southall might be willing to accept other terms than on the Paper, the position was as he had stated. The House would give certain definite instructions to the Committee, and the Committee would be bound to accept those instructions. The issue was the Metropolitan Water Board terms as against the terms granted to Southall. With reference to the divisions on the Committee; they had only two, and neither of them was relative to this issue. He cordially sympathised with the position of Southall; it was undoubtedly a difficult one, as it was bounded on two and nearly three sides by the Metropolitan Water Board. There was no doubt that if that Board were willing to take over Southall, and this company were willing to surrender it, that would be the most satisfactory solution for Southall. But there was no power for the Board to take away this district from the existing company, and there was no power in the hands of the Committee to take this particular area and put it in the hands of the Water Board. He did not know if they would have it, even if Southall's present company were willing to hand it over. Southall was certainly to be sympathised with; it had the Water Board's mains running right through its areas, and the largest reservoirs in the world almost within a mile of it, and yet it had to pay much more for its water than the adjoining districts, and it was hindered undoubtedly by the fact that manufacturers who might otherwise desire to come into the Southall area could get very much cheaper terms for water immediately on the boundaries. But this raised one very big issue. The terms and prices of the Metropolitan Water Board were only possible when backed up by the immense

      725
      rateable value of London. In other words, the centre of London had to some extent to assist the outside areas, and his impression was that it was not possible for a small water company like this one to supply water at the price of the Metropolitan Water Board on a remunerative basis. That was the position the House had to face, and it raised a very serious question, because if this particular area was to receive Metropolitan Water Board prices by the direction of the House, the issue was one which affected all water companies on the fringe of the Metropolitan Water Board's area, and there would be a very large number of them. It would set a very serious precedent. The position which would arise would be that every small water company on the fringe of the Metropolitan Water Board's area would not apply to Parliament for fresh powers which they might require, for fear they should have Metropolitan Water Board charges imposed on them, whether they could stand them or not. That was a serious issue, and he saw no way out of it, and that was why he supported the Committee that evening, although he sympathised with the unfortunate position in which Southall was placed.
      MR. DU CROSthought that the hon. Member for Stoke perhaps inadvertently had left the House under some misapprehension in regard to the facts of the case. The hon. Member was not a Member of the Committee throughout the whole of the proceedings, and when it came to deal with the specific question of charges he was no longer in the room. He had stated to the House that the charges were agreed to by the casting vote of the Chairman.
      726
      As a matter of fact that did not take place. The Committee were absolutely unanimous on the question of charges and there was no division in regard to that part of the Bill at all. He had also stated that there was a division in regard to the terms of the Sunningdale agreement, whereas no such division took place. He had also led the House to believe that the majority of the Committee were in favour of allowing these extra charges for baths and other domestic purposes to be included in the rate of 7½per cent. allowed to the Sunningdale district. There was no division on that point either, and he (Mr. Du Cros) could only say again that throughout the proceedings the Committee were absolutely unanimous on the whole question of charges. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentford, he could only say he did not think that his contentions were supported by any argument, and when he said that the district of Southall was adversely a fleeted by the Bill, it was absolutely contrary to all the evidence of the witnesses called by the Southall Council. Each of those witnesses, when the specific point was put as to whether they would be better with the Bill or without it, replied in the most definite way that they would much prefer that the Bill went through, and that Southall would be in a much better position if it did go through. The hon. Member appeared to be under the impression that the Southall Council made an offer to the Committee of 7½per cent., and that that offer was adopted by the Committee, and that there was some difference of opinion as to whether it included the extra charges. As a matter of fact the Committee were perfectly cognisant of the fact that the

      727
      extra charges were not included in the 7½per cent., and there was no such mistake as had been suggested. Dealing with the criticism of the company, he wished to say that it had been in. existence for twenty-six years, and a dividend had been paid during that time, averaging about 2 per cent. The quality of the water supplied left a good deal to be desired, and the quantity was also very deficient, and the whole question of charges was, in the opinion of the Committee, necessary matter for discussion. They considered that the complaints of the Southall Council were perfectly justified on these points. The Bill before the Committee was a money Bill, pure and simple, and the object of the company was to raise money for the purpose of enabling it to carry out its statutory obligations, and remedy the complaints made against it. That was made manifest by the fact that the accounts of the company were overdrawn by some£11,000. They had no capital to extend their mains or to give a proper or pure supply to the area within their control. The Southall Council made certain claims on the Committee, and they met them all. As a matter of fact they did not extend to the Southall Council the "most-favoured-nation" clause, as the ton. Member who had just spoken suggested, but gave them even better terms than any other district council of the eight included in the area. They included in Clause 5 of the Bill many special points for their protection, in order to meet the points raised by the Council. He hoped the House would support the Committee; he assured them that every point and line in the Bill had been most carefully considered. Many witnesses were examined and counsel heard by the Committee. It was in the public
      728
      interest that the Bill should pass, and if these charges were altered in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, the company would be unable to raise the capital necessary to enable them to secure a good and adequate supply of water for this area.
      MR. BARNARDsaid he only rose to make one remark. The Metropolitan Water Board had been alluded to a good deal that evening. They took part before the Committee, and they did not get their way. At the same time they accepted loyally the decision of the Committee, and he only rose to say that they were not interfering there that evening, though they would raise the same point on a future opportunity when it arrived. It had been mentioned that the Metropolitan Water Board might buy out this company. He wished the House clearly to understand that the Board had no power of any description whatever to buy this or any other company. It was a great comfort to him to hear that evening that the Board's charges were lower somewhere, because he had heard in the City of nothing but complaints as to the high charges. He personally should vote most cordially for the Third Reading of the Bill.
      And, it being half-past Eleven of the Clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at twenty-one minutes before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:— Blackburn Corporation.
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Public Offices Sites (Extension).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (Sevenoaks and Stourbridge Water Orders); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (Potteries, etc., Order).—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No l.) Bill [H.L.] (Bridgwater Order); Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.] (No. 1 Order).—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (unopposed Orders); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill [H.L.] (unopposed Orders); Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.] (unopposed Order).— Reported, with Amendments.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (Unopposed Orders).—Reported, with an Amendment.
Wishaw Burgh Electricity, etc., Bill; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Croydon and Southern District Tramways Bill [H.L.].—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed
494
further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Fine Art and General Insurance Company Bill [H.L.].—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Stockport Corporation Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Southwell District Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill; Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.—Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 119.)
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.].—Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Minute of the Board, dated 30th June, 1908, modifying the regulations applicable to schools for blind, deaf, defective, and epileptic children, 1907 [Cd. 3636.].

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4049. United States (Porto Rico).
  No. 4050. France (Budget for 1908).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Order dated 18th June, 1908, entitled the Destructive Insects and Pests Order of 1908.
  Thirty-third Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, 1907–1908, with Appendices.

  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Eighty-sixth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests and Land Revenues, dated 29th June, 1908.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the oposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on 16th June discharged, and Bill committed.
  ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment The Report of Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received to-morrow.

  THE IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I have a notice on the Paper for to-morrow—
  "To call attention to the delays in connection with the provision and distribution of the funds required for the carrying out of the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to secure the effective carrying out of the purchase provisions of the Act; and to move for Papers."
  I have been in communication with His Majesty's Government, and I understand that it will facilitate their arrangements if the debate is postponed. I am, of course, very glad to agree to their suggestion, and I intend to put the notice down for Wednesday, 15th July, if that will be convenient to your Lordships.

  MARRIAGE ACT (AMENDMENT)BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD JAMES or HEREFORD: My Lords, I shall not occupy the attention of
  496
  your Lordships for more than a few moments in stating the course I propose pursuing in relation to this Bill. It is a Bill containing, I believe, a very practical and useful reform. In substance it is to substitute, for the fifteen days' residence in a parish required now by law before a marriage can be solemnised, fifteen days residence within the diocese. That operation is not a very ambitious one, but at the same time it is one of great practical relief to the laity. A similar Bill was twice introduced into this House by Dr. Temple, once when he was Bishop of London and the second time when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, and was on both occasions passed by this House. It also received the strenuous support of the Episcopal Bench, who supported Archbishop Temple when the division was taken. In these circumstances I felt that there was every prospect of the success of the Bill this year, and that it was likely to receive full episcopal support. But I have received a communication from the most rev. Primate, who, in terms of great consideration, informs me that, although he had been a supporter of the Bill and had spoken on its behalf, he has now, with the knowledge in his possession, come to the conclusion that the present is an inopportune time for dealing with the subject. The right rev. Primate feels that there is great sensitiveness among the clergy in consequence of recent legislation, and that they might think the Bill was designed to disturb the position of parish churches. The Lord Archbishop also feels, I believe, that there are some details in the Bill which require further consideration; hence the is not, as I had hoped, a non-contentious one. Yielding to the great authority of the most rev. Primate, I accept the view that the present is not an opportune time for dealing with the subject, and I therefore ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Bill.
  Order discharged, and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, there is a small Amendment in this Bill

  497
  which I desire to make. I have carefully considered the observations which were made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the Second Reading of this Bill, and as it is vitally important, in the interests of the Court of Criminal Appeal, that the Bill should pass as soon as possible, I propose to modify Clause 2 by striking out the words after "1907," and inserting words to provide that from and after this date the Master of the Crown Office shall be the registrar of the Court; of Criminal Appeal. That will avoid all question of future officers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord; LOREBURN): I think the proposed Amendment meets the criticism which I offered to Clause 2 of the Bill as it stood, and I, therefore, gladly extend approval to the Amendment.
  Amendment made, and Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is what may be called a small Departmental Bill, though it is important in its results. The first proposal is to enable Colonial Judges who may be available to be asked to act as assessors with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the hearing of appeals from the Colonies with which they were associated. This was suggested at the Colonial Conference by the representatives of New Zealand, and met with general approval. The second proposal is to enable any person who is or has been Chief Justice or Judge of any High Court in British India and is a member of the Privy Council to be summoned to sit upon the Judicial Committee of that Council; and the third proposal is to facilitate the Court of Appeal in England receiving the assistance of any Judge of the High Court. These are all technical matters; they are reforms, though not considerable reforms.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I desire in a few sentences to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on this Bill. With regard to the Privy Council, all I will say is that I believe the Amendment will meet complaints and objections made in the past. But I wish particularly to congratulate the Lord Chancellor upon the amendment of the law so far as assisting the work of the Court of Appeal is concerned. The restrictions imposed with regard to the calling up of Judges have been found seriously to impede the work of the Court, and I think this amendment of the law, though it may only be a small reform, will go a long way to obviate the necessity of the appointment of an additional Lord Justice. I, therefore, sincerely hope your Lordships will pass this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  INDIAN AFFAIRS.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONrose to call attention to the state of affairs on the frontier and in the interior of India; to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he could give the House any information on the subject; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper has not been put down in opposition to the wishes of the Secretary of State, but in concurrence with them. It it not, therefore, in any unfriendly, and still less in any partisan spirit that I now move it. India is far too serious a subject to admit of partisan discussion on this or on any occasion. Like foreign affairs and Colonial affairs, it ought, in my judgment, to be lifted outside the squalid atmosphere of party contention. It is unfortunate for India if it is made the subject of party dissension even in the House of Commons in this country, but it is doubly unfortunate in its effect in India, where there are plenty of people always ready to take advantage of any apparent disagreement between the two parties at home, and where it is of paramount importance that the Government should represent a continuous tradition and should present a united front. I

