Sitting of 4 December 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of return of proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of September, 1911 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of return giving particulars of cases in which persons had been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 30th September, 1911 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 25, 1911).
Copy presented of Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America respecting measures for the preservation and protection of the Fur-Seals. Signed at Washington, 7th February, 1911. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 7th July, 1911; to lie upon the Table.

BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
Copy presented of Seventy-third Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales, 1910 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:

BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
Copy of abstract of the general annual account for the year ending 26th July, 1911 [by Act].
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
Return ordered "of all Contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured articles by the several Government Departments in the years ending the 31st day of March, 1910, and the 31st day of March, 1911, respectively, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents who obtain the articles from abroad (in continuation of Parlimentary Paper, No. 154, of Session 1910)."—[Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Russia and Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the terms of the ultimatum sent by the Russian Government to the Persian Government on Wednesday last; whether His Majesty's Government were informed of it beforehand and consented to its being sent; and whether this ultimatum, or any part of it, was sent in the name of His Majesty's Government as well as in that of Russia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The demands included in the ultimatum, which have appeared in the Press, are: (1) the dismissal of Messrs. Sinister and Lecoffre; (2) an undertaking not to engage in the service of the Persian Government any foreigners without the previous consent of the British and Russian Legations; (3) the payment by Persia of the expenses of the present Russian military expedition, the manner of payment and the exact sum to be settled after the reply of the Persian Government has been received. It is added that the cases of the other persons engaged by Mr. Shuster will be dealt with under the second demand. His Majesty's Government were informed of the terms of the ultimatum before it was sent, but as the events which occasioned its dispatch primarily concerned the Russian Government, the case was not one in which the consent of Great Britain was required. In view, however, of Mr. Shuster's action, the opinion was expressed that we could not object to the demands respecting him and the appointment of foreign advisers. The ultimatum was presented by the Russian Government alone, and not in the name of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MORRELL: Did the Foreign Office advise the Persian Government to yield?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether England's veto on the appointment of foreigners in Persia will extend not only to the English sphere of influence as defined by the Anglo-Russian Agreement, but also to the Gulf region?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask the hon. Member to look at the terms of my reply, which sets forth that the demands of the ultimatum include "an undertaking not to engage in the service of the Persian Government any foreigners without the previous consent of the British and Russian Legations." That is all I undertake to say.
  Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that no protest was made by the British Government against it?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I understand that, according to the ultimatum——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down his question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the Under-Secretary explain to me what protest was made by the British Government? He says a protest was made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the terms of the ultimatum recently sent by the Russian Government to that of Persia include the demand that the Persian Government shall be guided by the advice of Russia and Great Britain in her choice of foreign advisers, of whatever nationality these may be, or whether this demand is only made in case the Persian Government desires to choose a British or a Russian subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to his immediately preceding question. The demand applies to foreign officials of all nationalities.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information showing that Mr. Morgan Shuster's work in Persia has been in any way unsatisfactory
  998
  to the Persian Government or the Persian people, or whether it is solely on the ground of his attitude towards Russia that His Majesty's Government have acquiesced in the demand made by the Russian Government for Mr. Shuster's dismissal?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Minister reports that severe tension has existed between the Persian Ministers and the Treasurer-General for some weeks past, and was the cause of the resignation of three Ministers a short time since. I have no information respecting the views of the Persian people; but Mr. Shuster has received the support of the Medjliss. The reason why His Majesty's Government could not object to the Russian demand respecting Mr. Shuster has already been explained in the Debate of last Monday.
  Mr. MORRELL: Was not the main objection to Mr. Shuster that he appointed competent persons, even though they happened to be British subjects?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, not at all.

  Swine-Fever Outbreak (Halstead, Essex).
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that although the town of Halstead, in Essex, has had no fresh cases of swine-fever for more than a month it is still treated as a swine-fever infected area; whether he is also aware that, in consequence of the above, loss has been sustained locally; and if he will now give instructions for the order to be removed?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I regret the loss and inconvenience occasioned by this and similar orders, but experience goes to show that it could not with safety be withdrawn at the present time. I have given instructions for the case to be referred to me again in the near future.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: What length of time is considered sufficient? Is three months not enough?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Three months have not yet elapsed.

  Kedwell v. Flint.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked what is the nature of the proceedings by which the Government intend to obtain further considerations by the Courts in the case of Kedwell v. Flint?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that in an appeal by the claimant in another case recently decided in the Tewkesbury County Court the Court of Appeal will be asked to reconsider the question decided in Kedwell v. Flint. The Government are not themselves parties to the appeal.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the number of cases of foot-and-mouth disease known to have existed in Russia, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France in October or the last known monthly report?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The latest available information as to foot-and-mouth disease in the countries named may be summarised as follows:—In Russia 450,099 animals were attacked in June last. In Germany the disease existed, or was suspected to exist, on 33,707 premises (gehöfte) on the 31st October last. In Holland 4,391 outbreaks occurred in October last. In Belgium the disease was reported to exist on 1,069 sets of premises (foyers) in the first fortnight of October last. In France the disease was reported from 20,729 sets of premises (étables) in September last.

  Wart Disease in Potatoes.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether he could give the number of cases of wart disease in potatoes reported to the Board in Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Cheshire, this summer and autumn?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In Shropshire, four cases occurring in three parishes; in Staffordshire fifty-six cases in thirty-one parishes; and in Cheshire twenty-four cases in twenty-one parishes.

  Small Holdings Act.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received detailed reports of the working of the small holdings created under the recent Small Holdings Act; and, if so, will he lay the information upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board do not usually receive detailed reports of the working of individual holdings, but information with regard to several of the larger schemes which have been approved by the Board was printed in Part I. of the Annual Report of Proceedings under the Act for 1909, and I shall be glad to
  1000
  consider whether it would be possible to include similar information in the Report for the current year.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the information in respect to the smaller holdings?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I draw no distinction between the smaller and the larger holdings. The distinction I drew was between individual holdings and special schemes.
  Sir H. CARLILE: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the early part of his reply he will see that he makes reference only to large holdings.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No.
  Sir H. CARLILE: I think so.

  President of the Board of Agriculture (Consultations).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has decided to discontinue the practice observed by his predecessors in office of being at home to British fanners during (the Cattle Show week; and, if so, whether he will reconsider his action in thus depriving the practical agriculturists of the country of the advantage of consultation with him?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the invitation issued by my immediate predecessor in office, which I understand to have been entirely unofficial in character. I do not propose to issue a similar invitation, not from any failure to recognise the advantages of personal consultation with agriculturists, but because I think I see my way to secure this object more effectively by other means.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not more important he should be at home to the agricultural labourer?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this practice, which was instituted by Earl Carrington, was greatly appreciated by British farmers during the Fat Stock show?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very glad to hear anything my predecessor did was appreciated by the British farmers.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are you surprised?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not at all surprised.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What are the special means the right hon Gentleman intends to substitute?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: By myself attending the farmers on their farms, amongst others.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see large as well as small farmers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member had been aware of what happened during last week, he would have known that I took steps to see both large and small farmers on their farms, and I shall continue to do that while I remain in office.

  Agricultural Estates (Sale).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the reasons why the Report of the Departmental Committee on the position of farm tenants on the sale of agricultural estates has not yet been issued, although the taking of evidence was completed more than four months ago; and whether such Report is now shortly to be issued?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The duty entrusted to the Committee was not an easy one, and it is natural that they should have taken time to consider the terms of the Report. I understand, however, that it will be presented very shortly.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the delay entirely due to the absence of the Chairman abroad?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know to what the delay is due.

  Vaccination.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, when the Steyning Board of Guardians had under consideration an application from their vaccination officers in August last for gratuity in respect of loss of fees which they had sustained in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, also for the scale of fees allowed to be increased, they decided that the matter be deferred until such time as the Local Government Board had come to a decision; whether the officers in this union made a similar application to their board the previous year and were refused either compensation or increased fees, and, acting upon the suggestion made by him, they communicated direct with the Local Government
  1002
  Board; if so, what action does he propose to take with regard to the loss of income sustained by the officers in this union; and whether he intends now to inform the guardians of this union that it was not his intention to issue any general order, or whether he intends to issue a general order to cover this and other cases?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The vaccination officers in this union all hold other offices, and in communicating with the guardians in 1910 I found that, although their receipts from vaccination fees had diminished, their total incomes had increased in each case. It did not, therefore, appear to mo necessary to urge the guardians to grant them compensation. I have had no communication from the guardians or from the vaccination officers on this subject since 1910.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, owing to the increase of exemptions in the three years ended 31st December last, the vaccination officer of the West Bromwich Union sustained a total loss of fees of £126 2s., towards which the guardians, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, have awarded gratuities amounting to £45; whether, seeing that out of the 5,398 births registered in the West Bromwich Union in the year 1910, 1,695 children have been legally exempted from vaccination, and, in respect of 4,463 births registered in the present year up to 31st October, 1,483 statutory declarations of conscientious objection have been received, he will consider the advisability of the vaccination officer's fees of 3d. per birth and 9d. per successful vaccination being revised for the work performed by him; and whether, having regard to the fact that the guardians have refused to increase the officer's fees and have intimated that they will not sanction any further gratuities although the officer is still suffering hardship from a continual increase of exemptions, he proposes to take any action to bring the officer's remuneration up to the average for the years 1903–7 or thereabouts?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the circumstances of the case. In sanctioning the gratuity proposed by the guardians in March last, I drew the attention of the guardians to the losses suffered by the vaccination officer and suggested an increase of fees. In April, the guardians submitted a proposal to appoint the vaccination officer as assistant relieving officer

  1003
  at a salary of £1 a week; and one of the conditions attached to this appointment was that no further claim for loss of vaccination fees should be made by the vaccination officer. The vaccination officer, as I was informed, was quite satisfied with this arrangement; and I sanctioned the appointment. No further communication on the matter has been received from the vaccination officer.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the difficulty of dealing with individual local authorities, whether he will issue a general order on the subject of the remuneration of vaccination officers?
  Mr. BURNS: On that point I have very little to add to the communications I made to the hon. Member on previous occasions. We are dealing with the twenty-five outstanding grievances, and we are meeting with considerable success.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has sanctioned the practice of paying fees to workhouse medical officers for vaccinations performed by them in Poor Law institutions; and, if not, whether he will issue an order directing that the performance of vaccinations shall be regarded in future as part of the ordinary duties of the officers for which they are paid by salary?
  Mr. BURNS: I may refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 20th November. The system of payment by fees, which was established by Statute in 1867, has been continued since. I am, however, not unwilling to consider the question of allowing a workhouse medical officer an inclusive salary to cover payments for vaccination when a vacancy has to be filled.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the practice mentioned in the latter part of the answer been adopted in any case?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked whether the vaccinations performed in Poor Law institutions are performed by public vaccinators only or by the workhouse medical officers when the latter are not public vaccinators; why these vaccinations cannot all be performed By the medical officer to the workhouse, whether he is a public vaccinator or not; and why the salary paid to the workhouse medical officer cannot include the cost of vaccinating the inmates?
  Mr. BURNS: In most cases the workhouse is a separate vaccination district, and a contract has been entered into for the performance of vaccination in it with the medical officer of the workhouse. Where there is no such contract, the workhouse medical officer is in nearly every case the public vaccinator of the district, including the workhouse, and vaccinates in the workhouse in that capacity. It is not the duty of the workhouse medical officer as such to vaccinate any of the inmates of the workhouse other than the children requiring vaccination.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the last two outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States are declared authoritatively to have been started by calves used to propagate vaccine virus, and that calves used for the same purpose in India and Japan are believed frequently to be attacked by foot-and-mouth disease; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the importation into this country of vaccine virus which may be contaminated with this disease?
  Mr. BURNS: A careful study of the evidence contained in the Report issued by the United States Department of Agriculture has not led my advisers to quite the same conclusions at which the American investigators arrived. The precautions taken at the Government lymph establishment in regard to the use of imported lymph are of a stringent character, and no further measures seem to be called for at present.

  Poor Law Order.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board when it will be convenient to circulate the proposed amended Poor Law Order to the Members of the House; the date when it is proposed to issue such Order, and the date it is to be brought into operation?
  Mr. BURNS: I am proposing to circulate an explanatory Memorandum setting out the material alterations proposed in the draft Order suggested by the Departmental Committee. I hope to be in a position to issue the Order shortly, but it could not in any case come into operation before April next.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the proposed new Poor Law Order regarding outdoor relief before it is issued?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that the President of the Local Government Board is issuing a Memorandum showing the Amendments proposed in the Order, and it does not seem necessary, nor do I think it is possible at the present time, to provide special facilities for a discussion.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: The President of the Local Government Board stated that the Order cannot be issued till next Session. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman promise an opportunity before it is put into operation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say more at present.

  London Government.
  Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce into Parliament next Session any Bill for the reform of London government; and whether it may be understood that the Government have abandoned their intention of introducing the Bill dealing with the equalisation of rates in London which was announced in the King's Speech of 1906?
  Mr. BURNS: I cannot at present make any promise of legislation on the subject of London government next Session. The question of the further equalisation of rates is only one of the elements of the larger problem.

  Housing and Town Planning Act (Doncaster District).
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked what steps are being taken in the vast new colliery districts round Doncaster to apply the provisions of the Town Planning Act; and what pressure is being exercised by the Local Government Board upon the local authorities to insure that all the new colliery villages shall be built in accordance with proper designs, as contemplated by the Act in question?
  Mr. BURNS: A conference was held in May last of representatives of the local authorities in the Doncaster district at which I understand it was decided to be advisable that plans should be prepared of areas sutiable for town planning under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, with a view to the preparation of a comprehensive scheme. No definite decision had been come to by the Doncaster Rural District Council at the end of October last to prepare a town-planning scheme for any
  1006
  area in their district. I have not lost sight of the matter or of its importance, but there are considerable difficulties arising in connection with the area in question which must not be underestimated.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a man employed on a tug in the Devonport Dockyard had recently to go into hospital for an operation owing to an injury received in the course of his employment; that at the time of the injury his pay amounted to £1 5s. 8d. per week, made up as follows: 15s. 2d. cash and 10s. 6d. food allowance; that on entering the hospital the cash payment was reduced by one-half and the food allowance taken away altogether, leaving only 7s. 7d. for the support of his family; whether these deductions are in accordance with the scheme of compensation (No. 116) in cases of injury to workmen in Government establishments; and, if not, will he make inquiries into the case with a view to reimbursement?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It has been ascertained that in consequence of an error on the part of a member of the cashier's staff a yard craft man named Larson received half-pay only—7s. 7d. a week—whilst on the hurt list, instead of half-pay and half-victualling allowance—12s. 10d. a week. Had the case been brought to the notice of the cashier the error would have been rectified forthwith. The underpayment has now been adjusted.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the error was discovered after I put the question on the Paper?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think it extremely likely, but I confess I am a little surprised Larson did not immediately point out the error to the official.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Exactly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information regarding any concessions to be made to workmen in the dockyards early in the new year; will he say what these concessions are to be, whether they include the abandonment of the restriction requiring workmen to reside within a three-mile radius of their work, and the re-consideration and re-adjustment of the scale of

  1007
  pensions now prevailing with regard to skilled and unskilled labour employed in the yards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the hearing of petitions is not yet concluded. It is obvious, therefore, that it is not possible at this stage to make any announcement as to what the ultimate decisions of the Board may be.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will favourably consider the appointment, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 13, clause 60, of A. L., dated 13th April, 1907, A. 1806, of a hired writer to carry out the clerical duties in the captain of dockyard's department, at Haulbowline?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The appointment indicated is not considered necessary.

  Valentia Island, County Kerry (Postal Facilities).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether he will again consider the question of giving improved postal facilities to the residents in Valentia Island, county Kerry?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am having further inquiries made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Post Office Savings Bank Depositors.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether an alphabetical list of Post Office Savings Bank depositors is kept, or whether any person inquiring as to the existence of a dormant balance in the name of a relative has to furnish particulars of the post office at which the account was originally opened and the date about which the first deposit was made, or the date and place of some recent transaction?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no alphabetical list of depositors, and the compilation of such a list—since the number of accounts is nearly twelve millions—would involve great labour and expense which would not be justified by the result. If inquiry is made as to the existence of a supposed dormant balance, every effort is made to assist any bonâ fide inquirer, no matter how meagre the particulars available. The hon. Member correctly describes the particulars which it is desirable to furnish.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me how there can be particulars of recent transactions with regard to a dormant account?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It may not have been very long dormant.