  499
  think that is a proposition which is true at any time, and especially at the present moment, when we are confronted with a state of affairs in India which challenges the very principles upon which the Government itself exists.
  There is much in the treatment of this question by the Secretary of State during the past two years which has excited our sympathy and admiration. We know the difficulties with which he has been confronted; we have an idea of the cross-fires to which he has been exposed. He will, I think, be the first to acknowledge that he has received the not ungenerous sympathy and support of the Party to which I belong, and if there are some things on which we disagree with him, or which we think might have been done differently, and if we say so, I am sure that he will also be the last to object. There are, I think, special reasons for this discussion at the present moment. Since the noble Viscount entered this House he has found no opportunity of making a full and detailed statement to Parliament of the condition of affairs in India. I believe he will welcome such an opportunity himself this afternoon, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by the country at large.
  There are some of us, also, who have an interest in India who have something to say, and it is not, perhaps, unnatural that I should feel that desire in a particular degree. A man who has administered the government of India for nearly seven years cannot lose his interest in that great country. In my case, indeed, it is coterminous with my life. Still less will he endeavour to divest himself of any responsibility which may properly be his. During the two and a half years since I came back from India I have not, I hope, said one word to embarrass the administration of the noble Viscount or to render his difficult task more difficult. I hold strongly the view that the actual holders of office, and particularly of Imperial office, ought to be left to develop their policy. Theirs is the knowledge—in the case of a remote country like India almost the exclusive knowledge—and theirs is the responsibility; and I should shrink from interfering prematurely with the development of any scheme of action to which an administrator of the character
  500
  and calibre of the noble Viscount had set his hand. I cannot truthfully say that a similar reserve has been shown by many members of the Party to which he belongs. Many shameful calumnies and misrepresentations have been uttered on this subject, to which I shall have occasion to allude in the course of my remarks.
  This Motion combines in a single formula frontier affairs and the internal condition of India. I do not thereby mean to assert or to imply that there is any connection between frontier troubles and the internal unrest in India. I have seen that connection asserted, and it is not inherently improbable; but I have coupled the two subjects in the same Motion solely in order to comprise them in a single discussion and to enable the noble Viscount to deal with both. I shall, therefore, deal with them this afternoon as entirely different subjects.
  First, I will deal with the frontier. Your Lordships will remember that a few months ago we had a short discussion on the expedition against the Zakka Khel Afridis which was then proceeding on the frontier. That expedition was conducted with great rapidity and success by the military, and its result was, I think, a conclusive vindication of the wisdom of the policy which has been pursued by both Governments now for some years. When we hoped that all was quiet, suddenly, without any warning, and, apparently, without any provocation, we heard that the Mohmand tribe, a considerable aggregation upon the frontier, were bearing down in large numbers upon our border. I say without any apparent provocation, though I have observed that in certain quarters the railway to which the military authorities attach very great importance and which was being pushed, for strategical reasons, through the country lying to the south of the Kabul river is supposed to have had something to do with the feeling of unrest. Whether that was so or not I cannot say. Perhaps the Secretary of State can inform us. The railway did not threaten or go through their country, and I do not myself quite see why they should have been offended.
  Here, again, in the matter of the Mohmands, owing to a really brilliant feat of arms on the part of our troops.

  501
  the action of the Government was speedy and effective, and the frontier policy of which I have spoken again met with a triumphant vindication. Our fear has always been, with regard to that policy, that, right though it was universally admitted to be in principle, it was exposed to the danger of a possible breakdown under the temptations of religious fanaticism or the contagion of a general conflagration on the border. However, when the Mohmands advanced, no one came to their help. They appealed to the Zakka Khel, who would have none of it. They turned to the Afridis, who remained silent. They looked further north to Bajaur and Swat, and Bajaur and Swat, to use a familiar phrase, "abode in their breaches." Accordingly, this threatened trouble on the frontier subsided almost as quickly as it had arisen.
  I congratulate the Government upon the success of their movement. And I think, if anybody had been disposed to doubt the success of the scheme of frontier policy which has been in existence for nearly ten years, his doubts must really have been dispelled by this occasion; and I hope we shall now hear no more of the wild-cat schemes for advancing into the tribal territory, annexing up to the border, driving roads through the tribal country and administering up to the Durand line.
  But, in the course of this Mohmand affair, there occurred, at one moment, a very serious development. We suddenly heard that there was launched against the upper end of the Khaibar, a force emanating from Afghan territory, supplied with Afghan arms, largely consisting of Afghan subjects, its commissariat derived from Afghanistan, crossing the frontier by the Pad of Afghan officials, and led by fanatical mullahs, one of whom was, I believe, the confidential confessor of the Ameer himself. When the Government of India, who appear to the to have shown extraordinary patience and forbearance in the matter, addressed the Ameer, there was a long and ominous delay before he replied. Finally, when he issued a proclamation recalling his subjects, the movement had already spent its force and come to an end.
  This raises a very momentous question. I am as strongly in favour as any man
  502
  in this House of the policy of a strong and powerful and friendly Afghanistan, The less we interfere with that country the better; and the idea of forcing on the Ameer any institutions or inventions either of peace or war distasteful to him would, I think, be a public mistake. But it is equally important—and this is the point to which I directed the whole of my aims while I was in India—that there should be an absolutely clear understanding between him and us as to our respective obligations and a faithful fulfilment on both sides of the engagements into which we have entered. We subsidise the Ameer. We allow the unrestricted importation of arms into his country. We demarcated the tribal boundary between our territory and his with his father, and each party then accepted responsibility for the tribes on his side of the border.
  In the case of the present Ameer we have gone even further. We have made to him a remarkable, and, as I think, not altogether called-for concession. When the Dane Mission went to Kabul the Ameer was allowed to dictate to us the form of treaty. We conceded the recognition of a title which had never been asked for by or given to his father. When he came down to India he was permitted to claim, and he received, a salute greater than would be given to the Tsar of Russia or the German Emperor if they visited our Indian Empire. He was permitted to lay down the condition that during his tour in India no business of any sort should be talked. He was feted in every way; and when he returned to his country the noble Lord the Secretary of State congratulated himself and the country upon the success of the policy that had been pursued. So far, so good.
  But it was rather a disquieting thing that within a few months of that return we had an expedition largely composed of Afghan subjects let loose upon our border, and that the restraining word that might and ought to have been spoken by him was so long delayed. An alliance is not in an altogether wholesome condition when the subjects of one party are permitted to make raid on the territories of the other; nor, again, is it an altogether reassuring

  503
  thing that we should admit the unrestricted importation of arms into Afghanistan with the melancholy prospect that they may, perhaps, be turned against ourselves in the future. I recognise the Ameer's difficult position. I have, personally, great confidence in his loyalty; but he is in a difficult position. There is always a strong anti-British party at his capital, and he is surrounded with domestic intrigue. But, while making full allowance for all that, the situation, as far as it is known to the public, has not been a satisfactory one; and I am certain the House will welcome any reassuring statement that the noble Lord is in a position to make.
  One other observation on this branch of the subject. I refer to the Anglo-Russian Agreement. In February last we had a discussion on that Agreement, and the noble Marquess Lord Ripon told us then that the Afghan part of the Convention had been referred to the Ameer for his approval, and that without his assent that portion of the Convention would fall to the ground. The noble Marquess explained to us on that occasion that he attributed the delay in receiving a reply to the customary dilatoriness of Oriental procedure. Under existing arrangements it is possible to get a communication to the Ameer and to receive a reply from him in two or three days. But since the official communication was addressed to the Ameer containing the treaty in September last, nine months have elapsed, and it is notorious that no reply has yet been received. The Ameer is a very attentive follower of English politics, and he must be perfectly familiar with the views of His Majesty's Government. Whatever may be the result, it is impossible to believe that he can have regarded the Afghan portion of the Convention with any great enthusiasm. Indeed, I think anyone who knows anything of him or of Afghanistan would easily have foreseen that his sentiments would probably be of another description.
  I do not think we can very well congratulate His Majesty's Government upon their diplomacy in this respect. They conclude an important international agreement which they frequently refer to as one of the most beneficial achievements
  504
  of their administration. It involves important arrangements about the territory and the relations of a potentate whose foreign affairs are in their hands and who is handsomely subsidised by them. They do not consult this potentate in advance, though it is to me quite inconceivable that the Government of India should not have advised them in that direction. There is such a desperate hurry to conclude that treaty that the consent of the Ameer is taken for granted, and thus they subject themselves to the rebuff—for I really cannot call it otherwise—of having to wait for the best part of a year for a reply, while in the interval no human being knows whether the Convention is in operation or not. Nobody would be better pleased than myself if the noble Viscount is able to tell us that success has already attended, or is likely soon to attend, his efforts. I earnestly hope, for the sake of the relations between ourselves and Russia at St. Petersburg, and the relations between ourselves and the Ameer, that a favourable reply will be received. Though I have no great admiration for the treaty, though I have criticised it, not for its spirit, which is admirable, but for its terms, which I think were bad, I should think it a deplorable thing if it were to founder on such a rock as this. But my point is that this rock ought to have been foreseen; that anybody who had even a passing acquaintance with the Ameer or with Afghan affairs could have foreseen the issue. If the noble Viscount had taken the trouble to search the records in the India Office he would have found that when similar arrangements were under discussion in the time of the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne, and when the Government of India were consulted on the matter, they laid down as an essential condition that the assent of the Ameer should not be assumed, but that the ordinary compliment and courtesy should be paid him of asking his views in advance. The only other observation I have to make on this question is that my Question concludes with a Motion for Papers. It is now some time since we had any Papers laid on the Table on the subject of Afghanistan, and I think it would be a matter of interest and advantage to many Members of this House and to the

  505
  public if the noble Lord were able to tell us this afternoon that he would lay on the Table Papers on the subject.
  I now turn to the internal condition of India, which is a subject of much greater anxiety and which will be much less easily composed. Events have been moving very rapidly during the past few months in India. It is a mistake, however, to regard the movement as a new thing. For years there has been a party in India implacably opposed to British rule in that country. We have had to endure chronic abuse and vituperation from a certain section of the native Press, and from time to time there have been explosions of racial violence inciting to disorder and to crime. There was such an explosion in the days of Lord Lytton, and there was another in the time of Lord Sandhurst, when he was Governor of Bombay. But lately these symptoms of unrest have developed with really alarming rapidity until finally they have culminated in what cannot be otherwise described than as a menace, not merely to Government, but to the very structure on which society itself is based in India.
  I do not think that we ought to minimise this unrest any more than we ought to exaggerate it. In relation to the whole continent of India it is inconsiderable and almost insignificant. I suppose if we had any means of making a referendum to the 300 millions of the people of India, we should find that the enormous bulk of them were wholly unaware of the existence of this unrest. Moreover, there are powerful and valuable elements on our side. The princes of India, owing to the wise policy pursued for fifty years, are, I believe, unanimously and enthusiastically on the side of Government. Although attempts of the most sinister description have been made to tamper with the loyalty of the Army—attempts certain to be renewed—they have been so far, I believe, unsuccessful. The better classes of the people, the men who have a stake in the country, are also loyal—although noble Lords can scarcely have an idea of the degree of timidity by which these persons are actuated, or the degree to which they are frightened by the pressure, the threats, and the blackmail of the native Press of India. Though these are the favourable sym-
  506
  toms, from another point of view we cannot deny the seriousness of the situation.
  When we read of attacks being made on Europeans in the great military station of Rawalpindi, of serious agitation among the peasants of the Punjab, of disgraceful riots in the remote and hitherto entirely peaceful corners of Madras, of prominent citizens being arrested for sedition in Bombay, and of the whole chapter of events in Bengal, it is evident that there is a movement in existence in India which has wide ramifications, which is backed by a powerful and unscrupulous organisation, which is supported by large funds, which does not spring from any local or isolated cause, but which is part of a deliberate campaign conducted against British government in that country. Moreover, my Lords, we must remember that, though the classes which propagate sedition may be numerically small, they are the classes which have almost the monopoly of education and the influence which education gives. They have a perfect command both in speech and in writing of the two languages—English and the vernacular—and they possess an influence with their countrymen greatly in excess either of their numbers or of their social standing in the country. I do not think, therefore, that we ought to underrate the seriousness of this movement. I hope very much that its dangerous symptoms will abate; but I think we must count upon the chronic continuance of unrest in India for the reason that the causes which are at the bottom of it are not ephemeral, but in some respects almost permanent in their operation.
  There is not time, nor am I sure that this would be the occasion, for entering into any detailed analysis of the causes of this movement. All of them are complex, and some of them are very obscure. But among those causes a few lie on the surface. It will, I think, be admitted by every one that first and foremost among these is the education we have given to the people of the country. For years—indeed, ever since the days of Lord Macaulay, who may be said in a sense to be the author of much that has happened since then—we have

  507
  been giving to the people of India an education which, however admirably suited to a country which has centuries of constitutional development behind it, is profoundly ill-adapted to a country where the traditions, the social customs, and the state of intellectual evolution are what we see in India. It has taught the people of India the catchwords of Western civilisation without inspiring them with its spirit or inculcating its sobriety. It has sharpened their intellect without forming their character. When we read the other day that in the personal property of one of these miserable bomb-throwers who was arrested there was found "Mill on Liberty" and "Burke on the French Revolution," we can detect the remote spark which led to the ultimate conflagration.
  The second and very potent cause of unrest is, I believe, the ferment which is going on in every part of Asia at this moment, and which has been greatly, almost immeasurably, aggravated by the success of Japan over Russia in the last war. This is the first occasion for centuries in which in an open conflict between East and West, between Asia and Europe, Asia has triumphed. The reverberations of that victory have, echoed like a thunderclap through the whispering galleries of the East. They have produced the progressive movement in China, the constitutional movement in Persia, the revolutionary movement in Russia, and almost the whole of the activity that has been manifested in different parts of Central Asia. In India, I can certify, because it occurred in my time, that they gave an immense impetus to the racial feeling in that country. They lent shape and confidence to the aspirations long formed in the native mind, and they led agitators to think that the time had arrived when the policy of deeds might be substituted for the policy of words.
  There is one alleged cause of this unrest to which I hope you will allow me, in justice to our own countrymen in India, to refer. It is the charge often made that there is a change in the temper of Englishmen in that country, that there is a progressive loss of sympathy and a hardening of spirit and tone in our relations with the natives. It is sug-
  508
  gested that there was once a time, 100 years or less ago, when we were truly in touch with them, but that at some period since we have grown arrogant and stiff, and are now incapable of entering into any relations of amity or regard with them. I do not think it is ever true that national character pursues these sharp or sudden zigzags, and I believe it to be quite untrue of our fellow-subjects in that country. If you look at the books that were written a hundred years ago—which is the Saturnian epoch to which the critics now refer—such a work as the "Journal" of Bishop Heber, who travelled in many parts of India a century ago—you will find in his writings precisely the same complaints about the unsympathetic character of our countrymen. But these charges, in so far as they were true, were true then of a minority only of our countrymen, and if they are true now, they are equally true of a minority only, and I believe a minority which has grown steadily smaller.
  What has changed in India is, not the character of the Englishman, but the system under which the Englishman works. It is scarcely possible to describe the degree to which the official Englishman in India is the victim of a system more rigid than himself. The increase of population, the enormous rise in the standards of administration, the demands of education, of sanitation, and public works, the spread of railways bringing constant visits from inspectors and officers coming to see how he is getting on, the diffusion of the electric telegraph calling from him for information and reports, for answers to fantastic and ignorant questions put in the British House of Commons—all these constitute an overwhelming burden on the time of the district official in India, and leave him little or no time for that social intercourse with the natives, which is supposed to have been in days gone by the source of their confidence and of his strength. The British official in India is now surrounded by native clerks, by Baboos who talk English as well as himself; and that, of course, leads to a disinclination on his part to make himself familiar with the vernacular of the country. In these ways a gap is growing between, the English and the natives in

  509
  India which is a most regrettable thing, but which is inevitable because it is in part the result of the operations of the Parliamentary system in this country.
  There is another and very different respect in which Englishmen, or, at any rate, a small knot of Englishmen, have incurred responsibility for the condition of affairs in India. I am referring to the utterances, sometimes ignorant and irresponsible, sometimes deliberate and malignant, of a small knot of Englishmen who have been preaching the doctrines of self-government for years to the Indians, denouncing the British Government which they very likely have themselves served, and pouring contempt on the race from which they themselves are sprung. Some of these men have been members of the Civil Service, which they have left under conditions producing a sense of personal grievance in their minds. Some of them are English Members of Parliament, some of them are journalists, some of them are itinerant orators of the emotional type who pay visits of a few weeks to India to tell the people there what they ought to do, and then come back here and tell us what we ought to do. Nearly all of them belong to the extreme wing of the Radical Party. A good deal of their ammunition is, I believe, derived from the earlier writings of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, although I fancy that they are very much disappointed with his more recent action.
  These persons, particularly if they have M.P. added to their name, have a valuation in India greatly in excess of that which they enjoy here; and when they go to India and tell the people there that they are ruled by a Russian despotism or that the methods of their Government are worse than Armenian atrocities, it is supposed that they know something about Russia and Armenia, and are talking truth. It is possible to show that some of the utterances of which I am speaking have been directly responsible for some of the consequences that have ensued; and when we tabulate as I am endeavouring to do, the causes of this movement, let us not deny a prominent place to the pernicious action and inflammatory writings of some of our own countrymen.
  510
  I come to a question which has excited a great deal of attention—I allude to the so-called partition of Bengal. More exaggerated nonsense has been talked about this question than almost any other question of contemporary Indian politics. We are told that it is the main cause of the unrest throughout India. If the unrest were confined to Bengal there might be some plausibility in that plea; but do the peasants of the Punjab or the people of Tuticorin care twopence about the partition of Bengal? They have not the slightest idea what it means. You might just as well say that the rejection of the Scottish Land Bill by this House was responsible for the agitation in Macedonia or the outrages at Lisbon. We are also told that there was a sinister design on the part of the Government of India to create a race feud between Hindus and Mahomedans, and in particular that the partition of Bengal was an attempt on my part to avenge myself on the Bengalis for their hostility to some of the measures passed when I was in India. It is a calumny so preposterous that it scarcely seems worthy of notice. It certainly was an advantage of the measure of which I am speaking that the Mahomedans in Bengal, who represent a down-trodden and backward element of the population, should be gathered together in a province where there would be greater scope for their intellectual development and for their employment in the future. But the credit for that, if credit it be, was not mine. The ultimate form which the partition took, and which differed very materially from the proposals I put forward in the first place, was conceived when the Government of India was in the hands of my noble friend Lord Ampthill. When I returned to India, I found that he had courteously reserved the matter for my decision, and, knowing the sincerity and the thoroughness with which the matter had been discussed by his Government, I readily acquiesced in their views.
  Now, what were the objects of the so-called partition of Bengal? Partition, I think, is in itself an inapt and undesirable phrase. It suggests a forcible dismemberment of the country, much as Poland was torn to pieces by its avaricious neighbours. The partition of Bengal

  511
  was merely the readjustment of the administrative boundaries of that province effected by a duplication of the machinery of Government. It was as if the Home Office or the Local Government Board in this country were to take some county whose population had grown to such an extent that one county council could not well manage its affairs, and say that therefore it should have two councils in future. There were two factors with which we were confronted. The first was this. On the eastern side of Bengal lay the remote and rather backward province of Assam, with no outlet to the sea for its industries, and with only a service borrowed from Bengal. It was from every point of view desirable that Assam should be extended to give it the outlet of which I speak, and to enable it to have a Commission of its own. Then, what was more, I found from the reports of the officers and from my own inquiries that, owing to the enormous burden resting on the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, who had to administer a province of 80,000,000 people, there was worse administration and a greater chasm between the Government and the people in the east of Bengal than in any other part of India. We therefore decided to duplicate the machinery of Government, and instead of having one Lieutenant-Governor, one Board of Revenue, one Legislative Council, to give them in each case two.
  That measure was received with gratitude by the majority of the inhabitants not of the old province but of the new province, and I venture to say it has turned out a great administrative advantage to the people. But it excited fierce resentment among a certain section of the people. It struck athwart the social and material interests of a number of individuals and communities to whom it was a matter of importance that everything should be centralised at Calcutta, and it also cut athwart the political ambitions of those extreme persons and agitators who looked in the future to an occasion when they might bring the undivided force of the whole Bengali race to bear upon the British Government in their struggle for political concessions.
  512
  All these causes operated when the measure was introduced, and, further, those feelings were enhanced by the manner in which the question was dealt with by the then Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord, Lord Midleton, the Secretary of State at that time, made a reference to the partition of Bengal in one of his telegrams, which undoubtedly led to the inference in that country that that measure had been thrown as a sop to soothe my wounded feelings rather than on grounds of political propriety or expediency.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Will the noble Lord quote the telegram to which he refers?
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes. These were the words of the noble Lord. It was a telegram connected with my resignation, which, as the House knows, had reference to a question of military administration, and had nothing whatever to do with Bengal. The telegram was dated August 16th, 1905, and was as follows—
  "Throughout your administration my colleagues and I have endeavoured to give you constant support in the many measures of administrative reform you have initiated, including the partition of Bengal, upon which we recently adopted your proposals."
  That sentence was universally read in India, and the noble Lord will see it by referring to the papers, to mean—especially when taken in conjunction, with the tone of the noble Lord's own despatch about the partition of Bengal—that he had, so to speak, thrown the partition of Bengal to me in order to make matters as easy as possible for me in consequence of my injured feelings arising out of the manner in which he had treated me over my resignation. I do not say the inference was just or unjust, but that it was universally held is known by everyone in India, and can be demonstrated by reference to many sources. Those feelings have been enhanced by proceedings which have taken place under the present Administration. There have been more answers than one given in the House of Commons, notably an answer by the late Prime Minister, which have suggested the possibility that the Government are not unwilling to hear new facts

  513
  or new arguments which might conceivably lead to a reconsideration of the case. The terms of these answers, although I believe quite innocent in themselves—I am not complaining of them—were undoubtedly read in India as suggesting the possibility that the Government might reconsider this question. Even now there are certain Members of the House of Commons, and a large section in India, who believe that if persistent pressure is applied to the Government they may yet yield on the matter. If the noble Lord in his speech to which we are presently to listen will state that the Government adhere absolutely to the policy which they have supported for the last two-and-a-half years, it will, I believe, do more than anything else to crush the agitation which is still proceeding on the matter in India. For my own part I can only say that any revocation or modification of the partition of Bengal—a measure accepted by two Secretaries of State, two Governments, two India Councils, of undoubted administrative advantage, inflicting injury upon no class or community, made a test case between the extremist party in India and the Government—would place a premium upon disloyal agitation in India in future, and render the government of India well-nigh impossible; and future Secretaries of State would rue the day and would not forgive the man by whom that concession had been made.
  Then we are sometimes told that the unrest is due to the harsh and oppressive measures of the British Government, and particularly to the reactionary policy of recent years. I always suspect these cant phrases when I hear them. When a Conservative dislikes any measure he calls it revolutionary, and when a Radical dislikes any measure he calls it reactionary. I have never myself been able to ascertain what the reactionary measures were to which reference was made. There are several noble Lords in this House with whom I had the honour of being associated in the government of India, and I think I shall carry them with me when I say that in the years in which we worked together we carried a very considerable programme of administrative reform in the interests of the people of that country. We reduced taxation on three occasions;
  514
  we gave large sums to irrigation; we reformed the police; we endeavoured to purge education of some of its worst blemishes and to supply it with funds; we organised agriculture and created agricultural banks. These measures were received with acclamation at the time, and I should be glad to hear from the Secretary of State what are the oppressive or reactionary measures of which the Government of India in my time were guilty, or if, indeed, he can find any trace of them.
  I pass to the methods with which the noble Lord is dealing with the situation in India. Those methods have met so far with our cordial support. We applauded him when he ordered the deportation of two principal authors of sedition last year, and when he released them we accepted his judgment. We were glad when the Government of India issued a circular to suppress misconduct in colleges and schools, and when they passed a law to prohibit seditious meetings. When the noble Lord put two Indian gentlemen on his council in London, we thought it a most reasonable concession, and I am sure we are all prepared to give favourable consideration to the proposal as to advisory councils or the expansion of legislative councils which he may shortly put before us. So far so good. But these measures have been, perhaps, better in their intentions than in their execution. Certainly they have not altogether succeeded in their results. So far as I can ascertain the school circular has been almost a dead letter. I have carefully studied the newspapers, and seditious meetings seem to me still to nourish unchecked.
  Then there was the calamitous action about which it is my duty to say a word—the acceptance of the resignation of Sir Bampfylde Fuller. He was an officer of great ability and courage and notorious for his sympathies with the natives, and he was engaged in the face of much obloquy and difficulty in carrying out the extremely arduous task of introducing the new administration in the province of Eastern Bengal. He disagreed with the Government of India on a point of importance, and was allowed to resign. I think the acceptance of his resignation was most unfortunate,