  London Postal Area.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether, in the rearrangement of the Home district surveyorship, which includes Belvedere, Erith, and Welling, as the conditions are the same as London, it is intended to place them in the London postal area?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Home surveyor's district was abolished on the 1st November, and the towns included in it were absorbed in the other provincial surveying districts. The sub-offices referred to are now in the South-eastern district. I can hold out no prospect of their inclusion in the London postal area.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the workpeople in these towns work at the same industries, and that the condition of life is the same as in the London district?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not the fact that the conditions are precisely the same as in the London district.
  Major GASTRELLasked the Postmaster-General what is the number of established and unestablished postmen, established and unestablished postal clerks, employed within the London twelve-mile radius on the second, third, and fourth provincial scales of wages, respectively; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, he will immediately place all postal servants employed within the London twelve-mile radius on the highest provincial scale of wages?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The twelve-mile radius does not correspond with any boundaries adopted for Post Office purposes, and the information asked for in the question cannot be supplied. Places beyond the London postal area were all classified on the principle recommended by the Parliamentary Committee, which reported in 1907, the volume of work being taken as the prime factor, and allowance being made where necessary for high cost

  1009
  of living. I am not in a position to adopt the suggestion in the last paragraph of the question.

  Volunteer Police.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he is aware that the volunteer police force intend to issue to their men uniforms and life preservers; and whether he will call for samples of these and see that the uniform is not a colourable imitation of that of the police?
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether this force has been raised by, or at the instance of, the railway companies and mining companies; and who is the president of the force and responsible for its behaviour?
  Mr. MORRELLasked (1) when and by whom the right hon. Gentleman was informed of the proposal to organise a force of volunteer police, and under whose orders these police will act; (2) whether he has considered the added danger of a breach of the peace that may arise through the organising and arming of a force of volunteer police to act under the orders of private persons during a time of strike; and whether he has any reason to suppose that the ordinary police forces of the country are not sufficient to preserve order?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Home Secretary was first informed of the proposed volunteer police on 16th September last by Mr. W. M. Power. As I have already explained in answer to questions in the House, I am in no way responsible for the organisation. I have no knowledge of the body except from the statements which it has published. From these I learn that the Duke of Abercorn is president of the force, but the extent of the president's functions and responsibility are not set out. I do not know whether any railway or mining companies are supporting the movement. It is stated that the volunteer police force are to wear a distinguishing uniform, or, at any rate, a badge. It is a statutory offence, both in the Metropolis and elsewhere, to assume the dress or otherwise pretend falsely to be a member of a police force. It is well known that the ordinary police forces of the country are not and cannot be made so powerful as to be capable of maintaining law and order unaided in all emergencies; and it is the duty of all citizens to assist them in so doing. But
  1010
  it appears to me that all those who desire to fulfil that duty should not form an independent organisation whose methods inevitably become open to suspicion, but should put themselves in direct communication with the responsible police authorities. The Home Office has recently advised the police authorities to take steps to supplement the ordinary force should occasion arise; and the additions to the strength of the police so provided will act under the directions of the chief constables.
  Sir W. BYLES: If private citizens do discharge the duties indicated would it not then be unnecessary at any time to call in the military to keep civil order?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is a hypothetical question which I cannot answer without reference to a particular case.
  Sir W. BYLES: Surely it is not hypothetical.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will this volunteer force have any power to effect arrests, as they state in their communications to members?
  Mr. McKENNA: They will have powers no different from those of ordinary citizens. They will have no special powers.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to an organisation of labour forces in a similar way, to be armed with similar weapons?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will see the perils and dangers anybody must run who attempts to enrol an organisation of this sort.
  Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of informing the public of the difference between these bodies and ordinary special constables organised by the police authorities when required?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think that suggestion an extremely valuable one; but I am not yet aware that this body is in existence.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate his condemnation of this movement to the Duke of Abercorn?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should think the Duke will be aware of what takes place in this House.

  Cyclists on Footpaths.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the decision of the chairman of the Weald-stone Petty Sessions in a case where a cyclist was charged with riding on the footpath, such decision being that cycles were not vehicles and were by law allowed to be ridden on the footpath; and, in view of the danger to the public from riding cycles on footpaths, will he introduce legislation to make the law clear on this point?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a newspaper report of the case, and will communicate with the justices on the subject. I will inform the hon. Member in due course of the result of the inquiries.

  Prison Warders (Fines).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will take steps to abolish the practice of imposing fines in the prison service for trivial offences which, in many instances, fall heavily upon the officers' wives and children; is he aware that only recently the Governor of Canterbury Prison, when doing temporary duty at Park-hurst Convict Prison, fined an officer with a family of eight children 1s. 6d. for going on duty four minutes late, and another officer, with nine children, 1s. for being ten minutes late; and will he give instructions to have these fines remitted in view of the offences committed?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not the practice to impose fines for trivial offences when adequate excuse is forthcoming. In a service where the daily duty must be arranged strictly according to a fixed time table, rigid punctuality must be exacted, and it is necessary that in repeated cases of unpunctuality, adequate notice should be taken of the offence. In the first mentioned case the officer had already been late on five occasions during the preceding six months, and in the other case on seven occasions in twelve months.

  Heaton Mersey Industrial School.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the case of Charles T. Cooper, who was sent to the Heaton Mersey Industrial School on 12th January, 1911; whether the reports of the headmaster on the lad are satisfactory; and whether he will reconsider the case with a view to allowing a remission of some
  1012
  portion of the period for which the lad was sent to the reformatory?
  Mr. McKENNA: This boy was committed in January last for refusing to attend the Salford Day Industrial School. There has not been time since the question appeared on the Paper to obtain reports from the school, but I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

  Steam Coal Field in Kent.
  Mr. FELLasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if a lease has been granted, or is proposed to be granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to a German company or syndicate of a large acreage of land in Kent, said to contain seams of hard steam coal, and if any offers have been received from any English companies to lease the land or the coal under the said lands?
  The PARLIAMENTARY ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONER (Mr. C. N. Nicholson): The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have recently agreed with the Anglo-Westphalian Kent Coal Syndicate, Limited, a company registered under the Companies Acts in England, the terms of a lease for exploration and development purposes of the coal (if any exists) under some 3,400 acres of land near Chislet in the county of Kent. German members of the syndicate join with English members in providing the capital. The German members are representatives of a German Deep Boring and Shafting Company, and their interest in helping to finance the undertaking is that they will secure the contract for the boring and sinking. The opinion of the Foreign Office as to whether there would be any objection to the proposed letting to a syndicate so constituted was asked before the negotiations were completed, and the Commissioners were informed that there was no objection on the understanding that the bulk of the workmen employed would be British. This stipulation will be observed both as to the work of shaft sinking and the later development of the colliery. The Commissioners had not, before terms were named to this syndicate, received any application for a lease of the coal under this area from any other company or person.
  Mr. FELL: I did not quite catch the answer, but I would ask if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners consulted the Foreign Office and the Admiralty

  1013
  before they entered into this arrangement? Is the controlling interest in this Anglo-German syndicate German?
  Mr. NICHOLSON: The only interest of the German syndicate is in regard to the shafting and boring. We understand that the English syndicate control the coal getting.
  Mr. FELL: Is the agreement final, and has the lease been granted?
  Mr. NICHOLSON: I understand that the lease has already been granted; at any rate the negotiations have been completed.

  Oxford University.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the vote given last Tuesday by the Convocation of the University of Oxford; and whether he will next Session, by legislation or otherwise, take measures for bringing about a reform of that university?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to this matter. The question of university reform is a very large one, and I cannot make any promise to take it in hand at present.
  Mr. KING: In view of the fact that the urgency of the reform in the University of Oxford is so patent to everybody, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it might not be dealt with as an uncontro-versial subject?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he could have got where he is had it not been for his classical education?

  Birkbeck Bank.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the counsel whose advice is to be placed at the service of the Official Receiver and liquidator of the Birkbeck Bank will be the Law Officers of the Crown?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): It is not the practice for the Official Receiver when acting as liquidator to a company to ask the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown in matters relating to the recovery of assets for the benefit of creditors and shareholders, and I do not consider that any departure from the usual course is necessary in the case of the Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Building Society.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade as to whether, in view of the decision of one of the judges of the High Court, that the whole business has been practically illegal from its conception, and, having regard to the widespread losses entailed, the Law Officers of the Crown might not be consulted?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I will lay that matter before the President of the Board of Trade.

  Labour Exchanges (Clerks).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the result of his consideration of the representations that have been made to him regarding the conditions of service of Labour Exchange clerks?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Careful inquiry has been made into all the lower paid posts in the Labour Exchange service, and where it appeared desirable an increase has been, or will be, given. Increments of pay have also been given in all grades where increments appeared to be deserved. I hope it will shortly be possible to place those members of the staff who are not at present on a fixed scale on definite scales of pay with definite increments.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these clerks have incomes of their own of considerable amount?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of that.

  Amalgamation of Soap Manufacturing Businesses.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the amalgamation of the soap manufacturing businesses of Joseph Crosfield and Son, Limited, and W. Gossage and Son, Limited, with the firm of Brunner, Mond, and Company, Limited; and whether he will take steps to introduce legislation on the lines of the anti-trust laws of the United States of America for the purpose of regulating and controlling such trusts and combines in this country?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have seen Press announcements to the effect stated in the first part of the question. I am not aware of any sufficient reason for action on my part.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we to understand that trusts, which have been denounced as a vice of Tariff Reform, are now to be considered a virtue under Free Trade?
  Mr. KING: Is not the best way of keeping trusts out to keep Free Trade in?

  Board of Trade (Employment of ex-Service Men).
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why so small a percentage of ex-Service men, namely, 29.75, are employed under his Department; and whether, in view of the fact that many ex-Navy and ex-Army men are well qualified to fill such posts as attendants and messengers, etc., he will give instructions that the percentage of ex-Service men should be raised to at least 50 per cent. as soon as possible, as vacancies occur?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The percentage quoted by the hon. Member is that of the ex-service men employed by the Board of Trade as messengers in March, 1911. The percentage of such appointments made since 1906 is over 50. In filling vacancies for messengers, tape-holders, and others the applications of ex-service men are carefully considered, but I am not prepared to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the percentage to be adopted.

  Castlebar Railway Station.
  Mr. DORISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Castlebar Urban Council has recently called the attention of the Board to the insufficient live-stock traffic accommodation provided at Castlebar railway station and pointing out that on the occasion of the last pig fair on the 17th November, when over 2,900 pigs were railed, sellers were kept waiting from 6 to 10 o'clock a.m. before they could rail their pigs and were compelled to lift the animals bodily from the line into the waggons owing to the lack of a proper loading bank or stage; and will he take steps to secure that the Midland Great Western of Ireland Railway Company shall provide the necessary additional accommodation?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I have invited the observations of the railway company on this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of their reply.

  Board of Trade (Outdoor and Transmission Workers).
  Mr. M. BARLOWasked whether any answer has yet been given to the petition of the Board of Trade outdoor and transmission officers with regard to Sunday payment; and, if not, whether he will consider the matter with a view to an answer at an early date?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have not yet been able to make a definite reply to the petition to which the hon. Member refers, but the question is receiving careful consideration, and I hope to send an answer at an early date.
  Mr. M. BARLOW: Is it not possible to give some more definite assurance than that, because that was the answer given when the matter was raised before, and I think also on one or two previous occasions. I hope the matter will be taken in hand promptly.

  Railway Workers' Wages.
  Mr. M. BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in pursuance of an assurance which he gave in the course of the Strike Debate at the end of last Session, he can now furnish the House with figures showing the amount of wages earned by the workers on all the railways according to grades, so as to be able to distinguish the average wage earned by each grade of railway workers?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Report on the wages and hours of the various grades of railway servants is now in a forward state of preparation, and will be issued as soon as possible.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the Return show not only the average wage, but also the average rate of wages, irrespective of overtime?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot say.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Will it distinguish between men and boys?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot answer on details.
  Mr. LANSBURY: And the number of hours?

  Training Teachers (Scotland).
  Mr. F. WHYTEasked the Lord Advocate whether the minute of the committee of council on education in Scotland, dated 31sfc October, 1911, amending the

  1017
  Schedule to the minute of 30th January, 1905, providing for the establishment of committees for the training of teachers, can be interpreted as giving better provision than has hitherto obtained for the election of women to serve on such committees; and, if not, whether he will take into consideration the desirability of securing the election of an adequate number of women members of these committees, in view of the preponderance of women in the training colleges?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Under the minute referred to, the facilities for the election of women to the provincial committees remain as before; that is to say, the election depends upon the action of the various bodies—secondary education committees, and others—who are entitled to nominate persons to constitute the committee. It is not deemed expedient to make any alteration in the terms of the minute at the present time, as such alteration would have the effect of delaying the reconstitution of the committees already overdue; but the point raised by the hon. Member will be borne in mind as against the next occasion of constituting the committees.

  Minor Legal Appointments (Scotland).
  Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate if, and when, he intends to submit legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of minor legal appointments in Scotland?
  Mr. URE: I hope to be able to submit legislation on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend next Session.

  Crown Salmon Fishings (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department will arrange to advertise in the future all Crown salmon fishings in Scotland when within three months of the expiration of the current leases, so that all fishermen who make their livelihood by that pursuit may have an opportunity of seeing the advertisements and tendering for the fishings; will he say that fishermen will have the recommended preference over landowners if the former are willing to give the same rental; and, in particular, will this system be adopted in the fishings in Loch Ridden, Kyles of Bute?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): It is the usual practice of the Commissioners
  1018
  of Woods to advertise Crown salmon fishings in Scotland in the manner suggested in the question. As regards the general practice as to giving preference to fishermen over landowners, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 7th November. As regards the particular fishings in Loch Hidden referred to by him, no definite decision has as yet been arrived at as to how they will be dealt with next year, when the lease expires. They appear to be within the legal limits of an estuary, so that the method of fishing with fixed nets, which is the plan usually adopted by fishermen who fish for a livelihood, would be illegal.

  Boyne Navigation.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether an application has been received from the Navan Urban District Council to advance to the Boyne Navigation Company for the purpose of improving the waterway they control the sum of £500, it being the unexpended balance of grant voted in 1894; and whether he will state what action will be taken?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 14th ultimo to a question on this subject from the hon. Member for South Louth.
  Mr. NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some more satisfactory answer, seeing that the matter has been before the Department for some months past?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The conditions necessary for a final answer to be considered have not been complied with. That was the effect of the answer I gave before.

  Fair-Wages Clause (Regent's Park).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Mr. John Abrahams, contractor for keeping clean the southern part of the road encircling Regent's Park, is paying the men employed on the work 18s. per week, while the men employed by the Office of Works to keep the northern part of the road clean are paid 27s., and other men doing similar work in the immediate neighbourhood are receiving 28s. per week; and whether he will take steps to compel this contractor to comply with the Fair-Wages Resolution?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The contractor to whom the hon. Member refers is, I understand, employed by the Crown Estates Paving Commissioners over whose actions I have no control. I am informed, however, by the Clerk to the Commissioners that a Fair-Wages Clause will be inserted in the next contract for the service in question.

  Appointment of Justices (Advisory Committees).
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to print and circulate a full list of all the advisory committees appointed by the Lord Chancellor with regard to the appointment of justices of the peace?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The Lord Chancellor intends in a short time to print and circulate a complete list of the advisory committees for all the counties with the few corrections rendered necessary by the death or resignation of some whose names appeared in the previous list.
  Mr. KING: Is it a fact that all these advisory committees have now been appointed, or are there any still unappointed?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I hesitate to answer that question, because I am not quite sure, but I think they have all been appointed.
  Mr. M. BARLOW: Does that cover the boroughs also? I understood it only referred to the counties.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it will refer to all.
  Lord R. CECIL: Are there to be advisory committees in boroughs as well as in counties?