  515
  because it gave a great impetus to the agitation and led agitators to think that, having got rid of the Lieutenant-Governor, they could also destroy the province. What was worse still, it was a matter of great discouragement to British officers throughout the country. It took the heart out of them; it lowered their morale. If, they said to themselves, the most conspicuous and able of our number, who is in the forefront of the battle, has been deserted, how can smaller or weaker men presume to hold the fort?
  I daresay the Secretary of State will say that it is improper by means of a threat of resignation to hold a pistol at the head of the Government. I am perhaps entitled to speak on the ethics of resignation. To proffer your resignation is not necessarily to hold a pistol at the head of the Government; it is often the sole resort which is open to an honourable man who has strong convictions. That was the case with Sir Bampfylde Fuller. Did the Government of India invite him to reconsider his position? Did they give him an opportunity of explaining his views or withdrawing his threat? If they had done so, and he had declined to take it, I should not have stood up in this House to say a word in his defence. No such opportunity was given. He was sacrificed in the mistaken belief that it would pacify the agitators, whereas, as I believe, an entirely opposite result has ensued. If he had remained in Eastern Bengal. I believe it would have been pacified long before now.
  During the last few months events in India have taken a more dangerous form. We have read with great horror of the attempts made on the lives of British officers and other persons, and these have culminated in the discovery of a conspiracy which has behind it all the diabolical resources and is animated by all the fiendish motives of the worst anarchist societies in history. With fearful rapidity we have seen the state of affairs in India pass from calumny and misrepresentation to sedition, from sedition to crime, and from crime to bloody anarchy. This shows. I think, that the treatment so far adopted has not been altogether successful.
  516
  During the past few weeks the Government of India have dealt with the subject by two measures. They have passed an Explosives Act which is a duplicate of a measure that was carried with great rapidity in both Houses of Parliament here in 1883. None of us has a word to say against that. They have also introduced and carried a Press Act. I wonder if the people in this country have any idea of the appalling licence, the shameless violence which characterises much of the writing of the native Press in India. There is a section of that Press which exists only for the vituperation of the British Government and the stirring up of race hatred between the two peoples. I might easily read you sheaves of extracts to illustrate my point, but it is sufficient for me to quote the words of the Viceroy, who, in a debate on this Bill the other day in India, spoke of a system of seditious writing and seditious speaking of unparalleled virulence as existing throughout India. There is not a country in Europe, there is not even a Republic in South America, where writing of this sort would be tolerated. In India it is peculiarly perilous, because there you have an alien Government conducting the government with only a scanty force behind it, and dependent to a large extent upon its personal prestige, and you are also dealing with perhaps the most credulous and impressionable people on the face of the globe. Every day they see the officers of the Government vilified, the Government traduced, and British rule represented as a harsh and infamous oppression. I noticed the other day that a bomb-thrower, who killed two poor innocent women, turned out to be a young man who had been had up for distributing seditious literature in 1906, and had been let out because of his youth by the Government of Bengal; and he stated himself that his mind had been inflamed by the poison of the vernacular Press.
  Twice before now has special Press legislation had to be introduced in India for the purpose of dealing with this state of affairs. The first case was in the time of the Mutiny, and the second in the time of Lord Lytton. He introduced a measure intended not to punish that sort of

  517
  crime, but to prevent it. In 1880, the Liberal Government came in, and the noble Marquess opposite arrived in India, and in deference to what are called Liberal principles, that Act was repealed, and ever since we have had to rely upon the indifferent protection of the penal code. I say the indifferent protection of the penal code because, although the penal code has been strengthened since that date, there is almost always a doubt as to the inter pretation of the law. The law officers in India are usually averse to prosecution It is attended by all the publicity and advertisement of public trial, and with native juries it is extremely doubtful what will be the nature of the verdict.
  The Government of India have now passed a Press Act which deals with incitements to murder and violence. If I may presume to criticise it, it seems to me not altogether adequate. In the first place it sets up a rather cumbrous and dilatory machinery, inasmuch as the intervention of the local government is required. Then it provides for a conditional order of forfeiture of the offending Press, with a public inquiry and the advertisement that ensues, whereas, in my judgment, a summary procedure is better suited to the circumstances of the case. Thirdly, it allows an appeal to the High Court, with again the opportunity of a sensational trial, and possibly the overruling, on a technical ground, of the Executive. Surely when we are dealing with a conspiracy directed against the main principles of government and against human life, when the question at stake is the preservation of law and order, we ought not to regard this as a question of a judicial tribunal at all; it is a question as to which the Executive possess the sole responsibility. But it is my chief objection to this measure that it is confined exclusively to incitements to murder and violence, and that, being so confined, the great torrent of ordinary everyday incitements to sedition and attack on the British Government will continue. I feel additional confidence in holding these views because they have been publicly expressed by the Viceroy himself.
  518
  In a debate upon this Bill at Simla the other day he spoke as follows—
  "It is quite possible that our Bills may not be strong enough. In that case we shall not fail to amend them; but the Newspaper Bill in no way takes the place of a general Press Act, and in no way ties our hands as to the future introduction of such an Act. In my opinion, a further general control of the Press in India is imperatively necessary."
  It is scarcely possible to believe that the Viceroy of India should have spoken in that sense without the assent of the Secretary of State; and when he commits himself to the opinion, as the responsible head of the Government in India, that a further general control of the Press in India is imperatively necessary, I suppose we may assume that that control will shortly be assumed. In my view it is most urgently required. I do not think our action ought to be confined to incitements to murder and violence. I think we ought to deal with the whole range of seditious writing and speech in India, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give us reassuring information on that point.
  I need hardly say that in urging action of this description I am not pressing on the Secretary of State any policy of panic or repression. There is surely no repression in suppressing seditious acts or speeches, or ensuring the protection of your fellow-countrymen in India. I have many correspondents in India, and they look to the Secretary of State with hope, not perhaps untinged with anxiety, for what he may say to them on this subject. He has stated that it is the first duty of government to maintain law and order. They want that promise to be carried out effectually, and not in instalments. It has needed the murder of several innocent people to give us the Explosives Act, and two years of incitement to give us the Press Act. Are we now to have a further torrent of sedition of the class I have been describing before the next stage is reached, and the noble Lord comes to ask for fresh powers? The point of view of the native and that of the European in India are different; I do not think either can be ignored. When the native

  519
  sees the Government of India subjected to daily vilification, it is no good to tell him that this is a necessary safety valve, and that these dangerous sentiments will otherwise be driven underground. He draws the conclusion, if the Government fail to act, that they are afraid. The European's point of view is different. He, whether he be an official or a private person, looks to the Government for the protection in the discharge of his duties or his business to which he thinks he is justly entitled, and officials in India are looking to the Secretary of State at the present moment to give them fresh spirit to grapple with the serious and difficult problems before them—not in order to maintain their own selfish interests, but to uphold the cause of Government and society in that country.
  The other day I had an interesting communication from one of the most powerful and intelligent of the native chiefs of India, and he gave me his views. He said—
  "If the Secretary of State at this moment, without in any degree abating his generous intentions with regard to the future, were to hold up for a period of twelve months, or even of six months, the carrying out of those intensions, and if in the interval, as a condition of granting them, he were to insist on the restoration of order and tranquility and harmony between the races, he would do more to reestablish confidence than by any other individual act. On the other hand, if he were now to announce the concessions he has in mind, the announcement would be attributed not to generosity, but to fear."
  I believe those opinions are widely held, not only among Indians, but also among Europeans.
  As regards remedial measures, let me say in conclusion that although we do not know what form they will assume, I hope they will be somewhat different from those which were published last year. Yet if the noble Viscount can devise measures for associating the people of India with our Government, in wider and more responsible functions than are now open to them, I am sure those proposals will not be received in a critical or ungenerous spirit on this side of the House. He will, after all, only be carrying out the traditional policy of the British in India. No one, either now or in the future, would wish to cry halt to constitutional progress in that country. We all recognise that
  520
  it is the act of a wise statesman to broaden the basis of government, just as it is the act of the prudent financier to broaden the basis of taxation.
  Any concessions which the noble Viscount is disposed to make should, however, be subject to three conditions. The first is that they have not the appearance of being wrung from him by fear. Let them be measures which, agitation or no agitation, he will be prepared to justify on the ground of their conformity with the best and permanent interests of India. The second condition is, I think, that British rule, which needs as much strengthening and support as we can give it, should not be weakened by them. To enlarge the Legislative Councils in India to a point at which the risk might be incurred of placing the British Government—which is the only possible Government in that country and to which no alternative is capable of being suggested—in a position where they might conceivably find themselves in a minority, would be an act of almost suicidal folly. It would not placate the enemies of the Government, it would alienate the friends of the Government, and it would embarrass the Executive to a dangerous and fatal degree. The third condition is that the concessions should be preceded by a resolute vindication of the authority of the Government, by the stern repression of those vile incitements to outrage and disorder of which I have been speaking, and by the encouragement of all the loyal forces in India which are waiting for the signal to come forward so soon as they can feel confidence that the Government are strong and will not be afraid. I venture to think that a very grave and serious responsibility rests at this juncture on the shoulders of His Majesty's advisers, and it is our earnest hope and belief that they will be equal to it.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers respecting the state of affairs on the frontier and in the interior of India."— (The Lord Curzon of Kedleston.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount MORLEY of BLACKBURN): My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord has in many parts of his speech

  521
  said nothing from which I could in the slightest degree differ. His knowledge of India and the active and prominent part which he played in its administration for six or seven years give him a title to speak on India which, if it were not for my office, I could hardly claim. But I do not see why the noble Lord should have wound up with an appeal to me as Secretary of State to be quite sure to resist sedition and to preserve order. Anyone who is familiar with the history of Indian administration in the two and a half years during which I have been in this country responsible for it will do me the justice to say that I have never allowed anything, either popularity in the House of Commons or popularity among my own friends outside the House of Commons, to divert me for one moment by a hair's breadth from any action or policy that I thought order required.
  The noble Lord has said that the introduction of this Motion has my entire concurrence. That is quite true, but at the same time I am seriously disappointed at the tone adopted by the noble Lord on one or two points. To them I will come by-and-bye. I will only say now that I think the noble Lord has not been quite careful to remember that we who are here to-night are not the only participants in the debate. There are keen and vigilant listeners in many quarters. There are, of course, the officers of His Majesty's Government in Simla, there are the political parties in India, those who are called the Moderates and the Extremists, and the European community in India. They are all listeners. There are also persons who listen in the fastnesses of Kabul, and every word spoken to-night by the noble Lord will find its way by this day week to Kabul. I think the noble Lord has forgotten those things—I think he has forgotten that we are a responsible Government and that we have to consider whether the language used or the measures adopted by us tend to play into the hands of those opponents of all possible or serious reform who are looking on our Government with a sinister gleam in their eyes and infatuated dreams in their hearts. Much of the language used by the noble Lord will be thought by
  522
  those men to be helpful to them against their moderate rivals.
  I always speak with the utmost respect of the noble Lord when he is upon Indian ground—his knowledge is so enormous, so sure-footed, so acute. I agree with him that this is one of the foremost questions that can engage the attention of the British Parliament. In my view, after considerable experience of responsibility, the question of India stands in the very front rank, along with two or three other questions, such as national defence, the relations with the Colonies, and financial matters. You can name no front rank question with which India is not on a perfect level in its claim to vigilant and serious attention. I know your Lordships entirely agree with that. I do not go as far as the noble Lord who once said that he was more proud, or as proud, of being a citizen of the country which had done the greatest thing ever done—that is, had established English rule in India—as he was of being a citizen of the country that defeated the Spanish Armada and produced Hampden and Pitt. I cannot read history in that light.
  What does it mean? This is not an entirely idle or theoretical digression. It means that to have beaten back the dark and bigoted power of Spain in the 16th century from our shores and in the 17th century to have founded institutions and laid down principles which are not only the glory of our own country, but which have been made the model and example for the whole civilised world; and, thirdly, to have established the supremacy of England, as Pitt did, over France, in North America, with all the tremendous issues involved in that transaction. While I have every desire to think well of heroic shades, I think it indicates defects in the noble Lord's point of view when he places those achievements on a level with the achievements, grand as they were, of Clive and Warren Hastings and Lord Wellesley. That shows that the noble Lord is not sensible of the duty of this country to keep alive those great traditions and achievements.
  When the noble Lord began by saying that India ought to be outside all party considerations, I began to be suspicious,