  Selection of Juries.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Attorney-General whether he has any official information to show that a system of packing juries prevails in the English Law Courts; and, if such official information, exists, whether he will lay the Papers relating thereto upon the Table of the House?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have no official information on the subject, but I am aware that questions have been raised with regard to the constitution and selection of juries, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is about to appoint a
  1020
  Departmental Committee to inquire into the working of the present jury system in the English Law Courts.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information, which was asked for in the question, as to the packing of juries?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have already answered that. I said I have no official information on the subject.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any unofficial information?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question asked me was whether I had any official information. I answered that I had none. With regard to the question of the packing of juries, it would depend on what the hon. and learned Member means. Packing in the ordinary sense I have certainly not heard of, but questions with regard to the selection of juries have arisen, as the hon. and learned Member must be aware.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to in his recent speech at Bath as to the packing of juries?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for the Attorney-General to explain the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at least one judge of the King's Bench Division is in the habit of instructing the associate of his court never to call any licensed victualler on his juries?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, I am not aware of that.

  Undenominational Teaching (Secondary Schools).
  Mr. M. BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Archbishop of Westminster, at the conference at Newcastle on 4th August last, that the favouritism shown to undenominational teaching in the case of elementary schools has been increased and intensified in the new regulations affecting secondary schools; and whether, in view of the recent changes in the Board of Education, he can give any assurance to the House that these secondary school regulations will be modified so as to secure fair treatment for the denominational schools?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I must refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on the 28th and 30th November, copies of which I am sending him, with reference to this matter. I must add that I cannot accept as accurate the statements referred to in the first part of the question.
  Mr. M. BARLOW: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I propose to raise the matter at half-past ten this evening.

  Canada and West Indies.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House correspondence which has passed between the Colonial Office, the British West Indies, and the Dominion of Canada with respect to closer trade relations between Canada and the West Indies?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The question of laying Papers will be considered in due course, but the correspondence is not likely to be complete for some time.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right Gentleman aware that a considerable portion of this correspondence has already been published in the official papers in St. Vincent, and I think also in British Guiana and whether under these circumstances he does not think the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of seeing them?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, I know a part has been published, but it is not complete. It can be expedited if that is the wish of the House.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can that portion which has already been published be communicated to the House?
  Colonel SEELY: There will be no difficulty about that if it is generally desired.
  Mr. MITCHELL- THOMSONasked whether His Majesty's Government has ceased to contribute a share of the subsidy towards the steamship service between Canada and the West Indies; whether the existing service between Canada and the West Indies is subsidised; and, if so, by whom and to what extent?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. At present the service is being carried on under a temporary arrangement
  1022
  between the Canadian Government and Messrs. Pickford and Black, expiring in June, 1912. It is understood that the subsidy paid is at the rate of £15,000 a year, and calls are made at St. Kitts, Antigua, Barbados, Trinidad, and Demerara. In addition, the Governments of St. Lucia and St. Vincent have arranged with the contractors for calls to be made at those islands at intervals of twenty-two days, in consideration of a further payment at the rate of £800 per annum. The question of future arrangements is understood to be engaging the attention of the Canadian Government.

  Transatlantic Mail Service.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the contract made in January last between His Majesty's Government and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for a transatlantic mail service; and if he will state the amount of the contributions of His Majesty's Government and the individual West Indian Colonies, respectively, under the new contract?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The document referred to by the hon. Member will shortly be submitted for the approval of this House. The annual subsidy payable to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company in respect of the transatlantic portion of the West India mail service is £63,000; of this amount the Imperial Exchequer pays £40,000. The balance of £23,000 is paid by the various West Indian Colonies in the following proportions:—

  £

  Trinidad

  …

  …

  16,300

  Barbados

  …

  …

  4,000

  British Guiana

  …

  …

  2,700

  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the contract proposed to be submitted for approval this Session?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.

  "Officer of the Pipe."
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the duties of the Clerk of the Pipe, the amount of his salary, and if he holds any other offices or emoluments; and, if so, their annual value?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I presume the hon. Member refers to the "Officer of the Pipe." This office is of historic interest only, having ceased to exist for all practical purposes in 1835. The

  1023
  perpetual pension then created to compensate the holder for the abolition of his fees was commuted in 1906.
  Mr. JOWETT: For what sum?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice. I do not recollect the sum.

  Land Valuation Department.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts by which the principal value of property passing at death was increased by the official valuation beyond the figures brought in by the accounting parties during the financial year 1910–11, and during the first six months of the current financial year respectively, and the extra amounts received in additional duty by the Exchequer as a result of the official valuation during the two periods named; whether such amounts are anywhere shown in official Returns; and, if not, whether arrangements can be made to separate them in future, and place them to the credit of the valuation department, in addition to the Land Value Duties, thus showing the actual value of the service rendered by that department to the public revenue?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The exact information desired by my hon. Friend is not at present available, but it will probably serve his purposes if I inform him that from the commencement of the official valuation up to the 31st October, 1911, the net amount by which the principal value of real and leasehold property passing on death was increased by the official valuation beyond the figures brought in by the accounting persons was £6,460,007. The additional Death Duties ascribable to this increase of value, and estimated upon the basis of average rates, was £485,000. Only a part of these additional duties would have been secured under the conditions that obtained before the creation of the special valuation staff. Information as to the increase in the amount of the principal value of property passing on death due to the official valuation is given in the 53rd and 54th Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, page 11 and page 162 respectively, and the particulars for the current year will, I am informed, appear in their next Report.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Were these valuations based on Form IV.?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I suppose some of them were properly based on Form IV.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    UNEMPLOYED BENEFIT.
    Mr. JOWETTasked if, under Part II. of the National Insurance Bill, an unemployed trade unionist workman belonging to one of the compulsorily insured trades, and whose union pays unemployed benefits, will be obliged to register at a Labour Exchange, if there is one in his district, in order to qualify his union to draw the unemployed benefit of 7s. per week on his account?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Every workman in the insured trades claiming unemployment benefit, whether directly through the insurance office or (as in the case put by my hon. Friend) through his trade union, will be required at the outset to lodge his insurance book or card at the Labour Exchange or other local insurance office. How far the signature of the society's vacant book will thereafter be accepted in lieu of daily registration at the Labour Exchange will depend upon the nature of the arrangement made with each society, and in particular on the place where its vacant book is kept.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What are the local insurance offices other than the Labour Exchanges?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is understood that the unemployed insurance will be worked through the Labour Exchanges. I cannot, off-hand, say whether there will be any additional offices.

    FOREIGN WAITEBS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that many foreign waiters work here for their food and lodging, without wages, relying on gratuities from customers, they would pay anything under the National Insurance Bill; and what would their employers pay?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The employer will pay 7d. a week, and will recover from the waiter 4d. a week, or a lesser sum if the value of the latter's daily remuneration, calculated in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, does not exceed 2s. 6d.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not laid down in the Bill that if no wages are paid the workman or workwoman will have nothing to pay?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, that is quite consistent with my answer.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: If no wages are paid how can anything be deducted?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Then will not the Bill cause people to employ, if possible, foreign waiters?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a matter of argument and opinion.
    Mr. HUNT: Will foreign waiters have to pay 4d. when they have no wages, and will English waiters pay nothing?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. I do not understand the Bill in that sense.

    HOP-PICKERS.
    Mr. WHELERasked whether any paragraph of Schedule I, Part II., of the National Insurance Bill is applicable to hop-pickers and their employers, where the pickers carry on their employment in families or groups, which may vary from day to day, by picking into one basket, are paid by results, and where the custom of the locality is not to fix the price per bushel of hops until the end of the hop-picking period?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The liability of the employer depends upon the question whether there is a contract of service. It is not clear whether such a contract exists in the case mentioned between the hop-owner and every member of a family occupied in the manner described.

    ESTIMATED COST.
    Mr. GRANTasked whether any calculations have been made as to the increase or decrease of the originally estimated cost of the National Insurance Bill, in consequence of Amendments made to the Bill since its introduction?
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether the changes made in the National Insurance Bill since its inception throw any increased burden on the State; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member will see from the actuaries' report that has just been published that the estimated amount of the State subsidy ten years hence is £5,780,000, as compared with the original estimate of £5,061,000. In addition to this, the establishment of
    1026
    separate Insurance Commissions for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales will involve a further administrative charge, which may be roughly estimated as an additional cost to the State of from £15,000 to £20,000 a year.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What is the capital value of the postponement of redemption and reserve values by some four years?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. Member give me notice of that?

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether a servant will receive 10s. or 7s. 6d. a week (unless the employer has contracted out) whenever he or she is ill; and will 7s. 6d. be paid to a servant when ill, whether in hospital, infirmary, or at the house in which he or she is employed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If she is in the house where she is employed, sickness benefit will be payable to her. If she is in a hospital or similar charitable institution, it may be paid towards the maintenance of any persons ordinarily dependent on her earnings, or, if she has no such dependents, to the hospital for her maintenance. It is only if she is in an institution supported by a public authority, and has no dependents, that the money is not payable at all.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what authority is to decide who are to be paid and who are not to be paid?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that is a matter which will be difficult to ascertain.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he refers to legal dependents or voluntary dependents?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a matter which will come before the local health committee with an appeal to the Commissioners.
    Mr. BUTCHER: When a servant is in hospital who is to decide whether payment is to be made to her or to the hospital authority?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have just answered that question.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether, if a servant receives free board and lodging, he or she will have to pay 3d., 2d., or 1d. a week whether his or her wages are 2s. a day, 1s. a day, or nothing at all; and what will be the corresponding payment of the employer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Where an employed person receives board and lodging from his employer, the employer is liable to pay 3d., except in cases (not being cases of apprenticeship) where no wages are paid, when he is liable for the whole contribution.
    Mr. HUNTasked what is the amount of wages calculated per day for a person who is lodged and fed by his or her employer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This is a point which it will be for the Insurance Commissioners to decide.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the Government cannot tell us anything about whether these people will have to pay 1d. or 2d.?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Government cannot state what the exact figure will be in varying circumstances.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say the other day he expected it would be fixed at 10s. a week?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): No, it depends entirely on the locality, naturally. The Post Office has made investigation as to the cost of living in various neighbourhoods.
    Mr. HUNT: Will it also apply to whether they are well fed or badly fed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That will depend very largely on whether Tariff Reform is adopted.

    CHARWOMEN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether a charwoman employed regularly at 3s. a day for one, two, or three days in each week will have to pay the full 3d. a week under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the charwoman is regularly employed so that the arrangement amounts to a contract of service, her employer will have to pay 6d. in
    1028
    respect of her and deduct 3d. from her wages each week.
    Mr. HUNT: If she is only employed one day a week, will she have to pay the full 3d.?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, if she is regularly employed.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Supposing she is working under contracts of service for different employers, will she have to pay 3d. in respect of each employer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.

    DOCTORS' DISPENSERS.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, under the terms of the National Insurance Bill, doctors' dispensers will be deprived of their livelihood; and whether, in view of the fact that there are a number at present of technically unqualified chemists' assistants, he will do his best, either by way of direction or suggestion to the Insurance Commissioners, or otherwise, that the interest of this deserving class is properly protected under assurance for the dispensing of medicines when the Bill comes into effect?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not contemplate any great disturbance arising in the means of livelihood of doctors' dispensers, but I will communicate the hon. Member's representations to the Insurance Commissioners, who will be able to bear the cases mentioned in mind in sanctioning arrangements for medical benefit under the Bill.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that a large number of this deserving class will be thrown out of work and are not likely to find employment in an already congested trade, the directions to be given to the Insurance Commissioners will be of a nature suggesting compensation, monetary or otherwise?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, under the National Insurance Bill as amended on Report, an insured person who, owing to age or sickness, becomes unable to earn more than a half or a third of his or her former remuneration, will receive any

    1029
    disablement benefit; and whether, in order to entitle an insured person to disablement benefit, it is necessary that such persons should be totally incapable of work and of earning wages?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The interpretation of these words will be left to the friendly societies themselves. If the hon. and learned Member will refer to what was said by my right hon. Friend on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, on the 17th July, he will find fully stated the views of the Government on the subject.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the provision in the amended Bill does not prevent a man who is not earning more than half his former wages from getting disablement benefit?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There will be nothing to prevent friendly societies from making such arrangements as may seem desirable to them to make.

    MEMBERS OF SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, in the case of a society consisting of persons entitled to rights in a superannuation or other provident fund which desires to become an approved society under the provisions of Clause 24, it is necessary that members of the committe of management of the society, other than the employers' representatives, shall be elected by ballot; whether it would be possible for such society to form a separate section of insured persons with a separate committee of management for administering the benefits under Part I. of the Bill; and, if so, whether it would be necessary that the committee of management which administers the superannuation or other benefit funds not arising under the Bill should be elected by ballot?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative; and to the last in the negative.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if the woman member of the Insurance Commission will be paid the same salary as the men members?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the affirmative?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask if that practice will be observed in all appointments under the Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: So far as I know. I have heard nothing to the contrary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the report is correct that the secretary of the British Medical Association has been appointed a member of the Commission; and, if so, when was he first approached?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The report is correct. Mr. J. Smith Whitaker was approached last week for the first time on the subject. He consulted his council, and I have a letter from him dated 2nd December, as follows:—
    "Having consulted the council of the British Medical Association, I have been advised by them to accept the post of deputy-chairman of the Insurance Commission for England offered in your letter of December 1st, and I do so accept on the terms stated in that letter."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether we may assume that the British Medical Association are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to express an opinion on that question. At any rate, the offer was made to the secretary, and the British Medical Association allowed him to accept the position.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will any person be appointed to represent Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We shall appoint a medical officer, though, perhaps, not on the same terms. So far as England is concerned, the appointment has been given to one who has experience of this country.

    WORKMEN COVERED BY BILL.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say how many workmen are now covered by the National Insurance Bill since the Amendments were passed exempting from its operations Government workers, local authority workers, school teachers, railway clerks, etc.?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Persons employed by the Government or local authorities and primary school teachers were excluded from the compulsory Clauses of the Bill from the outset. Any variation from the original estimate of 13,000,000 attributable to exemptions since inserted in the Bill must be insignificant.

    MARGIN RESERVED BY ACTUARIES.
    Sir H. CARLILEasked whether the 11 per cent. margin reserved by the actuaries in connection with the provisions of the National Insurance Bill has been favourably or unfavourably affected by the modifications made in the measure during the Committee and Report stages; and, if so, in what sense and to what extent?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member will find, shown on page 3 of the recent report of the actuaries, the extent to which this margin has been reduced.

    EXCISE OFFICERS (SALARIES).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the normal increments of salary accruing in the case of officers of Excise on 1st October and 1st November last have been withheld without cause being assigned to the officers in question; and whether he will give some explanation of the inaction of the Treasury in this matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In a few cases increments accruing in the current quarter on the old scale have been suspended pending the revision of salaries on the basis of the new scale. The general order promulgating the new scale has now been issued and all necessary adjustments of salaries are being made.

  Property Transfers (Ireland).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that sales and transfers of property have been taking place in Ireland subsequent to the 30th April, 1909, he will state if it is his intention to take action in those cases where Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, has not been complied with; and whether, if successful in obtaining summary convictions, the penalty of a fine not exceeding £10 and interest at 5 per cent. on any duty found to be payable from the date of execution of instrument will be inflicted?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No case has yet arisen in which there has been such a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as would justify prosecution; if such a case arises in the future, proceedings will be taken for the recovery of a penalty.

  Lord Chamberlain's Salary.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the salary of the Lord Chamberlain will be placed on
  1032
  the Estimates as a separate item; and whether, in that case, an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the suitability of the appointment?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first question is in the negative; the second, therefore, does not arise.

  Admiralty Works Department.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether the Government are contemplating the appointment of a departmental committee to inquire into the cost of the works department, with a view to making reductions in the personnel and other reforms?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The works authorised by the Naval Works (Loan) Acts having been completed, a committee has been appointed to investigate the staff and administration of the works department, with a view to adjusting the department to its future duties.

  Royal Navy (Officers Lent to Canada).
  Mr. MARTINasked what were the qualifications which induced the Admiralty to lend to Canada Lieutenant C. White (retired R. N.), severely reprimanded and dismissed his ship by court martial, and Lieutenant Lord Alastair Graham (R. N.), reprimanded by court martial in connection with the grounding of the Canadian warship "Niobe"?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The officers in question were applied for by the Canadian naval authorities. Their previous service was excellent. Lieutenant White served as a lieutenant for ten and a-half years, during the whole of which time he was employed on navigating duties. Lieutenant Lord Alastair Graham had four years' seniority when appointed to the "Niobe," and as a sub-lieutenant passed his examinations with distinction, obtaining a first-class certificate in every subject. The strict rule of the Naval Service has inflicted upon these officers the punishments awarded them by court martial, and I should hope that in these circumstances the hon. Member would not desire to aggravate by further publicity the consequences of their mistake.
  Mr. MARTIN: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that these particular officers by name were applied for by the Canadian Government, or that the Canadian Government applied for officers and that those officers were selected by the Admiralty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Canadian Government asked us to nominate officers, and they approved of the appointments.
  Mr. MARTIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty did not consider their social position rather than their professional competency?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That question did not arise either at the British Admiralty or with the Canadian Government.

  Thames Ironworks (Destroyer "Nautilus").
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state why the destroyer "Nautilus," built by the Thames Ironworks, was only delivered on 7th September this year, when the contract date for delivery was 18th September, 1910?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the delay was mainly due to a series of accidents. The "Nautilus" (was struck and damaged by unseen wreckage while proceeding down the Thames to carry out trials. This necessitated docking for repairs. She experienced bad weather on the way to Skelmorlie for the purpose of running trials, and sustained further damage, necessitating dry docking for repairs at Greenock. Whilst running her trials she sustained heavy damage as a result of a collision with a steam collier. This again necessitated docking for extensive repairs. Trouble was also experienced with the steering engine and gear as originally constructed, which necessitated docking for alterations.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
As amended (in Committee of the Whole House and in the Standing Committee), further considered.—[Fifth Allotted Day.]
SCHEDULES—SECOND SCHEDULE

  RATES OF CONTRIBUTION UNDER PART I. OF THIS ACT RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Part I.—Employed Rate.

  In the case of men

  7d. a week.

  In the case of women

  6d. a week.

  Contributions by Employers and Employed Contributors.

  To be paid by the Contributor

  Men, 4d. a week.

  Women, 3d. a week.

  To be paid by the Employer

  3d. a week.

  In the case of employed contributors of either sex over the age of twenty-one whose wages or other remuneration do not exceed 2s. 6d. a working day and such remuneration does not include the provision
  1034
  of board ad lodging by their employer, the following shall be the rates of contribution:—
  Where the rate of wages or other remuneration does not exceed 1s. 6d. a working day—

  A week.

  To be paid by the Employer

  For men, 6d.

  For women, 5d.

  To be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament

  1d.

  Where the rate of wages or other remuneration does not exceed 2s. a working day—

  A week.

  To be paid by the Employer

  For men, 5d.

  For women, 4d.

  To be paid by the Contributor

  1d.

  To be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament

  1d.

  Where the rate of wages or other remuneration does not exceed 2s. 6d. a working day—

  To be paid by the Employer

  For men, 4d.

  For women, 3d.

  To be paid by the Contributor

  3d.

  Part II.—Employed Rate in Ireland.

  In the case of men

  …

  …

  5½d. a week.

  In the case of women

  …

  …

  4½d. a week.

  Contributions by Employers and Employed Contributors.

  To be paid by the Contributor

  Men, 3d. a week.

  Women, 2d. a week.

  To be paid by the Employer

  2½d. a week.

  In the case of employed contributors of either sex over the age of twenty-one whose wages or other remuneration do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day and who are not provided with board and lodging by their employer, the following shall be the rates of contribution:—
  Where the rate of wages or other remuneration does not exceed 1s. 6d. a day—

  A week.

  To be paid by the Employer

  For men, 4½d.

  For women, 3½d.

  To be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament

  1d.

  Where the rate of wages or other remuneration does not exceed 2s. a day—

  A week.

  To be paid by the Employer

  For men, 4d.

  For women, 3d.

  To be paid by the Contributor

  ½d.

  To be out of moneys provided by Parliament

  1d.

  Where the rate of wages or other remuneration does not exceed 2s. 6d. a day—

  To be paid by the Employer

  For men, 3½d.

  For women, 2½d.

  To be paid by the Contributor

  2d.

  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, after the word "In" ["In the case of men"], to insert the words "respect of each pound sterling of wages and other remuneration in."
  This Amendment is put down at the request of the London Chamber of Commerce, which felt strongly that the flat rate of insurance is not the right one to incorporate in this Insurance Bill. I am raising the Amendment with the view to getting from the Chancellor or his advisers some declaration as to why he has adopted the flat-rate system rather than the variable system which is adopted in other parts of Europe. It is clear that the flat-rate system works great hardship on the poorly paid occupations such as that of agricultural labour, and we are anxious to protest against it on their behalf. It is clear that rates of sickness vary very considerably in different trades. The agricultural labourer, at the age of twenty-five, has an average of not more than five days' sickness during the year, the quarry man has seven, while the miner has nine, which is nearly double that of the agricultural labourer. Under this Bill you are charging the miner only the same rate as the agricultural labourer, and the miner is going to get exactly twice as much out of the Bill as the agricultural labourer. I cannot conceive any justification for such a system, and it is with the view to getting some justification, if there be one, that I move this Amendment. In Germany the rate varies in accordance with the wages paid; and this is also the case in Austria-Hungary. In France they have both the flat rate and the variable rate, but the flat rate is applied to only one body of men, the miners, who are all at one particular occupation, so that in their case the flat rate is reasonable and fair. I would wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first, how he reconciles his proposal with the experience on the Continent of Europe in favour of a variable rate, and, second, how he reconciles it with common fairness to the most poorly paid class of labour in this country?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment. I desire to take this, which I believe to be the last, opportunity of emphasising the fact that there is no Continental precedent for the line which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to take with regard to the poorest classes in this country. I do not limit it to the case of the agricultural labourer and the poorness of the labourer himself, but
  1036
  apply it also to the poorness of his employer compared with the position of those who employ men in more profitable occupations. There is something like two millions of persons at present engaged in agricultural occupations, which number, I am sorry to say, is steadily diminishing, and anything that can be done to keep those men upon the land is bound to be not only an advantage to agricultural industry, but of very great advantage to a country so little self-contained in the matter of its food supply as this country unfortunately is. We have already pointed out to the Government that there is no necessity in the case of the agricultural labourer for the 10 per cent. margin which is allowed owing to the impossibility of gauging the unforeseen in the matter of those persons who hitherto have not come within any recognised insurance scheme. We pointed out that in the case of the agricultural labourer no such allowance whatever is necessary, because we have ascertained facts from the great friendly societies, which give us all the material we require.
  4.0 P.M.
  We have also pointed out as regards the "reserve value" that there is no necessity in the case of the agricultural labourer to have so large a margin as one and five-ninths of a penny in order to provide him and his class with sufficient reserve value. We took the opportunity of urging on what was formerly the fourth and now is the fifth Clause of this Bill, that at least 1d. ought to be allowed off the total amount, the 7d., to be contributed by the employer and his servant in the case of agricultural occupations. Since I laid my figures before the House, which have not been contraverted from any quarter, I have gone still further into the matter, and I find that we were all too modest in suggesting that 1d. only ought to be knocked off that joint contribution, because we put our position before the House on the footing, which has proved to be incorrect, that an agricultural labourer short of the age of seventy does somehow suffer from a greater amount of illness than those employed in other occupations. The Chancellor replied to one case on 10th July by suggesting that, because the mortality in the case of the agricultural population was low, therefore the rate of illness was higher at the later ages. But on careful consideration of the tables of the great affiliated orders, it is found that that does not apply until after the age of seventy, so that, as far as the agricultural

  1037
  labourer is concerned, we are able to say that up to the age of seventy, when the Bill ceases to operate, he does enjoy a continuously higher standard of health than those engaged in other occupations. I want to ask, if this is the case, what the Chancellor is going to do with the balance which will result from the higher health standard of agricultural labourers. So far as these 2,000,000 persons are concerned, is he going to apply that balance to meet the deficiency in the case of those engaged in urban employment, or is he going to ensure under this scheme that the agricultural labourers shall get full value for their contributions, bearing in mind particularly that their remuneration is substantially lower than the remuneration of those employed in other occupations, and therefore the proportion which the agricultural labourer pays is a much severer strain upon his narrow resources than is the case with other workpeople? In spite of every representation that this Bill is going to bring them rare and refreshing fruit, they unfortunately will not acknowledge that it does anything of the sort. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish to do them an injustice. I also desire to ask him whether he is going to apply for their benefit the balance which will undoubtedly accrue under Clause 10, in consequence of the alteration which was made by Amendment under the guillotine on Thursday last, substituting for the words "unfit to provide their own maintenance" the words "incapable of working." I am given to understand that the alteration of those words will result in several millions a year being available in the hands of the National Insurance Commissioners, to be applied in one direction or another.
  I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is going to do with that very large sum, and whether he cannot apply it, to some extent, to remedy the admitted grievance of the agricultural population, bearing in mind that the proportion of their payments to their wages is so much greater than in the case of other workmen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not himself present when this matter came up in the House on a previous occasion, and I should like to remind him of what was said in his report in aid of the new Government Clause by Mr. Alfred Watson, as to greater illness among the agricultural population at the age of seventy. That statement certainly
  1038
  does not confirm the proposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward on 10th July. I want the. Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what is going to happen to the agricultural population under this Bill? I am not talking about the agricultural employers, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that the agricultural employers find it extremely difficult, at any rate on the smaller farms and in the poorer districts, to maintain a staff of sufficiently paid labourers. But, as regards the workmen themselves, what are they going to do? If it is the fact that the agricultural labourer, in consequence of this flat rate and his better health standard, is "a good insurable proposition," to use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own words, the result will be, I take it, that the large affiliated orders will do their best to bring the agricultural labourers within their ranks. That is very possible and, I think, very probable, if the affiliated orders recognise, as we here recognise, that the agricultural labourer's life is a better one than will be the bulk of those who now form the majority of the larger approved societies. In the past, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware, the preponderating balance of members of the affiliated orders have been the agricultural labourers and the other inhabitants of villages. In future the preponderance will lie with those who are employed in the towns, and who hitherto have not been to any considerable extent insured persons.
  If that be so, there will be a tendency—as, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit—on the part of the executives of the larger affiliated orders to counterbalance what I may call the worse lives in the towns, living under worse conditions, by getting as many agricultural labourers as possible to come into their orders. No doubt it will be said that they will be better off there than if they had their own societies. I quite agree that would be so, if it were not for the very fact that by far the larger majority in future of members of these orders will be taken from the less healthy population of the towns. It stands to reason, therefore, that if part of the surplus of any of the agricultural branches of the affiliated orders is to be applied, as it will be applied under the Bill, to meet the deficiencies of the less healthy branches, the agricultural labourers will not get full value in future by becoming members of the large affiliated orders. What is the alternative? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a

  1039
  concession, which I, for one, most frankly acknowledge, under which the societies will be grouped, so far as possible, into county groups. I sincerely hope that all those that are able will take advantage of this provision. My only fear is that, unless they are guided from outside, and unless special encouragement and additional time are given to them before the Bill comes into operation, on their own iniative they will not to a very large extent join these county groups. They form a very small proportion of the existing organisations which give some sort of benefit in time of sickness in country districts. There are numbers of slate clubs and other bodies which divide out at the end of the year and there is also a large number of small friendly societies that will not pass muster as being solvent.
  All those societies will have to be weeded out, and the members turned adrift to receive insurance as best they may. My own fear is that a very large number of these persons will become Post Office contributors. The more I look into this question as affecting the agricultural districts, the more convinced I am that the estimate of 200,000, the number at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the Post Office contributors, is absurdly small, far smaller than will be actually realised. I believe myself that something like one-fourth or one-fifth of insured persons will drift into being Post Office contributors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may refer to this prophecy in the future, and he will then see whether I am correct or incorrect, in saying that a large number of insured persons would become Post Office contributors, and that a very large proportion of them will come from the agricultural classes. I do not wish to detain the House longer than I can help. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members, above all, in this House, are the persons who ought to consider the poorest in the land. I am now speaking for the poorest people in the country, as well as for those who live in the worse parts, the more slummy parts of our large towns and industrial centres. I confidently look to the Labour Benches for support of what I say on behalf of those poor persons. My case is their case, and in what I say in support of this cause, on which I feel most strongly, I do at any rate expect from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite a considerable amount of sympathy. What is going to be the result of putting too
  1040
  severe a burden upon men who can ill afford to bear it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us as regards other industries—and I think it is perfectly true—that the consumer will pay. In other words, the employers in other industries will be able to add to the price of the product, and throw the burden upon the consumer. That cannot apply to the employer in agriculture, nor to agricultural produce. Agriculturists in this country are in competition with the whole world. They are in competition with countries which not only encourage, which not only help to develop the prosperity of their agricultural population far more than we do, but with countries which, by means of State railways and in other ways, make it easy for the agricultural population to get their produce into other markets.
  It is perfectly clear that the agricultural employer, at any rate, will not be able to throw this tax upon the consumer. What is the case of the labourer? It is common knowledge, and I ask the Labour party to bear this in mind, that there is no class of labour that is less organised or less able to speak collectively in this House than the agricultural labourers. That being the case, what is going to happen? The agricultural labourer being unorganised will not be able, like the workman in other industries, to maintain wages, and the employers will not be able to maintain profits in face of the competition to which I have referred. That means, therefore, as producers they will get no benefit under this Bill, and as consumers they will have to pay much more for articles they consume than before. The cost of living is going up steadily, and this is largely due to the heavy burden of taxation in this country. If £17,000,000 to £20,000,000 or £21,000,000 is to be thrown as an additional burden upon industry, the agricultural labourer, above all others, will feel the pinch of that burden. He cannot get away from it; he is not organised; his employers are not organised; competition is all against him, and he is the man who will have to pay a larger amount out of his smaller earnings under this Bill than any other class, and he is the least able to protect himself from the result of that burden being thrown upon him. Steadily every year the population of our villages is decreasing; and steadily every year the tillage of this country is being decreased. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do something through the medium of taxation to put a premium on