  523
  because I have always observed in my political experience that when Gentlemen begin by disclaiming the possibility of a party attitude they very soon find themselves in a severely party attitude. I am bound to say that I see no difference whatever in the tone and spirit and method and tactics of the noble Lord on this most grave subject from the spirit and method of any ordinary party debate.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh, really!
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord quarrels with me for saying that.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am in the recollection of the House. I made no sort of party or debating attack on the noble Viscount at any point. I rendered him the most cordial and sincere recognition of his services as Secretary of State and his attitude on all Indian questions. I promised, as far as my support is worth anything, my most sympathetic consideration, of any proposals that he may make. Really, to hear that my speech was animated by a party attitude is just as great a travesty of my position as is the account of my views of the Armada and the Government of India which the noble Viscount has given.
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Well, the House must, of course, judge what is and what is not party criticism; and, after all, I am not at all surprised, because the greatest party struggles in all our history have taken place on Indian subjects within comparatively recent date. Now, my Lords, the noble Lord, in talking of the sources of mischief to which Indian peace is exposed and the sources of annoyance and trouble to which Indian officers are exposed, mentioned Questions in the House of Commons, and he made the very remarkable statement that such Questions were fatal or deleterious. Nobody now living has more reason than myself to dislike the questioning which has gone on for the last two and a half years, but it has not had the slightest significance or importance. It has taken
  524
  up a certain amount of my time, and of the time of some of my officers, but not a very great amount; but does anybody suppose that democracy is going to be without its simpletons? Perhaps not even an aristocracy is without its simpletons. When the noble Lord lays down the tremendous proposition that the Parliamentary system is incompatible with the maintenance of our power in India——
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am very sorry to interrupt, but I did not lay down anything so absurd as that. So far from deprecating Parliamentary Questions, the noble Lord will remember that I used to revel in them myself in the House of Commons. All I did say was that the duty of answering them often imposed a heavy and unreasonable burden on the district officers in India.
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord used some expression about the Parliamentary system which implied that it was incompatible with the maintenance of order in India.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I am glad I was mistaken. However, I was going to ask him, and I do ask him, if he dislikes Parliamentary action, whether in another place or in this House, what are you going to do with your Parliamentary system? It is all very well for the noble Lord sitting there, now free from all responsibility; but if he was sitting on this side of the House he would feel that he had to carry on with a Parliamentary system in one way or another. I rather think he indulged in cheap and, if I may say so, unworthy irony as to the literary sources of these questioners, and some of their friends in England—Mill and Burke, and some contemporary writers. What are you going to do? Are you going to prevent them reading Mill and even contemporary writers? The noble Lord does not seem to see that we are face to face with an immensely difficult problem, and that the conditions are fixed on us. I agree that Macaulay and those other

  525
  great men who made education in India what it was are responsible for a great deal of what has happened since. What the noble Lord's achievements were in the field of education I cannot accurately criticise; but I feel this assuredly, that any Government or Viceroy who takes in hand at the roots the present condition of unrest will devote all the powers of his mind to the revision of the education system.
  The noble Lord spoke of the partition of Bengal. Now, I have never for my own part indulged in any of the accusations of which he has complained, and the refutation of which appears to have been his main object in bringing forward this not very fruitful discussion. The partition of Bengal was a proceeding I thought mistaken in its methods, but no language has ever fallen from my lips that has in any way shaken the conclusion that the partition of Bengal was a settled fact so far as I am concerned. I will say without any danger of being misunderstood that, when I consider all the circumstances under which the partition was made—it was a matter of adjusting boundaries and operations of that kind—I could never see why it should have been regarded as so sacrosanct. It may be it is so, and for me it is so because it has become a test, and by that test I mean to abide so far as I am concerned. But the noble Lord rather surprised me, and I am sure he surprised Lord Ampthill, when he said that he returned to India from his stay in England in 1904–5 and accepted without question what he found. I have been informed, and I believe rightly, that, while Lord Ampthill and Sir A. Fraser, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, were hammering out the final scheme of readjustment of boundaries, at every stage the noble Lord had communications made to him on every single particular from time to time.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No.
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Here I am in a position of tertius gaudens. I must leave the noble Lord and the noble Lord behind him to settle that between them, and I hope that they will be able to do so. Now, as to
  526
  Sir Bampfylde Fuller, the acceptance of whose resignation by the Government with regard to the partition of Bengal the noble Lord has so severely criticised—I have the pleasure of knowing Sir Bampfylde Fuller; I have had more than one conversation with him, and have a great opinion of his many gifts; but I am bound to say that I read with surprise a letter published by him the other day in The Times newspaper headed "J'accuse," and attacking Lord Minto and, in a lesser degree, and with a good deal of innuendo, myself. Now, Sir Bampfylde Fuller is a clever and distinguished man who has held high office in Indian Government. What does he do? He takes this moment of all others, when there is a Viceroy at Simla manfully struggling with enormous difficulties which nobody is better able to measure than the noble Lord opposite, to pour into the columns of the English Press what I cannot but call a vitriolic attack on that great officer. The noble Lord may defend him as he likes. I rather wonder that he should.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I did not.
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord says we were wrong in accepting his resignation. Were we wrong? Is it really to be submitted to this House that, whenever a Lieutenant-Governor or anybody else cannot have his own way, he is to threaten the Viceroy with resignation? I do not think that there has ever been a man who has occupied the position of Viceroy who would more stubbornly resist any such action than the noble Lord himself. If I had been in the position of a Lieutenant-Governor I would never have sent in my resignation to him, because I am perfectly certain it would have been immediately accepted. I can only say for my part that, so long as I am concerned with the Indian Government, if anybody tenders his resignation because he cannot have his own way against the deliberately formed views of his superior authorities, that resignation will be promptly and peremptorily accepted.
  The noble Lord says that disastrous effects followed the acceptance of Sir

  527
  Bampfylde Fuller's resignation. That is entirely opposed to the facts. I do not think I can publicly name my authority, but if I tell the noble Lord privately he will agree that better authority there could not be. This is what I understand to have been the result on the spot of the acceptance of the resignation—
  "There was great jubilation in certain journalistic quarters in Calcutta, but no increased violence followed. As to insolence to Europeans, it almost entirely ceased, and when Sir A. Fraser, his successor, went to Decca some three months later, nothing of the kind took place. Nor has anything been heard of any recrudescence."
  It is not, perhaps, particularly wise in me to say that, because I shall be told by-and-bye that my words are an inducement to violence. It is quite untrue to say that the resignation caused any violence. The measure was an act of most salutary discipline, and in similar circumstances I should take the same course.
  Now about the frontier policy. We have had two large or considerable frontier enterprises. Both have been conducted with extraordinary military skill and efficiency and have been entirely successful. We have not had what the Government of Lord Elgin had some years ago—we have had no spread of conflagration along that dangerous and turbulent frontier, mainly because we adhered closely to the policy first laid down by Lord George Hamilton in 1898, and reiterated by Viscount Midleton in 1904, that we would not annex or occupy or plant posts or make roads in any portion of tribal territory. That, really, was the secret of the success of both those great expeditions. No policy could have been more loyally and faithfully followed by the generals in command, and by those who directed those generals, than was our policy in this case. When I remember what has been said about military autocracy, I am bound to say that there was in this case nothing of that kind. Lord Salisbury once said that one must beware of soldiers, for they would advise you to make a campaign in the moon lest we should be overrun from the planet Mars. For my part, I have found no menacing difficulty of that kind.
  528
  I must really ask your Lordships to pardon me if I do not follow the noble Lord closely, or, indeed, at all, through the Afghan portion of his speech. I wish he could have felt it consistent with his duty to leave the Afghan field as much alone as possible. There will be plenty of time by-and-bye to look around. Let us wait. The noble Lord talked of our reception of the Ameer in India last year. He implied that we ought to have taken advantage of that visit to strengthen our position with that ruler and to make him feel that we had conferred various favours on him—subsidies and the rest, enumerated by the noble Lord—and that these imposed upon him a corresponding duty. We did not say a word to the Ameer during his very joyful visit to India about reciprocal duties to us or any other duties; and when the Ameer went back from India he went without a single element of friction in his mind, and the good effects of our policy of leaving this powerful man to his own course was shown by what happened on the frontier. It is quite true that Afghans did engage in those expeditions, especially in the Mohmand expedition; but when things became dangerous the Ameer, to the best, of our knowledge and belief, from his correspondence with the Viceroy and in other ways, did his very best, especially in the later stage of the Mohmand expedition, to act in that spirit of friendship which we thought, and rightly thought, had been cemented during his stay in India.
  The noble Lord alluded to the Ameer's assent to the Anglo-Russian Convention. I heard his language on that point with the greatest regret. The Viceroy wrote to the Ameer on 10th September of last year, and on 29th September the Ameer replied that he was away on tour in the North-West of Afghanistan, but he would be back in Kabul in November, and would then consider the question. Since then he has not replied. Of course we only hear indirectly of proceedings in Kabul. The Ameer has his durbar to consider, and I suppose that in a durbar, as in any other assembly, different points of view present themselves, and there are debates. Oriental debates, carried on without the assistance of guillotine or closure, are probably

  529
  more prolonged than our own. The noble Lord said he did not wonder that the Ameer feels no enthusiasm about the Convention. He used words implying that there are doubtful things in the interests of the Ameer in this Convention. These words are sure to reach Kabul. What is the noble Lord doing? He is actually leading the Ameer to think that, at the moment when we are on the eve of putting some pressure on him, there are those in England and in Parliament who do not at all wonder at his want of enthusiasm. Anyone who realises what a proceeding of that kind in this Chamber means must feel that the noble Lord has not shown a considerate spirit in relation to delicate negotiations, not only as to Eastern things, but as to some very important European things.
  The noble Lord went into a very elaborate, careful, acute, and thoroughly-experienced analysis of the causes of unrest. I think I am able to accept and to follow him into almost if not the whole of those causes. I think his diagnosis about education, about the tremendous influence of Japanese victories, and the other elements which he mentioned is thoroughly sound; but he did not say a word, and I admit it was not his business to say a word, about the course which he would advise His Majesty's Government or the Government of India to pursue. Of course, one policy is very simple. It can be expressed in the pithy formula which I heard the other day—if I may be forgiven for using a profane expression—
  "Martial law and no damned nonsense."
  Martial law and no nonsensical constitutional or other reforms—that is not the noble Lord's policy, I am perfectly sure; but I observe that everything that falls from him leads to the assumption that we must know and decide for ourselves, without overmuch reference to Indian demands and expectations, what form of so-called concessions we think fit to give them. I think the Viceroy himself was better inspired.
  I cannot sufficiently admire the manful courage in India with which, without yielding to panic or exaggeration on one side or to disgust at their blind, reckless, aimless crimes on the other, the Viceroy
  530
  is ever persisting in the path which he and we have marked out for ourselves. I think we can all realise the position of the Viceroy, surrounded as he is by influences of an alarmist. kind. Lord Minto was appointed, not by my political friends, but by the Government of noble Lords opposite, and I can only say here, as I have said in another House, that between no two servants of the Crown is there a better understanding and a fuller confidence than there is between the present Viceroy and the present Secretary of State. I admire the manful courage with which, in the very speech in which he was bringing in his Explosives Act and his Press Act, Lord Minto said—
  "No anarchical crime will deter me from endeavouring to meet, as best I can, the political aspirations of honest reformers."
  I think that is a very fine utterance—fine in itself and fine considering the occasion. We have no choice but to persevere in the path of reform. We I cannot get out of our own history. We cannot leave the course marked out for us by the conscience of this country in dealing with what I am sorry to call alien races. In these days we cannot leave that out. I, for my part, accept the maxim of the French statesman who said—
  "In polities you ought to take nothing tragically, everything seriously."
  The House will not be surprised if I say that nobody in it views more seriously than I do the crisis—I do not believe that is too strong a word—by which we are now confronted. We can only surmount its dangers and difficulties by looking calmly and composedly, that is not to say without energy and force, at the problem which confronts us. We may postpone, but the longer you postpone, the greater will be the ulterior difficulties.
  I shall be particularly glad if your Lordships will take this from me, that it is not merely Congress men, it is not merely Moderates or Extremists in Indian parties. I read some Anglo-Indian newspapers, and I find there, not as violent, certainly, but just as sincere, the expectation and hope for improvements in government and administration as I