  1041
  the tillage of agricultural land, and I believe he can do it. But I am quite sure of this, that this measure, so far from making two blades of grass grow where only one grew before, it will make only one ear of corn grow where two grew before. Surely I may appeal to national sentiment in this matter in a country that is so little self-contained as we are, and which because of that has to fall back on national defences, and especially on our Navy. Therefore, in the national interest, as well as in agricultural interests, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take care not to throw any greater burden on the agricultural population than they have to bear to-day.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a very interesting and, not for the first time, a very valuable contribution to our Debates on this Bill. I will come to the point he has raised later on, but I should like first to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) as to this Amendment, and by the way, I think, I have a little complaint to make both of the Mover and the Seconder. Both of them made very excellent speeches, but they never took the trouble to explain their Amendment to the House, and unless Members of the House took the trouble which I took this morning to piece these Amendments together, because this is only the first of a series, I am sure they would not have the remotest idea of what the proposal actually is, and how it works out. That is why I ventured to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and to ask him whether he was going to give any figures to show how his Amendment worked out. What is his proposal? His proposal is that you should have a system of poundage instead of having a flat rate of 4d. in the case of males and 3d. in the case of females. The first thing then I wanted to find out is whether the benefits were to be on the flat-rate system or whether they were to be on the poundage system. Surely I should have thought that in proposing his Amendment the hon. Member would have taken the trouble to show how the thing works out as to payments and as to benefits. The poundage system was the first system I considered, and as the hon. Gentleman has correctly stated, it is the system in operation in Germany, and I think in Austria, and I
  1042
  believe in France, though I am not sure about France.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Except in the case of the miners.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In Germany they have a poundage system which divides the contributions into five classes, and the benefits into five classes, and it is very important when you come to consider that system to remember that in Germany it conies down so low that you may have an invalidity pension of two or three shillings per week, which is the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I tried to work the matter out and what do I find? Under a poundage system you will charge a man earning £1 per week 3d. and the employer 2d. When he is sick instead of getting 10s. per week, he only gets 6s. per week.
  Mr. FORSTER: The man with a £1 a week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the assumption that he pays forty-eight weeks in the year. That is our actuarial basis. By the poundage scheme he would get 6s. per week in case of sickness, and when he permanently breaks down instead of getting 5s. per week, he gets 3s. 4d. I wonder how the agricultural labourer would like that? I notice the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bathurst) shakes his head. He would not accept it and the same thing applies to the labourers in the town. Take the man with 30s. per week. What does he get? He gets exactly the same benefit as he gets from this Bill, but he has to pay a halfpenny per week more in order to get it; instead of paying 4d. he would pay 4½d., and he would get exactly the same benefits. The man with £2 per week would pay a good deal more and he would get slightly higher benefits. Under the scheme, which the hon. Gentleman has no doubt worked out very carefully, although he has not been good enough to communicate its purport to the House, that would be the effect, the man would get 6s. sickness pay instead of 10s., and 3s. 4d. in the case of permanent invalidity instead of 5s.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at my consequential Amendments on a subsequent page, whereby I propose to leave out Tables (c) and (d) and to increase the rates of persons in regular employment who are in receipt of lower wages than 25s. per week. It is rather a long Amendment, and it proposes 10s. per week for the first thirteen weeks.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then the hon. Gentleman proposes to supplement the payments by bringing up those benefits, but at whose expense? After all insurance is a business proposition.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Run on commercial lines of course.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At whose expense does the hon. Member propose that we should do that? Of course, that is exactly the alternative which presented itself to me and the dilemma I found when I started. I said if you are going to have a scale it means you must have reduced benefits or you must make those with high wages pay for those who have got low wages.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly where the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I am rather surprised in his case, because he has been pretty assiduous in his attendance during the progress of this Bill, and he must know that the man with low wages up to 15s. per week pays under the Bill far less than anybody, and that is met partly at the expense of the employer and partly at the expense of the State. There is the flat rate down to 15s. when there is a descending scale of contribution by the workmen, who get exactly the same benefits as the persons over 15s. per week. What the hon. Member proposes is that, at the expense of the higher paid workman, you should make the lower paid workman get equivalent benefits. I remember receiving a deputation of trade unions, and I am not sure that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) was not present, and I remember somebody there getting up and proposing exactly the same thing as this, that you should have a scale. I put a question to them, "If you are going to have a scale of contributions, are you going to have a scale of benefits?" and they were absolutely unanimous in repudiating that, or that the men with high wages should pay for the rest. That is really the dilemma, and it is the dilemma which I had to face. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has worked out the figures, but if he has I should be very glad to have them from him. I am sure he must have experienced the same difficulty as I did. There is another difficulty; it adds enormously to the complications of the scheme. This is the sort of thing I found in Germany: you have a person whose wages
  1044
  start at 10s. and go up to 15s. or a £1 when he passes into another scale, and then the wages go up to 25s., and he passes into still another scale. The wages come down, as wages are not always moving forward in the lifetime of a man, and down he comes back again to another scale, and perhaps passes again into his first scale for perhaps another year. Wages of course fluctuate; you have got to reckon up all those things in each individual case and to find out what the contributions are, how long a man has paid in the second section, and how long in the third, and you go back to another scale in order to calculate what his benefits are. The result of that would be that there would be an enormous staff and you would have to double or treble your staff for the purpose of carrying out what ought to be a quite simple operation.
  The hon. Gentleman experienced that difficulty in his own case, and this is the way he has met it. He says you are to reckon up the wages of the person for the year before he becomes an invalid. He may have been for twenty years on a lower scale, and he may have suddenly gone up to a higher scale for that year, although he has been paying on the lower scale for twenty years, and you are going to give him a pension for the rest of his life on the higher scale because he has been paying that for a year, and at whose expense—at the expense of the rest of the contributors. That is an impossible system. I came to that conclusion, and I was firmly convinced of it. Really no attempt has been made to criticise the proposal in the Bill. It is far better you should make up your mind to a minimum and see what is the minimum you can give when he is sick. I never considered 10s. was anything but a minimum. If anybody earns enough money to enable him to pay 2d. or 3d. more, let him do so voluntarily. I remember meeting an engineer in Strasburg who was an officer in a trade union, and I said to him, "What complaint have you got of the German scheme?" He said, "I have nothing to complain of except that it does not give us enough." I found it was giving 3s. 4d. invalidity and 6s. or 7s. benefits. He said, "That is no good for ma as an engineer, since I am earning 30 or 35 Mark per week. I go and I insure in my own trade union." I asked him, "Are there many doing that?" and he said, "We all do it now." They are insured in their own society to supplement

  1045
  the minimum. The State guarantees the minimum. There is an encouragement to thrift, and when once they begin to realise the value of some provision, and once you have got that lesson into the minds of the million, you will find they will go and insure. That has been the experience in Germany, where they are utilising trade union societies for the purpose of additional benefits. So much for what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I think the system of a flat rate is far and away the best in order to provide a minimum.
  I come to the criticism of the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst). He brought us back to the question of the agricultural labourer. My experience of insurance amongst the agricultural labourers is that he plunges very heavily in insurance. There is nobody in this country who pays in proportion to his wages anything like the agricultural labourer in insurance. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and I were passing through a little village, and we found there a man collecting for Hospital Sunday, and we asked something about insurance in the village. He said they were Foresters there, and that they were paying 7d. or 8d. per week and their wages were under £1. That is, you had agricultural labourers, who were earning £1 per week, paying 7d. or 8d. regularly towards their friendly society. I was told the same thing by somebody about Norfolk. There is no one who pays more than the agricultural labourer in insurance. He is not satisfied with the friendly society; he is generally insured in other societies for other purposes such as in the Prudential and all sorts of societies. It is his gamble. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not using the expression in an offensive way; but there are some people who begin to insure, and insurance is like many other things: once you begin it you get a taste for it. I heard of a fisherman who was insured in half-a-dozen societies, but he was as unlikely as anybody to get benefits from them. He had a death policy, but he did not appear to be within fifty years of requiring it. There is no doubt that you find classes like that. The agricultural labourer is a great insurer.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It would not be right for the House to imagine that because he is in the habit of insuring he does it without its being absolutely
  1046
  essential. In the case of the agricultural labourer it is done to prevent destitution. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that it is merely a sort of gamble, I must in all candour say——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interpolate another speech.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not intend it in that sense. But people do get into the habit of insuring, and an excellent habit it is. In the case of the agricultural labourer, it is because he likes to make provision. Under the Bill he is asked to pay, in some cases, 4d. a week. But he is paying twice as much as that now in many cases. Where his wages are under 15s. he will pay only 3d. There are some counties where the wages are 13s. or 14s. I am not sure whether that is the case in the hon. Gentleman's county.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Fifteen shillings. But under the Bill it is not the wages, it is remuneration. The remuneration, taking into account the cottage and perquisites, would be considerably more than 15.; it would be more like 17s.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept that; but there are counties where it would not come to so much. The average is certainly under that.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Eighteen shillings.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is taking into account our part of the world, where it is about £1. There are counties where it would be under 15s., and where the labourers would pay 3d. instead of 4d. What do they get for that? The hon. Member seems to be under the same delusion as the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), that the agricultural labourers will go to the post offices. I cannot imagine where that notion comes from. He will go to the post office if it suits him, but if he prefers a society he will certainly join a society. The agricultural labourer is the man who has the steadiest of employments; therefore, there is no reason why he should go to the post office. There may be a reason for the man who is out of work six months in the year, because he would not be able to keep up his contributions. But the agricultural labourer works for fifty-two weeks in the year. The hon. Member talks about wages being cut down. There is no man in a better position to command his market than the agricultural labourer. If he but knew it, and he will soon get to know it, he could command

  1047
  his market. In our part of the world they have discovered that. It is one of the very few employments where the demand is greater than the supply. There is very little unemployment amongst agricultural labourers. In many districts there is a good deal of difficulty in finding labour. The same applies to domestic servants. They are the two kinds of labour which can command their market. I remember very well the agitation in our part of the world among the agricultural labourers. As soon as they discovered that they could command their market they made a demand for higher wages, and got them. Wages went up very considerably. They are not twice as high, but they are certainly 30 per cent. higher, and that in a district which is about a hundred miles from the nearest great market, namely, Liverpool, and the farmers are, on the whole, better off than they were before. There is a considerable margin which the Wiltshire, Norfolk, and even the Buckinghamshire labourer has to travel before he gets the standard of wages which they are paying now in some of the remotest parts of Wales, and also in Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Scotland.
  The Scottish agricultural labourer gets about £1 a week and a cottage and other perquisites. Scottish agriculture, on the whole, is a very thriving business. Why? Because when you pay high wages you get more intelligent labour. They have better cottages and better treatment. To say that when you are paying your workmen 11s., 12s., or 13s., with perquisites which may run the amount up to 15s., there is no margin of 4d. without deducting it from labour, is perfectly absurd. They have put up wages in our part of the world by shillings a week. The agricultural labourer was in a position to demand it. So he is in other parts of the country as well, and it will be infinitely to the advantage of agriculture when it is done. The hon. Gentleman said that one-fourth of the working men of the country will be in the Post Office, and that a considerable proportion of them will be agricultural labourers. I could not bet with the hon. Gentleman, but he has made a prophecy. I hope that both he and I will be here when this Bill is in full operation, and I shall be very glad to remind him then of his prophecy. I shall not be a bit afraid to do so, and I know him well enough to be certain that he will have the candour to admit that he
  1048
  was wrong if the facts prove him to have been so. I cannot conceive why the agricultural labourers should join the Post Office. They have their own societies. The hon. Gentleman is afraid that the contributions of the healthy agricultural population will go to keep the slum dweller. That is a natural apprehension, but the remedy is entirely in their own hands. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who has helped to make it easier for the agricultural labourer to form his own society, and I agree that the grouping of agricultural societies will be invaluable in that direction.
  But it is no use Members talking as they have done on this sickness question. I have a diagram here which shows the rates of sickness far better than any speech that I could possibly deliver. [The right hon. Gentleman exhibited the diagram referred to.] It will be seen that the rate hardly increases during the first twenty years of the insurance period. People could insure, not for 2d. or 3d., but for a 1d. for those years. The real burden of insurance comes after fifty. After seventy the heavy burden shown on the diagram is taken over entirely by the State, and that is why we are able to do what they cannot do in Germany. I had better have this diagram exhibited in the library or in the tea-room. It is so extremely instructive. In Germany they are paying twice as much in the way of contributions because the burden of sickness after seventy comes upon the contributory fund. Here the State takes the whole of that enormous burden, and the insurance is simply up to seventy. From fifty the steps as shown on the diagram are very marked.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: After fifty or sixty does the agricultural labourer have more sickness than the miner? [An HON. MEMBER: "The miner is dead."]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman forgets another thing. The percentage of those who remain amongst agricultural labourers is very much higher. In these other trades the percentage of deaths is far heavier. I remember that when I served on the Chaplin Old Age Pensions Committee I was appalled at the figures as to the length of life amongst workmen in the towns as compared with the country. They have discovered this fact in Germany. The agricultural labourer very often runs off with the invalidity pension after seventy years of age because the

  1049
  town labourer is not there. Between fifty and seventy is the period when insurance comes in, and that is when the agricultural labourer will come in for his share. There are many unhealthy employments in towns, and in a high percentage the labourer has disappeared altogether at that age. Up to forty or fifty the agricultural labourer may be very healthy, but after sixty he is liable to rheumatism and other diseases attributable to working in the open air in all sorts of climates and very often to damp cottages. Then the burden becomes very heavy, and that is why, in spite of his superior health, there is a difference of only a halfpenny between the cost of insuring the agricultural labourer and the cost of insuring the town labourer. This consideration also explains why societies in this country sometimes go on for thirty or forty years with a contribution of 3d. and then suddenly come to an end. Why have they done that? They have started with young people. It is not worth while for old people to come in because their rates of contribution would be too high. For twenty or thirty years they make apparently huge profits and accumulate great funds. Then they come to this expensive period, and the society goes bankrupt. That is the real answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford. It is very important when you are dealing, not merely with an agricultural population, but with any population that claims this exceptional rate of advantages. If the agricultural labourer forming his own society finds he is overcharged he can do one of two things. He can increase his benefits. How? In three years he will find out how he is getting on. What can he do then? He can turn to Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule—and it really is worth while of any hon. Member who has got the Bill in his hand to turn to page 118. What is the first thing the agricultural labourer can get? If he finds he can run his society cheaper than anybody else he can, if he likes, get medical treatment and attendance for every member of his family. That is an enormous boon to the agricultural labourer. He can get an increase of his sickness benefit, or of any other benefits. He can, if he likes, pay money into a pension fund or a superannuation fund for himself. He can pay up the arrears, if there is any distress in the family through lack of work. I agree that does not apply very much to the agricultural labourer, but it does to other classes of labour. He can do something
  1050
  else—he can make provision for the repayment of contributions——
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Not the reduction?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For repayment. That is exactly what happens with the very societies which the hon. Member has been advocating, the Holloway societies. He can be repaid at the end of the year out of his own contributions—about 8s. or 9s.—which will be very useful coming at that time of the year. My own hope is that he will do nothing of the kind, but that he will put the money in for additional benefits for his family, for increasing his sick allowance; and for what would be still more useful: purchasing medical attendance for the whole of his family. The hon. Member seems to think that the moment we put this into operation, the moment you charge 3d. or 4d. a week, for all these benefits, which a man is paying 8d. for now, that "one ear of corn grows where two ears of corn grew before"! He cannot mean that; I do not think he means that. On the contrary, what will happen is that the man will be a better cared-for person, he will be better looked after, than before. He will then see that his house is fit for human habitation. Does that make him a worse labourer? On the contrary, it will make him a better one, an infinitely better one. In addition to that the hon. Member seems to think that it will not have an effect upon the whole community. Quite the reverse.
  If you increase the efficiency of the labourers in the agricultural field and throughout the whole country, as you will when you provide decent medical treatment and make some provision for them in day of sickness, you increase the demand for the agricultural produce of the country, and increase the power of the people to pay for it. That in itself is an advantage, not merely to the labourer, but to the whole of the agricultural community. Let the hon. Member remember that in Germany they excluded the agricultural labourer at first. After twenty years' experience, the whole of the land-owners, the Agrarian party, in Germany, were perfectly united in their demand that the agricultural labourer should come in. Why? They found, owing to the superior advantages the agricultural labourers were getting in the towns, they were leaving by hundreds and thousands. There was a demand, a perfectly universal one, from every agricultural interest throughout Germany that the labourers should be brought in. The

  1051
  farmer, the labourer, the land-owner, united in making a demand, and expressed their willingness to make the contribution. It is for that reason that I think it would be better for us to stand by the minimum payments and the minimum benefits for agricultural labourers as well as for every branch of the community.
  Mr. FORSTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford had not argued the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] He said that he had taken the trouble to piece together the subsequent Amendments which stand in the name of my hon. Friend, and he doubted whether any member of the Committee could form any judgment on the proposal unless they also had taken the trouble to do that. I think the Chancellor's research must not have been complete. He told my hon. Friend, "You propose a graduated scale of contributions, and a flat scale of benefits." If the Chancellor had looked he would have seen that, while it is true that my hon. Friend proposes a flat scale of benefits, it is a minimum. Starting from the minimum, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford proposed a graduated scale of benefits which would have borne a precise relation to the amount of the contribution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer held my hon. Friend up to blame for not having explained his Amendment. I think it would have been a little fairer to my hon. Friend if the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he himself had not made the complete researches which he suggested he had done.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not touched what I think is the broad ground on which many of us would like to see graduation of contributions as well as graduation of benefits—that is, the circumstances of different parts of the country. Different parts of the community vary so widely that a flat contribution and a flat benefit, is hardly satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Wilton pointed out that there are people who live in congested parts of our great cities who are just as badly off, if not worse, than the poorer portion of the agricultural districts. In this matter it is not wholly a question of wages. You cannot really judge a man's prosperity solely by the amount he is paid. You have to consider many things—the rent, the conditions under which he lives, and so on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows as well as anyone in this
  1052
  House that you cannot fully judge a man's condition merely by the wages he is paid. That is why we say that it would be fat-better, if it can be done—and I believe it can be done—that we should have a graduated system of contributions and a graduated scale of benefits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Yes, that is done in Germany, but there are all sorts of difficulties; a man is going up in the social scale; he passes from one class of the community to another; then wages go down, and he descends the scale, and you have all sorts of calculations to make, involving the necessity for a very large staff of people, and possibly an enormous administrative charge." If we were to adopt the system proposed by my hon. Friend I cannot see that it would lead to such an enormous elaboration of calculation as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I think it would be very well worth while to go into the matter more carefully than he has had time to do.
  How does the right hon. Gentleman meet the case which has been put forward by my right hon. Friend? He said, "It would be far better to let these men contribute their 4d. per week, or, if they are in"—the Bill, I think, calls it a low-wage class—a "smaller contribution." Then, he says, let them pay any more that they can afford so as to provide themselves and their families with additional benefits. The right hon. Gentleman said "We should encourage them to do that—to insure themselves and their families for these additional benefits—and the only duty of the State is to guarantee the minimum benefits under the Bill." We are getting on. This is the first time I have heard about the minimum benefits being guaranteed. One of the quarrels we have had—I will not say one of the defects we find in the system—is that there is no guarantee—that there is no such thing as a minimum benefit provided by the Bill. There are, it is quite true, benefits referred to as minimum benefits, but they are not minimum benefits in any real sense, because there is no guarantee. One of the defects that my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton points out is—that is one of the difficulties the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in some earlier Debates—the difficulty of securing the solvency of societies which take these risks.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that, owing to the prolonged age to which the agricultural labourer lives, that their risks, which are very good in the early years of their life, are very bad in the