  531
  find in the Press of a more angry complexion. I believe from all the evidence that reaches me—I do not work these things out in my own head—from the members of the Indian Civil Service whom I have the pleasure of seeing from time to time, that the Civil Service itself, the administrators great and small, will be as glad of an improvement, and are looking as anxiously for an improvement in administration as the ordinary politician. Therefore, if we were to take our hands from the plough now, I do not say to adhere to every word in the scheme which the noble Lord has criticised, because of bombs and operations of that species, we should be exposed not only to the fury, the blind fury if you please so to call it, of the Extremists, not only to the lamentations of the Moderates, but we should be disappointing a great mass of strong Anglo-Indian European opinion.
  The noble Lord said nothing about what is called the Hobhouse Commission. It was a Royal Commission which we appointed a few months ago with a view to examining what improvements in administration were possible, and I believe that when that Commission reports two or three months hence a great mass of valuable evidence of the defects in the working of the Indian Government will be brought to light and suggestions of a fruitful kind made for their removal. There have been some complaints of excess of zeal in the Commission. That was inevitable, but I am confident that, when we get the Report of that Commission, when we get back from India the scheme of reform mentioned by the noble Lord, with the opinion of local Governments of that scheme, we shall have before us a body of material, not for the reconstruction of Indian government—I, for my part, have no such ambition—but for taking steps which shall do two or three very important or even momentous things. One is administration improvements, simplifying correspondence and appeals, and so on, simplifying the mass of writing which, as the noble Lord knows, is one of the curses of Indian procedure. Secondly, we shall, I hope, and I feel confident, do something to give the Indian population in all
  532
  their grades some formal and authorised opportunity of handling some of their own affairs. As at present advised, and subject to further consideration, I would hope they will be not only advisory, but, though perhaps modest, executive powers.
  I will not detain the House any longer with a further exposition of what is at present inchoate and without final and definite shape. There will, I hope, be something to limit excessive official interference; something, I hope, to stimulate the formation of independent opinions in local governments and in district governments. Whether or not the scheme, which, I trust, we shall be able to frame in concert with the Council of India and in constant communication with and reference to the Viceroy of India, will necessitate legislation and a direct appeal to Parliament—the scheme is not in a shape to enable me to answer that question—of course it would be idle to pretend to frame any scheme for which we did not expect to get full approval of Parliamentary opinion. I do not despair of that, and the noble Lord promised, as far as he was concerned, that there would be no particular criticism of measures of that kind, though he and his friends would, as they are bound to, look very closely into policy.
  Then there is the Indian party, or parties. They will make a great mistake if they give up the hope which they have hitherto always professed in the justice and good faith of this Parliament. I have heard that a friend of mine gruffly said to one of those who was talking of their faith in Parliament still remaining in spite of a Secretary of State who, as the noble Lord said, has greatly disappointed them by his falling away from his earlier compositions—
  "You are worshipping a blind and deaf divinity."
  I do not agree. I do not believe that Parliament wishes either to be blind or deaf to any reasonable demands from India, provided those demands are made and pressed in a reasonable way and are kept clear of madness and of wicked crimes; and if they are backed by the responsible executive Government, I have no fear of those demands not being complied with.

  533
  One or two matters I have left out because I do not want to detain your Lordships. There was a certain passage between the noble Lord and Lord Midleton. In that passage I was tertius gaudens. I was sorry for it, because, if I may say so without impertinence, it is of great importance in the face of India that those leading public men who take part in Indian discussions should abstain, as far as they possibly can, whether in despatches or otherwise, from anything calculated to make the people believe that we look for a moment to any personal considerations of one kind or another in view of the tremendous issues by which we are confronted. I thank your Lordships for your consideration.
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I do not propose to deal at all with frontier affairs, or with the very delicate question of our relations with the Ameer of Afghanistan. My remarks also about the internal condition of India will be extremely brief, for I think, in dealing with Indian, and, indeed, with Eastern affairs generally, deeds rather than words are required. My only reason for intervening in the debate is that I am of opinion that, in the present condition of affairs in India, it is the duty of all those who have any Indian experience to rally round the authorities and give them whatever support is in their power in the very arduous and responsible task which devolves upon them.
  Let me first deal with one point which is really one of detail. I allude to the retirement of Sir Bampfylde Fuller. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of Sir Bampfylde Fuller's retirement to be able to speak about it with any degree of confidence. But I should like to tell your Lordships how the matter strikes me. Of course, no Government in the world can stand a subordinate official putting a pistol to its throat and enforcing his views at the risk of resignation. There is, however, another method of dealing with questions of this sort which are not very uncommon. I do not think that, in the course of my rather lengthy experience, in spite of the very numerous occasions on which it was my misfortune to disagree with the Government which I served, I ever
  534
  sent in my resignation; but I have known a great many cases of others doing so. I will tell your Lordships how I have seen affairs of this kind treated. The resignation was always accepted, but at the same time a firm but friendly private letter was written to the official pointing out that he was doing an unwise thing in his own interest and in the interests of the public service in insisting upon resigning. I have never known this procedure to fail, and it has the advantage of preventing a good deal of dirty linen from being washed in public.
  I am in entire concurrence with the noble Lord behind me (Lord Curzon) in thinking that by far the most important cause of all in producing the present unrest in India is the system of education. We are really only reaping the harvest which we have ourselves sown. We all agree with what Lord Macaulay, who was the father of that system, said, that it would be an ignoble policy to keep the natives of India ignorant in order that they should be submissive; but, at the same time, and without departing in any way from the main principles of Lord Macaulay's policy, it would have been possible to have adapted the whole of the system more skilfully to the special requirements of the country. The main defects of the educational system in India are twofold. In the first place, the education is far too literary; insufficient attention is paid to professional, technical and industrial education. Moreover, not enough attention has been paid to elementary education, with the result that nothing has been done to temper the ignorance of the masses. If we had tried we could not have succeeded better in producing the maximum amount of political inconvenience. On the one hand we turn out from our colleges a number of youths, highly but somewhat superficially educated, not nearly all of whom are able to find employment. Lord Stowell once said that, if the supply of educated talent largely exceeded the demand, the surplus was likely to turn sour. That is what has happened in India. Not content with this, however, not only have we adopted the best method possible to manufacture demagogues, but by not instituting any system of elementary education we have provided the best possible

  535
  field for the demagogues wherein to sow their pernicious and subversive doctrines. I was very glad, therefore, to hear from, the Secretary of State that one of the first articles in his programme of reform would be that of education. Let us, even at this late hour, endeavour to rectify our mistakes and encourage technical, professional, and industrial education, and do something also for elementary education.
  But we have now to deal with the present, and not with the past or remote future. There can be no doubt that we have full reason for realising the truth of one of the declarations made by Lord Macaulay, namely, that—
  "You cannot impart knowledge without stimulating ambition."
  We have imparted knowledge to some classes in India, and we have therefore stimulated their ambition. They wish to take a greater share in the government of India, and their aspirations are perfectly legitimate. I trust, therefore, that we shall continue to follow the policy which will increase their share in the government of the country.
  I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that nothing had occurred recently which should deter the Government from undertaking the execution of a wise and moderate policy of reform, although, of course, there can be no question of the rapid introduction of extreme Parliamentary institutions into India, which nobody except very great Extremists wish for. Even if the noble Viscount had not been able to give that assurance, his antecedents and the well-known opinion of the Viceroy—who recently delivered an admirable speech at Simla, and about whom the noble Viscount spoke in complimentary terms—would of themselves have provided a quite sufficient guarantee that no retrograde policy would be adopted. On the other hand, we should be under no delusion as to the results to be obtained by a policy of moderate reform. Because there are Extremists in India it is not a reason for deterring us from embarking on a policy of moderate reform, though it will not satisfy those holding extreme views. The Extremists will continue to exist.
  536
  I was glad, therefore, to hear that strong measures are being resorted to against those who disturb the public peace, that the law has been strengthened, and that an attempt is being made to curb the Indian Press. Twenty-five years ago, as a member of the Indian Legislative Council, I voted in favour of the repeal of Lord Lytton's Press Act. Since that time I have persistently refused to yield to the strong pressure put upon me in Egypt under similar circumstances to curb the native Press. The policy of complete freedom of the Press in India and in Egypt has not only had a prolonged trial, but it has had a fair and even a sympathetic trial. But I am bound most reluctantly to admit that I fear it has not proved successful. I am afraid that we have received another object-lesson of the enormous difficulties of applying Western ideas to Eastern facts.
  The East, in fact, refuses to assimilate the notions which we, with the best intentions, but possibly with mistaken ideas, endeavour to force upon the people. I say that we have endeavoured to force ideas on the East because I have good reason for knowing that many of the best among Eastern authorities, and I should say that the majority of the most worthy portion of the community are not in favour of the freedom of the Press. I have over and over again had pressed upon me by Orientals of high character who could speak with authority on the subject the view that the vernacular Press did not represent any public opinion which existed, but that it created a spurious kind of opinion which would not have been called into existence at all had it not been for this Press, leading often to a tyrannous amount of blackmailing; and that the advantages derived from the system are incomparably less than the very great disadvantages. I do not say that in a matter of this kind we should be governed entirely by local opinion; we have to look at it from a different and rather wider point of view. At the same time, public opinion has to be taken into account, and I have no doubt whatever what the local or Oriental view of this question is.

  537
  I do not, of course, say for a moment that, even if my view of the question is accepted as correct, that is any reason for leaping from the extreme of licence to the extreme of oppression. I am aware that a Bill has been recently adopted in India dealing with certain Press offences, incitement to murder, and, I think, violence. I think it must be regarded as an experimental measure, and I believe that if the Viceroy and the noble Lord, in both of whom the country have the fullest confidence, after further experience think that further measures are necessary in the direction of placing more control on the Press, they will receive the cordial support, not only of Parliament, but of the world that stands outside Parliament. One of the great difficulties in dealing with the question up to the present time has been that public opinion in this country was not prepared to receive with favour a measure which ran strongly counter to our national traditions and ideas. But there are not wanting symptoms to show that in this respect there is a change in public opinion going on; so that, if the necessity arises, I hope that the Government will not hesitate to deal with the problem, even at the expense of some sacrifice of consistency.
  I read in the newspapers a short time ago that steps had been taken by the Government of India designed to stop a native delivering seditious harangues. This measure might perhaps be advantageously adopted in the case of the classes to whom Lord Curzon alluded and who periodically visit India in order to associate themselves with the sedition-mongers in India. I do not attempt to argue with these gentlemen, because I am aware that they are impervious to argument. I do not want to impugn their motives or to use hard words about them. I refer to take the more charitable view, which consists in thinking that they are so little acquainted with the facts with which they have to deal that they are unaware of the extent to which they are playing with fire. But I do say that the classes to whom I allude are the very worst enemies of their own clients and of the moderate reformer. If, partly in consequence of the violent language used by the classes to which I refer, further outrages take place—and such a
  538
  contingency is by no means impossible—we may predict with certainty what will occur here. There will be a violent reaction and a demand for stronger repressive measures. Moreover, the whole of history is there to show that when once measures of that kind are taken under the influence of national excitement and under a cry for vengeance, as it is called, they are apt to go a great deal further than the requirements of the case demand. I should, therefore, very much like to see the Government of India armed with sufficient legal power to take action against those of our own countrymen who go to India and deliberately assume the role of Indian demagogues.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, when I came down to your Lordships House to-night I did not feel at all certain that it would be necessary for me to trouble you on this occasion. I am not clear that on a Motion of this character very much can be gained even by what we may say which supports the Government; while I am quite sure that almost every word of criticism will permeate throughout India, and is likely to do serious damage at a very critical moment. I should, therefore, have been very content, after the clear and outspoken language of the Secretary of State and the support which he has received from the noble Earl who has just sat down, to have abstained from any criticism of what has been said this evening. But language has been used which, quite apart from whether it was fair or not to the Government that preceded the one now in office, was certainly calculated to convey false impressions on two high questions of policy, on which it was at least reasonable that someone from this Bench should say a few words. I propose to confine what I have to say very strictly to those two points.
  The noble Lord who introduced the Motion spoke in rather scathing terms of the conduct of both Governments in relation to the Ameer of Afghanistan. He said that the Ameer had been the subject of some not altogether called for concessions, and he described those concessions, as a sort of rake's progress, for which he attributed about an equal

  539
  measure of blame to the late Government and to the present Administration. The first of those remarks was that the Ameer was allowed to dictate to us the form of the treaty which was made by Sir Louis Dane. I altogether challenge that statement. I do not think there is any foundation for it at all. Your Lordships are probably aware of the conditions under which Sir Louis Dane went to Afghanistan to negotiate a treaty with the Ameer. We had had a treaty, negotiated, I think, first in the time of Lord Dufferin, with the father of the present Ameer. That treaty during twenty-two years secured to the British Government the control of the foreign policy of Afghanistan, and also ensured relations which remained friendly throughout that period, and which, on our side, were the subject of a subsidy which was subsequently increased after the Durand agreement.
  Those agreements, without renewal by treaty, might have been held, and were held, to be personal to the preceding Ameer. They required to be confirmed with the present Ameer, and the situation when Sir Louis Dane went to Kabul in 1904 was this. No agreement had been come to with the Ameer; on the other hand, the Indian Government had, in certain cases, exercised the right, for which they had agreed with his father, of carrying on negotiations in a foreign matter on his behalf; but the Ameer had received no subsidy since the death of his father, except arrears which had been due to his father. The Ameer's statement from the very first was that he desired to renew fully the agreement as it had existed with his father, and he had this, at least, to urge—that he had observed the agreement with his father in leaving his foreign policy in our hands, while, of course, he had not received the subsidy.
  A form of treaty was suggested to the Ameer, and he proposed a much shorter, and, in his opinion, simpler form of treaty which did convey precisely the recognition of the obligations which his father had entered into, and which, had preserved not merely peace between India and Afghanistan, but the peace of the frontier during twenty-two years. We examined both those treaties; we took the highest legal advice as to the effect
  540
  of the treaty proposed by the Ameer, and we decided that we were willing to accept that form of words which was subsequently presented to Parliament, and which, so far as I am aware, has never been made the subject of a single criticism in this country; nor could the noble Lord, with all his ability, I believe, show us a single particular in which, in the four years that have since passed, the acceptance of those words in preference to the more elaborate treaty put forward by the Indian Government has led to difficulty or trouble of any description. I cannot help feeling that it is unwise to represent the Ameer as having scored a heavy triumph, and as having dictated to the Indian Government under circumstances such as those which I have just detailed.
  As regards the further matter connected with the negotiations with the Ameer, that has been fully dealt with by the noble Viscount opposite. The questions of title have not been touched. The conclusion of the noble Lord that our alliance is not in a wholesome condition is one which, I think, requires more to substantiate it than the mere fact that the Ameer's orders to his subjects to withdraw had not reached them at the time when they did withdraw. When the noble Lord talks of a rebuff administered by the Ameer to this country, I cannot help asking whether that is wise language, and whether it is desirable that it should go forth on such authority as his, in view of delicate negotiations which are still going on.
  The noble Lord also touched on an internal question of great importance. The partition of Bengal is a subject on which a great deal has been written in reference to the present agitation, but we heard something about it to-night which was altogether new. When I went to the India Office in 1903, I found a large file of papers and I found also some most able and interesting memoranda by the noble Lord. In February, 1904, before the noble Lord came home on a holiday, he having, according to statute, resigned the office of Viceroy, the noble Lord made a progress in some of the districts affected, and by a number of speeches commended a change to the notice of the inhabitants. He returned

  541
  to England in May, 1904, and he was away from India until December. He put forward a fresh scheme, the previous scheme having been discussed during the period that he was in England. He put forward the fresh scheme in February, 1905. The noble Lord told us to-day, to my astonishment, that the responsibility for that scheme must really lie with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who filled the office of Viceroy in his absence; and he made a further allegation to which I will allude in a moment. The noble Lord framed the first scheme before the period when he came to England——
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No! Am I the noble Lord referred to?
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Certainly. The fresh scheme also came from his Government. I said he framed the scheme because responsibility is with the head of the Government. While he was in England the noble Lord was in continual correspondence with the acting Viceroy on public matters, and I have every reason to believe that he received papers from India about this scheme and a number of other matters. I know myself that he was supplied with information from the India Office on every paper which we thought might be material to him in taking up the duties which again awaited him when he returned to India, and the new scheme was put forward in February, 1905. That scheme also underwent some discussion, and I can only say—and I say it without fear of making any revelation because it has been mentioned in the Resolution of the Government of India which was presented to Parliament—other proposals were made, and the noble Lord most vehemently objected to the substitution of any proposal for the scheme which was finally submitted in 1905, and which he now attributes to the inspiration of Lord Ampthill.
  I confess that astonishment could hardly have gone further. But I was destined to a still further shock when the noble Lord, after having endeavoured to transfer, as I understand, the responsibility of this change to Lord Ampthill, put upon my shoulders the responsibility for the agitation in Bengal, because of the
  542
  inclusion in the Blue-book of a certain telegram, part of which at my instance he was good enough to read to your Lordships, and in which I alluded to the partition of Bengal as one of the great measures in respect of which His Majesty's Government had given the Viceroy their support. May I read the words again, in order that your Lordships may see how entirely the interpretation which the noble Lord put upon them is foreign to their general sense?
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I did not put that interpretation upon them. I said that public opinion in India had put it upon them.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Then may I ask this question? The noble Lord has great experience of public opinion in India. Why did not the noble Lord warn me, when he was discussing what telegrams should be published, that this was one which might have a sinister interpretation placed upon it? If it did not occur to the noble Lord that that was so, why am I to be censured for telling the noble Lord that I had given him my best support in that as in all other measures? I telegraphed on 16th August, 1905—
  "I have learned your decision to resign with very deep regret. Throughout your administration since your appointment as Governor-General in 1898, my colleagues and I have endeavoured to give you constant support in the many measures of administrative reform which you have initiated, including the partition of Bengal, upon which we recently adopted your proposals."
  I do not think that anybody can rightly assert that those words could be read—and they evidently were not read by Lord Curzon—as likely in any way to impede the course of administration in India; because I particularly alluded to that telegram, amongst others which recapitulated at length the whole circumstances, and invited the noble Lord to express his opinion as to whether it should be made public; and, although in the case of several telegrams he expressed his opinion that they should not be made public, he specifically, three days afterwards, included that telegram as one which he desired should be put before the world.

  543
  I trust your Lordships will pardon me for having gone at this length into what may seem a personal matter, but I have done so only in order that I may show that the last thing which we desired was to say a word hostile to the Viceroy. I had the advantage at the India Office, as the noble Viscount opposite has, of seeing every week or fortnight a digest of the views of the leading Indian newspapers translated for our benefit. I may be wrong—three years have elapsed—but I never remember on any single occasion seeing an allusion to this telegram which has been brought before your Lordships to-night, as being the pivot of the agitation which we all deplore. And I will say this one word in leaving the subject. I had the misfortune to differ from the noble Lord, representing the unanimous opinion of my colleagues in that difference, but never on any occasion have I said one word in public in criticism of the noble Lord or his administration. I have spoken before and since his resignation with genuine admiration of the hard work done by the noble Lord, of the lucidity of his intellect, of the extent of his knowledge, and of the supreme importance of the reforms which in many cases he achieved. I should like to add that I never knew any man in my life who was less conscious how completely his personality dominated the whole Government of India, and how impossible it would have been for the Government at home, without risk of a serious breach, to impede his policy or infringe what was his legitimate province.
  I do not desire to occupy your Lordships' attention any longer, except to say one thing in reference to the speech of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India. Our only desire on this side of the House is to fortify his hands, and the hands of the Viceroy. We hope that no amount of agitation and no amount of un wisdom will prevent the Government from proceeding on the course of reform sketched out for them and suggested by the noble Earl. At the same time we also trust that no amount of fear of consequences and of political trouble in this country will prevent their taking whatever measures are really necessary to secure the suppression—the early suppression—of this
  544
  agitation, and to make it clear that the Government of India is strong enough to make itself felt when occasion requires.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I am reluctantly obliged to ask for your attention for a few minutes. I should have been better pleased if this discussion had not gone further than was necessary to elicit from the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India the extremely important, and, if I may say so, inspiring statement which he made with regard to affairs in that country. But my own name has been mentioned in the course of the discussion. My noble friend gave me credit for a share in that act of statesmanship which is known as the partition of Bengal, and the noble Viscount the Secretary of State rather challenged me to say if that was so or not.
  My noble friend has on more than one public occasion been very generous in giving me a share of credit—more than I have deserved—for acts of administration in which I bore a small part under his Government. I have been grateful on those occasions, and I have been, and always shall be, ready to share with him, so far as it is due, any responsibility which can properly be placed upon me. But I am bound to say, challenged as I am, that no share of the credit for the partition of Bengal is due to me. I was, as your Lordships will believe, quite unprepared for this statement, and I can only rely upon my memory, but my memory is very clear on this subject. When it devolved upon me to act as locum tenens in the office of Governor-General it was an understood thing, and I think it was a very natural arrangement, that anything which could stand over until my noble friend's return should stand over, and one of those questions was obviously the partition of Bengal. It was a policy which did not at the time require immediate action, and the period of the noble Lord's absence was intended to be shorter than it actually became. Therefore, I have a very clear recollection that I left the question of the partition of Bengal severely alone. It was a policy for which I had no responsibility as regards the initiation, for the local governments were not taken into the

  545
  confidence of the Viceroy in this, matter when the policy was first devised.
  So far as I can recollect—I am relying solely on memory—there was only a short ad interim reference to the local; government during my time at Simla. It was suggested that the actual boundaries should be altered—extended on one side, so as to include districts which were homogeneous and in order to get a boundary clearly defined by a river, and, I think, contracted on another side. It was merely an adjustment of the whole scheme. That was referred, by way of routine, to the Government of Bengal, who agreed that it would be an improvement in every way. No action was decided upon, this ad interim reference being reserved for the decision of my noble friend when he returned to India. I believe the Papers are in the Blue-books which were presented to Parliament, so that I speak subject to correction. That is all I have to say on that subject. But as I am speaking, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few further words which I venture to think will not be wholly inappropriate. I wish only to express my general agreement with the opinions and the policy of the Secretary of State. I think it is desirable, as has been suggested by more than one speaker, that people in India as well as people in this country should be made aware of the full measure of support which is given to the Government. I should like to say, first of all, that I am in entire accord with the diagnosis of the situation in India which has been made by the noble Viscount on more than one occasion. It is, I think, a matter of dark clouds obscuring the Indian skies rather the rumbling of an imminent earthquake. In other words, I think we stand upon firm ground, and that firm ground is the good sense and the good will of the vast majority of the people of India, whether they belong to the educated classes or to those classes who cannot reason or think upon these subjects. That being so, my Lords, we can guard ourselves against the dangers of a possible storm in a manner which would not be possible if I the earth were about to swallow us up, or at least to bring to ruin most of that which we have built up. I believe firmly that the strong measures which have
  546
  been undertaken by the Viceroy and the Secretary of State, and even stronger measures yet if they should be necessary, will be approved by that great majority in India.
  A malignant growth has to be excised, from the body politic of India, and, like many a canker, it has grown unobserved for a very long time when it ought to have been cauterised long ago. Small wonder, then, that the poison has found its way even to such remote parts of the system as the southern districts of Madras. Of course, there is distemper and ill-humour while the patient is so gravely affected, and we cannot wonder that there should be that estrangement and alienation between the rulers and ruled in India to which the Secretary of State has made allusion. But I believe that when the cause of the disease is removed, those symptoms will disappear as quickly as the petulance of a sick man disappears with returning health. What is needed besides the surgeon's knife are those influences which give confidence and hope to the patient—confidence in the skill, the firmness, and the knowledge of the operator, and the hope of return to all the joys of vigorous and growing life. I agree, therefore, that a policy of pure repression is out of the question, and I agree that side by side with the maintenance of order there must go the satisfaction of those reasonable aspirations which we have not only taught but also encouraged. I think that my noble friend the Secretary of State will recollect that when I had the privilege of corresponding with him for a short time on his first assumption of office, I did urge upon him that reforms in the direction which he himself has under-taken were not only necessary but also overdue, and therefore the noble Viscount will recognise that I am sincere in the support which now I accord to him.
  I must not detain your Lordships longer at this hour. There is much else which I should have liked to have said in support of my noble friend, with one slight exception, if time had permitted. That only exception is this. I am not quite sure whether it would not have been wiser if the Press Act had been introduced at an earlier period. My noble friend said that the Explosives

  547
  Act ought to have been passed into law twenty years ago. I think that the Press Act might similarly, have been passed into law twenty years ago. But Certainly, so far as the present Government and administration of India are concerned, I am strongly of opinion—I cannot resist it—that that Act might have been introduced, and ought to have been introduced, twenty months ago. I believe that if that had been done we should have had fewer of the outrages that have occurred, we should have had an earlier expression of the confidence of those classes who desire the maintenance of our rule, and we should have had an earlier opportunity of dispelling the notion that the Government of this country were afraid. There is no doubt that that notion existed, and the proof is to be found in the news which reaches us daily through the medium of the Press. We see that since the passing of those two Acts-the —Press Act and the Explosives Act—various important public bodies have been passing resolutions declaring their approval of the policy of the Government of India and their strong desire that order should be maintained. Well, my Lords, to conclude rapidly, I believe that my noble friend has discovered the germs of disease, and I only trust that the antitoxin which he has prepared will be sufficiently swift and certain in its fiction. I need hardly add that I regard with most cordial sympathy the calm and courageous attitude with which my noble friend has faced the immense difficulties with which he has had to deal.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I feel that great indulgence is needed in attempting to address your Lordships even for a few moments on this subject, as I have not the justification which can be advanced in support of everyone who has yet addressed you, of having been intimately associated with the Government of India. I am a complete outsider, but I venture to ask your attention for a minute or two, chiefly for this reason. It seems to me that there is considerable danger that language used by those who have entered into this discussion may be interpreted in two different ways. Your Lordships will remember that a late distinguished
  548
  Member of this House said on a memorable occasion—
  "Mr. Gladstone and I may use the same language, but we do not mean the same thing."
  My noble friend below me, the Secretary of State, speaking of the present situation in India, has used language which is sufficiently clear, and with which, I think, we are all ready to agree. He is firmly resolved to put down all disorder to use every weapon now in his hands for that purpose, and, if necessary, to adopt any further means that may be required to accomplish that object. He is also firmly resolved to persevere, and to persevere without delay—in that respect differing from the attitude of the noble Lord who initiated this discussion—in the programme of reform which he has sketched out. The action which my noble friend is taking is action for the repression of crime and incentives to crime. The noble Lord opposite has urged my noble friend to put down agitation. Criminal agitation, no doubt, my noble friend is prepared to put down; but I am quite sure he would; not go any further. It is most undesirable, I think, that any impression should go forth from this House into the country, and still more into India, that it is his intention to do anything which shall limit or repress genuine political agitation. It may be that there is agitation in India for things which cannot be achieved, which are dreams of a distant future; but, as long as that agitation is confined within the limits of law and order, I am persuaded that my noble friend has no intention of repressing it. It is criminal agitation, and that alone, which he is resolved to curb.
  In this connection I would refer to what has been said by more than one noble Lord with respect to education. The noble Lord who opened this debate and Lord Cromer referred to the system of education which we have given India as, perhaps, the primary cause of the political agitation which there prevails, and they suggested some change in the mode of education which should correct that evil in the future. That appears to me a very narrow view of the education we have given to India. That great system is bringing the educated Indian into contact with the ideas of the West.