  1053
  later years. He told us that they often bring their societies to a condition of insolvency. That is one of the difficulties we have got to face, and to realise that the agricultural labourer, just as much as anybody else, will be in a position to threaten great danger to their minimum benefits unless they are able to secure admission into their ranks of the strongest societies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that agricultural labourers insured in a greater proportion than any other class of the population. If you, he said, once embark upon a policy of insurance of this kind you get a taste for insurance. That is the experience entirely of the friendly society. Why? Because these men take a pride in their societies. It becomes a matter of personal pride with them to do everything they can to keep their societies solvent, to make them flourish and enable them to pay their way—to make them as efficient and as effective as they possibly can. That incentive, that motive, will not be as strong after the passage of this Bill as before, because when a society ceases to be wholly a voluntary agency and becomes to any extent an agency of the State, I do not think that you will then have the same sort of lever on which to work that feeling of pride which has done so much for these societies in past times.
  5.0 P.M.
  There was one further aspect of the agricultural labourers share in this problem to which the Chancellor referred. He said: "It is quite true that he will be paying possibly full contributions for his earlier years, considering the prospect of the health that he is able to enjoy, but as be grows older he will be getting full benefit for all the contributions he has made." If the man always remains an agricultural labourer that would be very true. But we all know the phenomenon with which we are confronted year by year, the drift of the agricultural population to the towns. We all know the efforts that are being made to get the people back to the land. I do not think you are going to make it easier to get them back to the land if you levy upon the agricultural labourer a scale of contribution which he thinks bears too heavily upon him. I think there is a great deal more to be said in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised, and if we had had more time in which to develop this matter and to press it upon the attention of the House
  1054
  we might hope to have secured still further recognition for what we are advocating. But now there is not much time. This is the last day in which we shall Debate in detail any portion of this Bill. These things have been settled by the Government in conference with their advisers, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I wish to acknowledge it fully—has met many of the points we have made in Committee, and although he has displayed an openness of mind, which, if he will allow me to say so, deserves the fullest possible credit, I am driven to the conclusion that the hour is too late now at which to make any further alteration in the Bill, although I think the Bill stands in need of them.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I should like to say a word or two as regards the agricultural labourer. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General both have derived some information from Buckinghamshire, and I want to give full value to what the Chancellor has said. It is true that at the present time nobody insures more fully than the agricultural labourers. There is no man more careful in that respect than he, but I draw from that fact a different conclusion from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer draws. You are interfering in this Bill with a class who in many respects looks after itself voluntarily more than any other class of workers in order to get a proper system of insurance. I think that is extremely important, because if you are going to interfere with the voluntary system so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, the question is whether in this Bill you are giving him fair play and a fair return. I think a flat rate principle is obviously unjust, so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned. It is generally assumed that the level of wages of the agricultural labourer is less than that of the artisans in many of our larger towns. That must inevitably be so. The level of the agricultural labourer's wages, speaking from my own experience—and I employ many of them—is from 18s. to 20s. per week. That is very well known in Buckinghamshire, and although there are higher wages paid in London, which is so very near at hand, the labourer in Buckinghamshire, knowing the conditions in the city, knows he is as well off by remaining in the country, and therefore there is no tendency on the part of agricultural labourers in my district to go up to the town, and when they go away at

  1055
  all they go away to Canada, much to our regret so far as village life is concerned.
  Why do I say a flat rate is unfair to the agricultural labourer? This is really tax, and when dealing with taxes you ought to consider the ability of the persons to be taxed to bear the burden. You entirely disregard that principle here when you introduce a flat rate. Whether a man gets £150 a year or only 15s. a week, he is taxed to the same amount, which I say is not fair. You ought to have a graduated contribution, and a man ought to pay in proportion to his ability to bear the tax which is imposed. That is the difference between a flat rate and a rate of insurance based on a system proposed in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this point at all. It is perfectly right that you have the same basis although the taxation may be different in amount, and it is only natural where you place workmen in different occupations in the same position, because if everyone is to pay the same without regard to his ability to bear the burden then everybody ought to have equal advantages under the terms of the Bill. Can it really be said it is fair to tax a man like an agricultural labourer in precisely the same way as you tax a man getting £150 a year. I am perfectly certain agricultural labourers will say it is not fair. It is quite true that the agricultural labourer is voluntarily insured at the present time, and has done more for thrift than any other class, but why in these circumstances select him out and put a heavy burden of taxation upon him. According to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is because he is a thrifty man, and has had the advantage of insurance in the past. That argument, to my mind, ought to tell the other way. You have a class here who are insured at the present time, and who, in proportion to their wants, are getting the benefits they desire.
  If I may refer to an agricultural society with which I am connected, we are so well off there that we have been able to alter the age limit as regards benefits. The original limit was sixty-five, and we have been able to extend it to the lifetime of the ordinary agricultural labourer, that is, up to seventy years of age, when the Old Age Pension Act comes in. You have a voluntary system working so admirably,
  1056
  and my view is that you ought not to select that class of men and put a new burden upon them. I think the effect of this Bill will inevitably destroy a very large number of the smaller agricultural societies. We have this view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: that although the smaller agricultural societies may be destroyed, yet the agricultural labourer will insure voluntarily to the same extent as at present. I do not believe that. The reason he insures so largely at the present time is because he has confidence in the management of the smaller agricultural societies. He knows those who are engaged in the management. They are nearly all his neighbours, and this is one of the leading reasons why insurance amongst agricultural labourers is carried to the extent it is. I do not want to open up the wider question dealt with by the Chancellor. I had the honour of serving with him upon the Old Age Pension Committee to which he refers, but I do not bear in mind that we had evidence which lead to the deductions such as he drew. But, after all, the question is: Why should you put this tax upon everyone, irrespective of their ability to bear it, or should it be imposed upon the true principle of all taxation, that you should grade it in accordance with the ability to pay of the persons taxed. I have very strong views that a flat rate is very unfair and unjust to the agricultural labourer, and therefore I cordially support the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford for a graduated tax in proportion to the wages which are paid and to the quality of the burdens put upon the different workmen of the country.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: We have heard a great deal about the burden of taxation in connection with this Bill. What are the facts here? You are going to ask the agricultural labourer to pay for benefits which he now enjoys, but you are going to ask him to pay less than he now pays. You are going to give the contribution from the employer and the State of more than half the amount required to furnish the insurance. Agricultural labourers insure largely to-day, but they do not get any such benefits as this Bill proposes to give them, and therefore we are not going to impose a burden upon the agricultural labourer, but we are going to render him important services, and we are going to provide him with a better insurance for half the money than he now

  1057
  has. Hon. Gentlemen opposite object to a flat rate, but the agricultural labourer pays a flat rate now. We have laid before us by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite a canon of taxation, but there is another canon of taxation, and both should be blended. The hon. and learned Gentleman's canon of taxation is, that the taxes should bear some relation to the capacity to pay of the persons who have to pay them, but it should also bear some relation to the benefits to be received, and therefore we are asking the workmen and women to pay because they are receiving practically the whole of the benefits and a proper system of insurance. It is admitted that to levy a charge in proportion to wages would prove to be almost impracticable and extremely inconvenient. We have heard a great deal of complaint from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the labourer and the trouble we are imposing upon the employer, who has to deal with the stamp business. But what sort of difficulty would it be if these stamps were to bear a proportion to the amount which every workman was paid and according to the amount he earned. A flat rate will enable stamps to be put upon the cards comparatively easy, but if each individual had to be identified, and if the system was to be on a poundage rate, the scheme would break down and the whole thing unworkable.
  The next suggestion is that the agricultural labourer is not going to get the same advantage, and is going to pay for advantages and for benefits for the dwellers in the town slums. As a matter of fact the agricultural labourers are a long-lived class, and the longer people live the more they draw of these benefits. It is not in the class of life where the death rate is high that the charges upon the fund is so heavy. When you have increased length of life the draft upon the funds becomes very heavy. The agricultural labourer, as a class, will supply a very large proportion of the long life, and will furnish a large volume of those reaching old age, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer displayed upon the chart. The tables in that calculation are based upon what is known as English life tables. They assume a higher mortality than the Manchester Unity have, and if you base your calculations upon the Manchester Unity instead of the English life tables, you diminish your reserve by about one million. But the agricultural labourer's life tables are much
  1058
  superior ones, and show a much lower mortality than the Manchester Unity, which means that the agricultural labourer will draw a larger proportion of benefits because of his longer length of life, and therefore, as a matter of fact, the agricultural labourer is the man who stands to gain by this arrangement, and will obtain bigger benefits than any other class.
  Major WHITE: I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the lower paid ranks of labour would derive larger benefit than those who are paid higher wages. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entirely correct. It is undoubtedly a fact that in agricultural districts the agricultural labourer is a healthier life than that of the town dweller. I want to give one case of a society in my Constituency which has ninety-two members of which fifty-six are agricultural labourers. Taking the average for the last ten years the average sickness pay works out per member at 3s. 1½d., whilst for the fifty-six agricultural labourers, who form the larger portion of that society, it works out at 2s. 5¾d. That is a fair sample of the healthiness of the agricultural labourer as compared with the workers in the town.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Has the hon. Member taken the average age of those classes?
  Major WHITE: No, I have not. What I have given is the average for ten years in a society on the outskirts of Liverpool and some of them are town and others country dwellers. In that district a very large number are employed on farms, a larger proportion I think than in other parts of England. On a farm of between eighty and ninety statute acres it is common for the farmer to employ permanently three or four men and two or three boys, independently of casual labour. I mention that to show that it is undoubtedly the case that under this Bill agricultural labourers will stand to lose. In the case I have mentioned the figures work out that if this Bill had been in operation for ten years this society would have lost no less than £658 on what they have paid out during that time. It is true their sick benefits are not exactly the same as those proposed under the Bill, because they give 10s. for twelve weeks, 5s. for twelve weeks, and 3s. for twenty-four weeks. That is the point I wish to make as regards the healthiness of agricultural labourers in Lancashire.
  Captain MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken made a point of the fact that the agricultural labourer has a healthier life than those living in the towns. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly admitted that, and he produces a diagram to prove what he stated, that after a certain age there were more agricultural labourers alive than was the case with dwellers in towns. This Debate seems to have centred more upon the agricultural workers in England, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about the agricultural workers in Scotland. When this Bill was introduced many Scottish county Members took the view which is now held by hon. Members opposite, that the flat rate would be unjust to Scottish agricultural workers. We examined very carefully certain statistics drawn from individual counties in Scotland, and these were submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who called for a report from certain actuaries, Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, and Mr. Watson. I believe Mr. Watson has been actuarial adviser to the Opposition during the progress of this Bill.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: And the Government.
  Captain MURRAY: Yes, and the Government lately. Mr. Watson has been employed by the Opposition, and all parties recognise him as the great authority on these matters. In this matter, speaking only for myself and not for Scottish agricultural Members generally, I am quite prepared to accept the report which was issued by those actuaries and the decision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrived at in respect of that report. Mr. Watson said:—
  "A low rate of mortality operates in the contrary direction to a low rate of sickness, because the result of a low death rate is a survival of the high ages of an abnormally largo number of the entrants in youthful life."
  After the age of fifty or sixty there would be proportionately more members of the agricultural community coming upon the insurance fund than would be the case in respect of workers in towns. Applying this principle to Scottish farm workers, Mr. Watson proceeds to show from the Census that they are long-lived as a body, and that they ought really to be charged a higher rate of contribution than they are charged under the Bill. I do not think they ought to be charged a
  1060
  higher rate of contribution. Mr. Watson says,
  "On examination of the Census returns, I have ascertained that the average age in 1901 of the Scottish population aged between 15 and 65 was 34½ years, whilst the average of the Scottish agriculturists was close upon 36 years. This means that an average additional reserve of something between 8s. and 10s. is required from the Scottish agriculturist, as compared with the Scottish insured population generally."
  Then Mr. Watson goes on to say,
  "If the agriculturists were treated as a class apart from the purpose of the sinking funds, they would have to pay a contribution distinctly higher than 1s. 9d. per week. In not being called upon to do this, they obtain a direct advantage at the cost of the general body of workmen."
  I think the report of an actuary such as that must influence the view we take, and it certainly influences the view I take, in respect of the contribution levied by this Bill. I do not know anything about the English agriculturists, but from the point of view of the Scottish agriculturists there is a provision under Clause 74 of the Bill which applies the measure, to Scotland whereby societies may be set up in any particular county. I do not agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that a very large number of the agricultural population would become Post Office contributors. On the contrary, I think as soon as this Bill is passed friendly societies all over the country will compete with each other for the agricultural population because they are better lives. If it be the case that agriculturists for one reason or another do not desire to join friendly societies—as a matter of fact a very large number of them are members of friendly societies at the present time—there is a provision under Clause 74 whereby societies may be set up in individual counties, and by joining such a society the agricultural workers will derive the full benefits of their contributions. Even if agricultural workers join friendly societies as at present constituted they will be able to derive the additional benefits referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech which he made a few minutes ago. Speaking only for myself and on behalf of the agricultural workers I have the honour to represent, I am perfectly willing to accept the scheme as framed in the Bill, and I welcome it as one which will be of enormous benefit not only to the artisans and dwellers in the towns but also to the agricultural community generally in Scotland.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: To discuss a question in this House by the aid of a diagram held at the Table, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, is an

  1061
  innovation, but it is an innovation which has its disadvantages as well as its advantages. One of those disadvantages is that Members sitting on the back Benches cannot cither see or understand the diagram, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down could neither have seen nor understood that diagram.
  Captain MURRAY: Yes, I did, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned it round.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: For all that the hon. Gentleman could not have rightly seen that diagram, because it only gives the rates of sickness at different ages and not in different callings. Therefore the inference which the hon. and gallant Gentleman drew from that diagram was erroneous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his inimitable sarcasm, said he proposed to hang the diagram in the tearoom, but he will not hang it there until after the Bill has passed into law, and except from motives of curiosity I do not see what use it will be to hon. Members of this House. This Amendment is a strong order, and I do not think it is possible to graft the German system on to this Bill at this stage, and whatever its advantages they could not be undertaken now. We have had enough revolutions in this Bill proposed from the Government Benches. I do not think it is possible now to deal very seriously with a sliding scale such as that which has been proposed. I think the whole case has been presented rather on an exaggerated issue. The main sufferers under the flat rate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme are not the agricultural labourers but the real casual labourers in the towns. Those are the people with whom I propose to deal. The agricultural labourers, as has already been pointed out very correctly, are perhaps the most insured of any class in the country. Near where I live and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berkshire, there are agricultural labourers insured in as many as three slate clubs, if you can call that insurance. But, anyhow, they contribute to three slate clubs in one year. Undoubtedly they are a class who seek insurance of that kind and seek benefits more than any other, and, therefore, I do not think that on the whole they are people on whose behalf the appeal should be made most strongly for an alteration of the principle of this measure.
  1062
  The truth is that the dividing line is not sufficiently high. Fifteen shillings is taken as the limit below which there is to be a sliding scale, but it is between 15s. and 20s. that the rub really comes. The case of those who are between those two figures is not dealt with. May I point out that so far as the case of the town dwellers goes it depends not upon the weekly wage but the daily wage, and the hard case of the casual worker depends upon the small number of days for which he is employed, and not so much the rate of wages at which he is employed. I know there is no term more capable of abuse or more difficult to define than the term "casual labourer," which does not mean the same thing applied to different cases. You have the irregular trades, so much pointed at by the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and their report says that there is a chronic under-employment in the country now. Then there are the season trades and the casual trades; but I am not thinking of those. I am thinking of casual labour as distinct from the casual trades, and I am bound to say that I do not see how this Bill is going to work in respect of casual labourers such as we have in the East End of London and the contingent parts of the country. I represent a borough containing a population of 300,000 people, more or less composed of casual labourers, and those are the people who cannot derive much benefit from this Bill. If they become members of a friendly society, I think it is impossible for them with the scanty number of days they work to pay up the arrears when they are out of work, I myself do not see how, when a man has one day's work in three weeks, you are going to deduct this amount from his wages. It is quite true, and it will be said, "Oh, but the casual labourer does obtain medical and sanatorium benefit for a year." So far as that year goes, and looking upon the benefit as a sort of boon just as Poor Law relief is, he will by law have that advantage, but he will have no other. He cannot possibly and permanently remain in the friendly societies old or new, and in time he is bound to be driven back to be a Post Office contributor. When you get to the poorer parts of the large towns the casual labourer must fall into the category of the Post Office contributor.
  Of course, if it was possible to have a lower scale, or any scale, to bring those men into the beneficial parts of the Bill, I certainly should welcome it, and I take it