  549
  The ideas of the West may be to the educated Bengali something like what the fire-water was to the Red Indian—it may lead him to extremes to his own destruction; but it is impossible that anything my noble friend can do will prevent the inter-communication of ideas between East and West, and it is vain to think of altering the scheme of education there so as to prevent that intercommunication.
  The bringing of the educated Indian in contact with the ideas of the West has been going on through our mutual intercourse, through the literature which has gone from one country to the other, and when to that has been added the extraordinary spectacle of the Japanese contest with Russia it is not surprising that there should arise in the minds of the many educated Indians—relatively to the mass of the people extremely few—who direct the Press and have so large a share in the management of political agitation dreams of the possibility of an autonomous India. Those may be idle dreams—my view is that they are quite idle and that the attempt to put them into practical shape at once would be most ruinous to all that is orderly and well arranged in India itself; but I say you cannot hope to suppress them altogether. All you can do is to lead the people by the scheme of systematic reforms which my noble friend said he was bent upon pursuing, and in respect of which he quoted those noble words of Lord Minto which deserve to be carved in letters of gold. You must endeavour to meet the aspirations of the people by encouraging them to take part in the administration, in some degree, of their own affairs. It is necessary to emphasise this view.
  Reference has been made several times to the partition of Bengal, and my noble friend the Secretary of State for India said of that partition that it was conceived by an unfortunate method, that it was prosecuted with a good deal of discussion; that it was proposed now in one form and now in another; and the outcome of his observations was that it was a matter upon the ordering of which there might be, as there had been, many opinions on the part of officials and others. But if it was conceived by an
  550
  erroneous method, why did my noble friend as soon as he took office declare that it was a closed matter which could not be re-examined? I venture to think that that is carrying the notion of continuous policy in respect to India far beyond what is necessary, or, indeed, what is consistent with his own principles. If the change was administratively incorrect, even if it only did that which the noble Lord who introduced this discussion admitted—namely, run counter to the political aspirations of many of those who were interested in the division, it was good ground for re-examining the proposal. My noble friend says he will not now dream of re-opening it, and that it must be treated as for ever closed. I own myself that I regret the conclusion at which my noble friend has arrived, and which I think is not consistent with his general attitude. It seems to me not consistent also with the right line of policy in dealing with Indian discontent. I hold that the only method of grappling with the problem and the only hope of a peaceful and orderly issue is to meet continually what is reasonable, defensible, legitimate, and natural in the national feeling.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, at this late hour I will make my remarks very brief. I can only speak from my acquaintance with one portion of the Indian Empire—that on the Bombay side. It has been generally allowed that our system of higher education has been the cause of unrest. Yet I do not think anyone who is at all acquainted with India would deny that education was more advanced in the Bombay Presidency than in any other part of India; yet it is very noticeable that during all these disquieting times there have been no outrages there such as have characterised the agitation that has taken place in Bengal. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ampthill's estimate of the present disaffection. I think it is not deep-seated, and that it will pass away in due course.
  I do not agree with Lord Curzon as to education striking deep down in India. I consider that education in all its effects is rather lateral, and influences people of their own caste rather than as in this

  551
  country, where the pronouncement of any single great man or writer finds its way down through all classes of the people. There is a very numerous section of the educated class in Bombay who are absolutely loyal and devoted to our rule, and that is, I think, very largely owing to the nature of the education given in that Presidency. Far more advantage has been taken there of technical education than, perhaps, in other parts of India, and therefore we find the leaders of all branches of the community engaged in industrial enterprise and interested in the material development of the province. That, I believe, has been a great check and safeguard against disaffection taking the extreme form that it has taken in other parts of India.
  Nobody would gainsay that the Brahmans, whose headquarters are at Poona, by a remembrance of their rule not a century ago and by their great intellectual power and capacity for framing a policy, are those who would be most likely to engage in constitutional reform, and they have done so, but upon lines of sense and with a certain regard to what is constitutional. If any further steps could be taken to keep agitation on constitutional lines, every attention should be paid to the development of primary education. It has been represented to me by several leaders in India that if we want to get the lower classes to understand the benefits of our rule and to become less susceptible to the wiles of the agitators, primary education should be increased. With regard to higher education, as Lord Curzon wisely said, students have been encouraged to take up higher education, but no regard has been paid to the development of their character. The result is that you have turned out these young men by the score without any sense of responsibility and without any knowledge of how to turn their education to the best advantage. I would suggest that, without in any degree limiting the facilities for higher education, it should be given to the public at its proper cost. Thereby you would not tend to check the education of those who really wished to take it up, but you would not give a fictitious encouragement; at the same time, you
  552
  would bring home to the young men a certain sense of responsibility.
  One other remedy has been alluded to as meeting the present dissatisfaction—namely, the development of local self-government. The noble Viscount opposite indicated that through all the different spheres of administration he hoped something would be done in this direction. I believe that by encouraging a sense of responsibility among the different classes you will get a greater feeling of confidence and of interest in good government; but, at the same time, it must be remembered that even with existing local boards and municipalities, there are constant requests from those who live under their jurisdiction to have them removed as only a hindrance to the prosperity of the locality. Therefore it must not be expected that you are going to work wonders because you intend introducing an extended system of local self-government. Before I left Bombay we tried to encourage a system of decentralisation by allowing the Commissioners of various divisions to have wider and more extended powers, and not to be compelled to refer so constantly to headquarters. If you wish to en-encourage local self-government, it is essential that it must go pari passu with a certain amount of decentralisation, and you must not expect as high a standard of efficiency as in the past. The noble Vicount said we had rather sacrificed ourselves on the altar of efficiency; and it is so. We desire such a high standard of administration that we often run counter to the wishes and feelings of the people; and certainly it is a part of any enlarged system of local self-government that you should not require the same standard of efficiency and have the same amount of supervision of the district officials.
  As regards the reforms that have been indicated in the Legislative Councils, I hope that these may soon bear fruit, for I agree with the noble Viscount that it would not do for the Government to be deterred from carrying out the reforms they think necessary by the agitation which is at present taking place. At the same time, I earnestly hope that there will be a more stringent Press law,

  553
  for these concessions must be accompanied by an assurance that order must be respected, and that those who week by week and mouth by month have fomented wild ideas in the mind of the people will not be allowed to do so in the future. I quite agree that Press prosecutions are generally undesirable. The best way that I can see to meeting the difficulty is that every newspaper should give a guarantee of good conduct. Thai view has been put before the public from time to time; and I think there is a general feeling that a system which would be far less resented would be to insist upon either the licensing of news papers or that every newspaper should give a guarantee for its proper management. As the noble Lord who initiated the discussion pointed out, what is really far more insidious and far more dangerous than incitement to murder is that week by week the mass of the people should be told that they are being ruined by out rule in India, that we are responsible for the introduction of plague and such other will and mendacious statements. I regard those statements as far more serious because they do appeal to the greater number; and, therefore, whatever concessions are given, I earnestly hope the Secretary of State will consider the desirability of having a more stringent Press law, such as has been indicated by the Viceroy in the speech referred to this evening.
  There is no analogy to the freedom of the Press in this country, because it must be remembered that the Government of India are always at a disadvantage. There are no party newspapers, and only one side is ever heard. Here you can rely upon the Press of one Party challenging the statements of the other, but that is not so in India. I will conclude by saying that the remarks of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State tonight will give full confidence in India to our officials who at the present time are engaged in a very difficult and delicate task, and to the law-abiding and loyal people who do not understand apparent indifference towards what is being done to attack our rule. They do not understand apathy, but construe it into fear; and, therefore, it is desirable that steps should be taken and words spoken which will be an exhortation to
  554
  encourage those who are the bulk of the people and who are entirely faithful to the rule of our Government.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I will not, at this extremely late hour and before a House of such small dimensions, attempt to answer the noble Viscount. I own that I do not recognise the picture that he gave in some parts of his speech either of the substance or the spirit of my argument; but I shall be quite content that he should judge me from the text of my speech when it appears in the newspapers to-morrow. There was much less difference of opinion between us than he appeared to infer; and, for my own part, it certainly was my desire to give the noble Viscount the warmest support, so far as I was entitled to speak with any authority, to the policy he has pursued, and is pursuing, in India.
  With regard to subsequent incidents of the debate, I am very sorry that Viscount Midleton felt it incumbent on him to devote so large a portion of his remarks to me. I have always deeply regretted the causes of the difference between us, but, if he will allow me to say so, I will not, though I think there was much provocation, allow them to be enhanced by anything he has said this evening. I will only say this on the points at issue. The first point was rather a question of language than of fact. The noble Viscount was indignant with me because I said that the Ameer had dictated to us the terms of the treaty. The facts can be stated in four sentences. The Government here sent out a treaty which we were instructed to conclude; the Ameer proposed an entirely different draft; the government of India was most reluctant to accept it; but the Government at home ordered the acceptance of the draft. That is the long and short of the whole thing.
  With regard to the sentence in a telegram addressed by Viscount Midleton to myself, he was wrong in saying that I called those words the pivot of the agitation in India. My words were that the feelings excited in India had beer, enhanced by the inference drawn by the agitators from the terms of that telegram.

  555
  But the inference was widely, almost universally, drawn in India, as I think I could prove to the noble Lord from extracts from the newspapers. And undoubtedly the feelings thus excited were among the factors which produced unrest.
  There is another small matter mentioned by some noble Lords on this side, and about which I am not certain that the memory of any of us is quite accurate. I speak of the partition of Bengal. I gave credit to Lord Ampthill for the particular form in which the partition was ultimately decided upon. I did so as an act of generosity which I thought was entirely deserved by the circumstances of the case. The noble Lord repudiates it. It fell to my lot to verify the facts only a few days ago in connection with another matter. When I left India in 1904 the partition had not taken definite shape, and in the hands of the noble Lord, who managed the affair with scrupulous regard to the Viceroy who was shortly to succeed him, changes were made in the proposals regarding Madras which I had made, certain of the proposals in regard to Bengal were knocked out because the Lieutenant-Governor did not like them, and the entire scheme as regards Bengal was remodelled and enlarged.
  Viscount Midleton was right in saying that communications came from India and communications were made to me from the India Office while I was in this country; but being Viceroy temporarily functus officio, it was not my business to interfere, I left it in their hands; and when I went back to India and found the decision put before me, so satisfied was I with the discretion exercised that I sanctioned it and authorised a despatch to the Secretary of State. I apologise for making these few remarks of an explanatory character, but I think they have been called for. The only other point about which I would like to ask the Secretary of State is whether he can see his way to lay Papers as mentioned in my Motion.
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I am not quite able to reply positively, but I do not doubt I shall be able to lay Papers.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am in the hands of the noble Viscount. It is a matter within the discretion of the Government. We shall be glad to have Papers.
  VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I will consider the matter, and certainly will be as liberal as I possibly can.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.