  1063
  those who sit on those benches would be prepared to support it, because they will see as well as we do that these people are left out of benefits. They cannot come in for any real benefit, except for a slight one for one year after a single contributtion entitling them to sanatorium and medical benefit. That is the vice of the Bill, and this Amendment does touch the weak part of it. It is a Bill which does good as far as it goes. I am not a believer in general panaceas, and therefore I do not throw it in the teeth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has not been able to deal with every evil, but the class for whom there is most call to do something, and the class most fully reported on by the Poor Law Commission, is practically left out in the cold. The case for a higher limit of wages below which there would be a sliding scale is a very strong one. The Amendment proposes a scale which is graduated according to pounds sterling of wages, and I do not think it is possible to accept it at this stage. The hon. Member and those who followed him, however, have shown the weak points of the Bill. It does nothing by its operation to decasualise the casual labourer, it does very little to benefit the casual labourer, it leaves the casual labourer out in the cold, and yet the casual labourer is the curse of the time, and it is from his existence the working class suffers most both in the poorer parts of London and elsewhere. If anything could have been done to help those who are left out it would have been a very great boon to the country, and would have been worthy of the serious consideration of the House, and I do think now we are parting with the Bill it is a great pity we have fixed a limit so low as 15s., and that we have adopted a per diem instead of a weekly rate of wages. That goes to the root of the whole question, and it has not in the least been dealt with by the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening on the subject of the agricultural labourer, which is not the class that needs most or suffers most. It is in a comparatively lucky position, all things considered, compared with the poorer parts, the worst-paid part, and the most irregularly employed part of the labourers in our great towns.
  Mr. BECK: It is perfectly true few classes will benefit more under the Bill than the agricultural labourer, and, as one who has spoken at a great many village meetings on this subject, I may say that I
  1064
  have nowhere found any objection to the principle of the Insurance Bill among the agricultural labourers. What they are afraid of is whether they are going to get value for the money they contribute. It is not in the least they object to paying, because almost every respectable agricultural labourer is already insured in some society or other, and many of them are insured in two and sometimes three clubs or friendly societies. Those of us who know the agricultural districts would, of course, rejoice if the agricultural labourer were able to pay a smaller contribution, but I think he can very well afford to pay the present contribution under the Bill. It is less than he is paying at the present time; almost all these men pay 6d. per week or 2s. per month into friendly societies. The only thing which has upset these men is that they have been told their club reserve is going to be taken away from them. I believe the Government has now entirely met the case of the agricultural labourer, and that the scheme of county associations for small clubs will entirely meet the difficulties, especially considering it is coupled with the fact that societies of any particular denomination or purpose can be linked up.
  I do hope hon. Members opposite will not repeat the essentially false argument that the agricultural labourer is in some way being unduly bled under this Bill. That is an argument which ought not to be used. There is a great deal more hardship in that part of the Bill which deals with the casual labourer than in any other part of the Bill; but I do protest against any suggestion that the agricultural labourer is being hardly dealt with. I believe it will shortly be found by these men that they have made an uncommonly good bargain under the Bill, and that they will be immeasurably better off under it. They will pay rather less than they do at the present time, and they will get greater benefits. The hon. and learned Member, who spoke just now, said the village clubs were going to be destroyed. That is a most mischievous statement. It upsets men who have not a good opportunity of getting full information on these matters, and I do protest against accusations of that sort being made against the BUI. They are totally incapable of proof. I believe every care has been taken to make this Bill suitable to the agricultural districts, and I do hope this will not be defeated. I am sure, if hon. Members will think the matter over, they will see it cannot possibly seriously affect the agricul-

  1065
  tural labourer to pay 4d. per week under this Bill instead of the 6d. per week which he now pays.
  Mr. PETO: I can assure the hon. Member opposite that his appeal that the statement that the agricultural labourer is not treated fairly may not be repeated will meet with no response, so far as I am personally concerned. I have listened to the arguments put forward, and it seems to me they can be summed up practically in one sentence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used on a memorable occasion: "They get 9d. for 4d." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) said earlier in the Debate they were going to pay less than they had been in the habit of paying and get benefits somewhat of the same nature and of the same amount. That does not even begin to deal with the question. What does the argument amount to? It is that hitherto under a system where no assistance from the State or from the employer has been given contributions of 6d. per week have been sufficient to get certain benefits, and when you are going in for a great national insurance scheme, imposing an enormous burden on the trade of the country and enormous additional taxation, it is quite unnecessary to consider whether you are dealing with one class fairly or not, providing you can show that at any rate everybody will get some little benefit, whether it is the benefit they ought to get or not, and that therefore they ought to be satisfied. It seems to me perfectly clear, so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, that something on the line of the Amendment before the House, some proportion of payment in accordance with the amount of wages, is absolutely essential and essential far beyond the range of 15s. per week. My own belief is very few agricultural labourers will benefit under the 15s. limit, for the simple reason it is not only money wages they receive, but wages or other remuneration. When the other remuneration is taken into account, I am confident very few agricultural labourers will get off with less than the normal payment under the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Cripps) treating this question as a tax, said it ought to be regulated in accordance with ability to pay, and various attempts have been made to show the agricultural labourer somehow or other is not a healthy man, and that the fact he is long-lived means he has a great sickness bill. Every hon. Member knows it is exactly the
  1066
  contrary. We all know from our own personal experience, not only of agricultural labourers, but of all classes in the country, that in the majority of cases the man who lives to an old age is healthy practically throughout his life. He would not live to old age if he were weakly and ailing and constantly in the doctor's hands. Why we should need charts, or anything else, to prove the contrary of that obvious proposition, I cannot understand. Not only is the basis of the Bill wrong from the point of view of the hon. Member for Wycombe from the point of view of a tax, but it is wrong also because it defies all the rules of voluntary insurance in every class in this country, which is to make the payments proportionate to the risk of sickness. I do not believe the payment of the agricultural labourer under this Bill is proportionate to his risk of sickness, or that it has been attempted to make it proportionate to it. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Member for Saffron Walden that, speaking in agricultural districts, I shall certainly not withdraw anything I have said in the past. I am absolutely unconvinced that in distributing the great boon which this Bill purports to be the agricultural industry in this country has been fairly treated. I do not believe either the agricultural employers have been fairly treated.
  Mr. BECK: Of course, I was talking absolutely and solely from the agricultural labourer's point of view.
  Mr. PETO: I quite accept that. I do not suppose I shall have the good fortune to convince the hon. Member that there is any grievance of the agricultural labourer, but, if he maintains his view naturally, I may maintain mine. It is not fair to compare that which has existed in the past under a purely voluntary system when, with the exception of a few contributions of hon. members to village clubs, the whole of the payments for sickness benefits have been contributed by the men themselves with the results that ought to be arrived at if the money was used in the right way, by a scheme which is placing on every kind of employment a tax more than any Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever dreamed of in his wildest moments. When you have a tax on industry of that character, it makes it all the more important to see the distribution of the benefits is proportionate to the needs and risks. I entirely agree with the Member for Mile End that there are other people besides agricultural labourers whose cases

  1067
  have to be considered. There are other people more hardly treated under this Bill, such as the casual labourer in the East End of London, who gets no benefits at all from the contributions made by the trade of the country. I shall be quite prepared to support the Amendment, although I agree it is rather late for such an Amendment to be introduced, and it probably would be impossible to carry it out in the form in which it stands, but, at any rate, it will enable us to register a protest against the proposals of the Bill as they stand. Therefore, if the hon. Member presses it to a Division, I shall follow him into the Lobby.
  Sir LUKE WHITE: On behalf of an agricultural constituency I desire to say that, in my opinion, this will cause not only a great injustice with regard to the agricultural labourer, but also a great amount of hardship. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, one of the Divisions which I represent, the agricultural labourer receives a wage of 16s. a week. In the Divisions upon this Bill I have always voted in favour of any Amendment which would do away with the flat-rate principle. An agricultural labourer with a wage of 16s. a week is not and ought not to be placed in the same position as a man who is earning £3 per week. Some alteration ought to be made in the Bill with regard to the position of the agricultural labourer. I feel that I ought not, on this occasion, to give a silent vote with regard to this Amendment. I propose, for my part, to vote for any Amendment which would, in principle, do away with the flat rate adopted under this Bill. I believe, with regard to agricultural labourers generally, that the amount which will have to be paid by them, taking into account the wage of 16s. in East Yorkshire, will prove to be a very great hardship. A man will find it most difficult to pay 4d. per week out of that wage. In many cases to-day it is impossible for a man in receipt of 16s. per week to maintain himself, his wife and children, to clothe them, and to pay his house rent out of that wage, and how could he possibly contribute the 4d. a week required under this Bill? In many a household at the present moment it is utterly impossible for the agricultural labourer on that rate of wage to pay this 4d. per week. Many men cannot join friendly societies on account of the small wage they receive. I appeal to the House to support the principle of the Amendment now before it, namely, that some
  1068
  alteration should be made with regard to the flat-rate principle, and especially with regard to the case of the agricultural labourer.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to say a very few words on this extremely important subject. I am glad that it has once more been brought before the House. As the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division said, this is a question which has provoked a certain amount of misgiving among a large number of persons in agricultural districts. On what ground is that misgiving founded? Personally, I think it is well founded. It is founded really on the facts as to the present system adopted by the friendly societies compared with the offer made under the Bill. The experience of friendly societies is at the bottom of the actuarial calculations made for the purposes of this Bill. We all know that they draw a distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous risks, and I would remind the hon. Member of the fact that, throughout the agricultural districts, all risks the people suffer from are tabulated as non-hazardous by the friendly societies, and therefore they obtain an advantage in the matter of premiums as compared with those engaged in industrial pursuits and in what are called hazardous risks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told a correspondent in one of his published replies, dated the 8th August, 1911, that "insurance is essentially a provision against risks, and the person who gets most out of it is he who suffers most from the evils against which he is insured." That is a very true observation indeed. What are the risks that the agricultural labourer suffers from, and what is the provision he is required to make? I wonder if the hon. Member for Saffron Walden has given attention to the premiums charged by friendly societies.
  Take the case of the Manchester Unity, whoso tables are of great value and have been a considerable guide to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing his scheme. In the case of non-hazardous risks, every four weeks until the age of twenty the agricultural labourer will pay 1s. 2½d., while those engaged in hazardous risks will pay 1s. 6d. Thus there is a difference in favour of the agricultural labourer of 3½d. every four weeks. In the case of a man at thirty years of age he pays 1s. 6½d. in a non-hazardous business and 2s. in a hazardous business, and this advantage at the age of forty is still more marked, for then, in a non-hazardous

  1069
  trade, the charge is 2s. 1½d., and in a hazardous trade 2s. 8½d., a differentiation of 7d. every four weeks. The same differentiation continues to the age of forty-four, and this shows that the agricultural labourer gets a very considerable advantage for the payments he is called upon to make, and for which he gets the full benefit for twelve months and 5s. a week invalidity pension. These are the nearest tables which can be brought in comparison with the table of benefits and premiums given under this Bill. Surely we are right on this side of the House in pointing out that, under the Bill, there is a considerable differentiation as against the agricultural labourer because he is engaged in a non-hazardous business, which, in a friendly society, gives him an advantage over the industrial portion of the community of 2½d. every four weeks at the age of twenty, of 5½d. at the age of thirty, and of 7d. at the age of forty. Surely the agricultural labourer has good grounds for anxiety when he is told that under the flat rate he will be placed at a disadvantage under the Bill.
  I quite agree that the whole question bristles with serious difficulty. It is not fair to suggest to any Member on this side of the House that he has in any way misunderstood or misinterpreted the effect of the Bill when you have such data as these available, which show that there is a differentiation against the agricultural labourer in the Bill. If we stood where he is at the present time in the friendly societies he would secure for a lower premium practically the same benefits as he is to obtain under this Bill. What is the compensation to the agricultural labourer? As I understand it, it is said that he lives longer, and therefore, in the later stages of his life, is more disposed to sickness and more likely to require the benefits under the Act. But inasmuch as the benefits under the Act stop at a definite age there is no extension of the period during which he would receive the benefit and thus make good the extra insurance for which he has contributed. The whole question, I repeat, bristles with difficulty. It is not fair to the agricultural labourer to say that he is going to gain as much under this Bill as a mechanic or others engaged in hazardous trades. He probably stands to gain less. Of course he gains a certain amount under the Bill, but he certainly does not gain as much as those who are engaged in hazardous trades.
  1070
  No doubt widespread doubt has arisen in the agricultural districts, and, for my part, while I quite yield to the observation that the matter is most difficult and complex yet it seems to me a little more time should be taken to consider whether or not alternative or better, or more adequate benefits can be given to the agricultural labourer. If there is any basis for the suggestion that the agricultural labourer will not get so much out of the Bill, as other contributors it seems to me there is good reason for taking more time to consider whether we cannot devolve some scheme by which the contribution of the labourer may be reduced without reducing the same benefits. There is no real necessity for haste. There is no need for hurrying the Bill through, and hon. Members opposite would do well to take part in a honest endeavour to solve these difficult problems. There is no reason why they should not be solved and why the Bill should not be received and worked by all persons in different trades with hearty goodwill.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: I view this Amendment with some interest. In my part of London the total amount of wages earned by the casual labourer is very small indeed. It stands to reason that if this kind of Amendment had been accepted by the Government it would have been to the advantage of these people. I would like to remind country Members that they are more fortunate than the poorer districts in the towns. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a weekly wage instead of a daily wage as the occasion for mitigation and concession we in the East End of London would be much better off under the Bill. Not only are these poor parts of London suffering in the way I have alluded to, but I think there would be another disadvantage under the Bill as it is drawn. I am concerned with the position of the casual labourer. I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) that nothing is done to decasualise labour; on the contrary, much will result——
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I said that very little was done.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: I think what is done is in the cruellest possible way under the Clause, which makes the whole 7d. payable by the employer who employs the labourer for the first time in the week. I have heard employers say

  1071
  that they will be obliged to alter their arrangements. I was talking recently with one employer who employs sixty or seventy men casually each week. He said that when the Bill came into force he would reduce the number to fifteen and regularly employ them. What is to happen to the other forty or fifty people? We are told that if they wait till 1915 something may be done for them. I want to point out that the Government are running a great risk by putting these unfortunate men in this deplorable position. The very fact of the whole 7d. being payable by the first employer, makes ordinary casual employment almost impossible. If it had been a day charge rather than a weekly charge, it would leave them as they are. As the Bill is now drawn, not only will the poorer classes suffer, but they will also receive a great injury from the very fact that many men now casually employed will have a very much worse chance in the future than they had before the Bill was introduced.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I cannot help thinking that this discussion has travelled over very different ground to that intended by the hon. Gentleman who moved it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do not assume that.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not assuming anything. It follows from his speech. The hon. Member made no reference to the agricultural labourer.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Pardon me, I did.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: So far as I know the hon. Member was not moving it as a Member for an agricultural constituency. I do not complain of that, because he is entitled to make a general survey. What I think follows from this discussion is, that the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) has deflected the discussion from its general scope into the channel of the agricultural labourer—a not very extraordinary course when one bears in mind the interest taken by the hon. Member throughout the discussion in the agricultural labourer. The only comment I would make upon the discussion is that execpt for two speeches, one by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) and the other by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. W. Pearce), no reference whatever has been made to the effect of this Amendment if it were
  1072
  carried. I understood from the proposal of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that he put it forward for the purpose of expounding his views to the House, but that he had really no hope of any such Amendment being accepted, because he frankly recognised, as other hon. Members have recognised, that it is far too late to make any such alteration in the Bill as is involved in this Amendment. The necessary result would be that you would have to reconstitute a great part of your Bill, you would have to reframe your scales, and you would have to set up a totally different method of dealing with both contributions and benefits. I think that if the hon. Member had gone into the figures and had considered them, that would have been of use, and he would have given us a little more material to work upon than he gave to the House when he proposed the Amendment. We were looking for calculations to show how this scale would work. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentford would never have moved the Amendment if he had not inquired closely into the figures and had seen the result of adopting it. I have not yet heard from anyone in the House what was pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he explained the effect of working on the basis of so many payments in the pound.
  The general Debate has turned upon the value of benefits. At least it is admitted that benefits will accrue to agricultural labourers by means of the scheme. We have heard arguments on both sides which we have certainly heard on other occasions. No doubt the subject which interests the House and the country is the effect of the scheme on the agricultural labourer. I propose to deal with that in a very few sentences, because the ground has been travelled over by some of the speakers from this side of the House. I cannot help pointing out the speech which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for the Buckrose Division of Yorkshire (Sir Luke White), who seemed to take a view apparently quite different from the majority of the Members who have spoken for agricultural constituencies. He said, and it surprised me very much, that the agricultural labourer was not in a position to pay the contributions which would be demanded of him. I have never heard anyone state that yet. On the contrary, the view has been from the beginning, and rightly so, that the one person who does take care to provide for insurance has always been the agricultural labourer. I

  1073
  daresay he finds it very difficult, but the greater the difficulty the more important it is, according to his own view, that provision should be made for his sickness or disablement. The agricultural labourer is the one person, as the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) said, who is the person best insured throughout the country. Therefore it is a matter of extreme surprise to me to hear my hon. Friend say that the agricultural labourer could not afford to pay. The criticism which has been directed to the scheme of the Bill is that the agricultural labourer does not get sufficient benefit for the money he is called upon to pay. Apparently those who put forward that view have really not taken fully into account what the scheme of the Bill is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out very carefully the number of benefits which would accrue to the agricultural labourers. Nobody has taken the slightest notice of the new Clause which was introduced and discussed at considerable length quite recently in this House, when it was pointed out what the effect would be, not only for the domestic servants and the agricultural labourers, but for other persons who, with them, had not the same necessity to provide for sickness. It was pointed out that they could substitute benefits, or have reduced sick benefits, or that they could make arrangements for other benefits to be paid to them beyond the sickness and disablement benefits. Apparently that is being completely lost sight of.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That does not meet it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I say it does. Most agricultural labourers have their own societies. To a great extent, it was for their benefit that we adopted a plan of grouping these societies under 5,000. If these societies desire, as they can perfectly legitimately do, to substitute some benefit for the sick benefit, they can do so. Suppose, for example, they prefer to have a better pension scheme than they have at present, or suppose they prefer to have medical benefit for their wives and children, or if they would prefer to have their additional benefits used for the purpose of repaying the contributions, all these things are available to them under the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: Subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Of course, it is all subject to the approval of the Insurance
  1074
  Commissioners. That is a necessary part of the scheme in order that the Insurance Commissioners may see that the scheme would work fairly and equitably for the classes concerned. Supposing it be true, as is argued by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, that the agricultural labourer's sickness is less in proportion than the sickness among other classes, and that as he has to pay the same contributions the consequence is that he is paying the same rate of contribution for a less rate of sickness. If that is correct, all the agricultural labourer has to say, all his society has to say is, "we do not propose to have the same benefit for sickness, because we do not require them. We have to pay the same contribution as is paid by every other class, but what we desire instead of sickness benefit is that we shall have substituted benefits." All they have to do is to put forward their plan. For instance, if they desire to have some scheme by which they will get an earlier pension than they get at present, they are entitled to do it. If they do propose such a scheme, all that the Insurance Commissioners have to do is to see that that scheme is the actuarial equivalent for the benefits they propose to cut off and reduce. There is really no difficulty in it; they will get value for their money, the only difference being that under the new Clause and under the scheme of the Bill as it will now operate, and, indeed, as it operated from the earliest moment, there can be an alternative scheme instead of the scheme for the minimum benefits for sickness and disablement. That is expressly provided now, so that there shall be no doubt of it.
  One further point has been given to the agricultural labourer, in consequence of representations which have been made on his behalf, or, rather, we propose to give it. During one of the latest discussions that we had on the point the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) pointed out that the disablement benefit was not so useful to the agricultural labourer as it was to many others, because what the agricultural labourer suffers from very often is partial disablement. We said we would meet him, and we have met him by an Amendment which is on the Paper, and which will be proposed later, and by which there will be payment to a man, though he is not totally incapable of work, in order that there may be, under this same scheme of additional benefits some power given to the society to give benefit. It is a pity that arguments are used and statements made without

  1075
  appreciation of what there is in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major White) made a statement which repeated outside the House, where it could not be explained, would mislead everyone who heard it. It is the kind of statement which always ought to be met at once. It is a most damaging statement to make to agricultural labourers, and if made to them I can quite understand their saying we will not have the Bill, because what he said was, having quoted some figures that, out of a total of ninety-two members of some society in his constituency fifty-two were agricultural labourers—a computation had been made, and if the Bill had been in existence for ten years there would have been a loss of £658 to the members of that society. Of course, that is a most damaging statement, if true, but there is not a word of truth in it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, no doubt, stated his view of the Bill as he understands it, but he seems quite to have forgotten the fact that, though there are these great benefits which are to accrue, if they will be paying so much more than will represent sickness in their own society, the result will be that there will be so much more surplus for additional benefits to distribute amongst their members. When that statement was made that there will be a loss of £658, it is a pity that the true statement was not made, which would have been that there will be this amount of money to distribute amongst them, either by way of bonus or by repayment of contributions already paid, or by providing medical benefits or any of the numerous benefits, of which there are twelve in the Schedule, and I can conceive if that statement were made those agricultural labourers would take a very different view of the Bill from that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave them. It was to me rather a revelation of what I am afraid must be expected from some hon. Members who, if they made that statement in this House, and I have no doubt made it in perfect sincerity, would go outside the House, and from want of proper appreciation and understanding of the Bill would make statements which would lead everyone of those agricultural labourers to the conclusion that he was being robbed by the scheme. When statements of that kind are made, it is an advantage to have an opportunity of meeting them and showing how hon. Members have misconceived the true position.
  A good deal of discussion has taken place
  1076
  with reference to the position of agricultural labourers under the Bill, with the result that when you take into account all that has already been explained, and to which I have called attention, the position of the agricultural labourer is as good a position as that of any single class of persons under the Bill. I can quite understand the view taken by some Members for urban constituencies, who quite recognise that, and who say, so far from the agricultural labourer having any cause of complaint, we think it is we who live in the towns who have cause of complaint. There is much to be said for the very very difficult position of the casual labourer, and I can assure the hon. Members (Mr. Harry Lawson and Mr. W. Pearce) that that has not escaped observation and attention. It is an extremely difficult problem. I know the hon. Member (Mr. W. Pearce) has put down an Amendment to deal with this very question of how you can levy a contribution upon the casual labourer. No doubt that in itself is well worth discussing.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: Unfortunately, it is not on the printed Paper. It is only in manuscript. May I tell the House what it is?
  "When the time of employment is less than four consecutive days, there shall be paid for each day by the contributor one penny and by the employer one penny."
  It gets rid of that very awkward Clause by which inquiry has to be made.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) said the effect will be that you will have a largo number of Post Office contributors amongst casual labourers. I agree with him to this extent, that to my mind the person who is least likely to become a Post Office contributor is the agricultural labourer, for a variety of reasons. What will make a man a Post Office contributor is the fact that his health is so bad that an approved society will not take him, or it may be because he is unable or unwilling to obtain continuous employment. Neither of these three conditions would apply to the agricultural labourer, and he is, I should have thought, almost the last who will become a Post Office contributor. But I fully appreciate the argument that you may have amongst the casual labourers some who will become Post Office contributors. Of course, the real difficulty there is that you cannot distinguish at present between the man who does not want to

  1077
  work beyond a certain time or a certain number of days, just enough to get sufficient for himself for the time being, and the man who really wants to work and cannot get the work. Equally you have to take into account the case of a man who really is unable to work on account of his health, and you have to bear in mind the case of a man whose health will allow him to work, but who will not take the trouble to do it. When we discussed this at some length on Clause 32 of the Bill as introduced we came to the conclusion—I think the Committee was unanimous—that the best thing to do would be to limit the application of the Bill to 1st January, 1915, as regards Post Office contributors, and one of the objects that we had in view was that we should be able during that time to acquire information which we had not got then. There is a provision of the Bill by which reports have to be sent and information has to be collected, and from that we shall be able to see what the classes are who will fall into the Post Office contributor class, and we shall be able to make provisions and segregate the classes, having once ascertained of whom they really consist. That is one of the great reasons why the House came to the conclusion that we should stop at 1st January, 1915, not allowing it to last longer in order that we might deal with that. I agree this can only be a temporary provision, and it is quite recognised as only a temporary provision. We must get more facts, and when we have the facts the House will be equal to the possibility of presenting a scheme which will be more acceptable in respect of those who are not able to become members of an approved society. I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that, at any rate, so far as the Government is concerned, it would be quite impossible to accept the Amendment at this time. But this proposal is not new to us as a Government. The proposition has, of course, been considered. It has all been carefully worked out, and we have gone into the figures, and, on the whole, we came to the conclusion that it was not applicable to the kind of scheme which we were putting before the country, and we had to have recourse to the system at present in the Bill, and which I hope the House will prefer to that in the Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is true I did not open the Amendment at any great length, partly because I realised that at
  1078
  this period of the Debate it was impossible to hope that the Government would recast their whole scheme; but it is a little hard that the Government themselves should now complain that the scheme is only brought forward at the last moment when there has been no other opportunity. The Schedules were the only place on which we could have moved the Amendment, and they were guillotined. It is a curious commentary on the way the Bill has been run that one of the vital points in the constitution of the whole insurance scheme could only possibly be raised on the very last day of the Report stage. I have also been twitted, more by the Chancellor of the Exchequer than by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I did not deluge the House with figures. It is perfectly true that the London Chamber of Commerce has gone a good deal into the figures of this proposal. They have consulted actuaries on the question, and they have come to the conclusion—and that is why I have put the amount of 5d. in the £—that the cost of this scheme will, within a very few pounds, equal the cost of the Government scheme. We put 5d. down because we did not want to disturb the finance of the Bill. But to have taken the House into a whole series of actuarial figures at this period of the day would, I think, be unnecessarily and uselessly taking up time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought when the hon. Member rose, that he rose to withdraw his Amendment. He is not entitled to make another speech.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was under the impression that the Mover of an Amendment on the Report stage had a right to reply.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite mistaken.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Under those circumstances all I can say is that I did not intend to withdraw. I propose to go to a Division, and I hope a good many hon. Members opposite will support me.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: I wish to thank the Attorney-General for his sympathetic reply to my hon. Friend in regard to the position of the casual labourers and just to say that we who sit for constituencies where this difficulty has presented itself only vote against the Amendment which raises the case of the casual labourer on the understanding that the Government is pledged, by previous words in this Bill,

  1079
  to deal with the case before the year 1915. I realise that if we attempted to deal with the case in a haphazard fashion in this Bill that would be a dangerous expedient, and, therefore, it must be left to be carefully dealt with after data has been obtained. I would point out that in addition to the difficulties of collecting the contributions from the men and the employers, there is this further difficulty which surrounds that class of individuals: A great number of these men are permanently injured by the nature of the work they carry on. I have had brought to my notice many cases of men who have suffered rupture and similar injuries which make it impossible for them to be selected lives in the approved societies, and undoubtedly these men will have to become Post Office contributors. No doubt we have hopeful visions of these men being accepted by some of the societies. In that case there is not so much to fear, but under the scheme as at present understood, it appears that these men will have to become Post Office contributors, and their position will be very unfavourable as compared with the members of approved societies. It is on behalf of these men that we have brought forward this case. I am glad that the Government realise that casual labourers in the docks and wharves of this country are the people who are hardest hit and for whom it is right to plead.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: There were one or two statements made by the Attorney-General which should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Referring to the speech of the hon. Baronet, he said that the agricultural labourer was very keen to insure, and that there was no class in the country who so generally provided themselves with insurance. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are hundreds and thousands who, while they may be keen on insurance, are not insured because they cannot afford it. I believe he was right in saying that, as a class, they are thrifty, and would no doubt insure if they could. But at present it is an undoubted fact that a very large proportion of them are unable to do it. He attacked my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southport (Major White) for making a statement without proper appreciation of all that is in the Bill. I ask how can any one have a proper appreciation of all that is in the Bill? It is absolutely impossible. I do not mind saying perfectly frankly that I do not pretend to understand all the Bill,
  1080
  and I am sure the Attorney-General does not either. He cannot honestly pretend that he does, and I do not believe that any Member of the House pretends to understand it except perhaps the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who thinks he has a full appreciation of it. I assure the Attorney-General that it is quite impossible for many of us to appreciate, not only what is in the Bill, but the effect of changes made from day to day by Amendments which are on the Order Paper, and the effect of Amendments which are promised and are not yet on the Order Paper.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Amendment on which I commented was an Amendment which was discussed at great length not only on the Report stage, but at a former period. On the new Clause we discussed at very great length the question whether we should include medical benefits in the Clause. It was also the Clause upon which the discussion arose with regard to domestic servants, and the agricultural labourer was not distinctly mentioned in the whole course of the Debate.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: The full effect of that Clause depends very much upon the Schedule we are now discussing, and upon Amendments which will be discussed, or perhaps passed without discussion, in the remaining hours which are allotted to the Report stage to-night. That very Clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself to in his remarks does not in any way remove the objections which agricultural Members feel against this rate. I am not saying the inhabitants in other parts of the country may not have a strong objection to it, but I am dealing now with the case of the agricultural labourer. The hon. and learned Gentleman said with perfect truth that the Clause which was fully discussed gave them certain alternative benefits, and after saying that he said it would be the duty of the Commissioners when any approved society asked for an alternative benefit to see that it was actuarialy equivalent to the benefit provided in the Bill. The mere fact that it is actuarialy equivalent prevents it from satisfying us. We say, in view of the fact that the risk from the insurance point of view is so much less in the case of the agricultural labourer's life than in the lives of many artisans who are working in other trades, and the fact that the benefits he might get during old age are limited by the age limit in the Bill, make it necessary in order to satisfy us, and to be fair to the

  1081
  agricultural labourer, that he should get something more than the actuarial equivalent which is given in other cases. He should either pay less or get more. I say the Bill is unjust to the agricultural community, for the reason that the smaller risk is not taken into full account in the Bill as it should be.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I said was that all you can give him under this scheme is the actuarial equivalent of the contribution made by him and on his behalf.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I say that is all you can give him, and I hold that the risk being so much less it is unfair to him. The actuarial equivalent spoken of by the Attorney-General would be all right if the man were allowed to receive benefits up to the end of his life. In any case he does not get the full equivalent as compared with other trades. I remain unsatisfied and unconvinced, and I think it would be very difficult for the Attorney-General to satisfy the agricultural community that they are getting fair and equal treatment as compared with their fellow workers in some industrial trades.
  Mr. MOLTENO: The Attorney-General referred to the case of the casual labourer who is not to come into the scheme until 1915. So far as I can understand the Bill at present, the effect of it will be to send the casual labourer into unemployment. I do not see how he can be employed, nor can I see how he can insure at all. If that be so, he cannot come in as a Post Office contributor, because he will not be able to pay. If the effect will be to prevent him being employed, it seems to me it would be better to exclude him altogether. If he has to wait until 1915 and be unemployed until then, it will be very hard upon him. Many of us have considered the case of the casual labourer. I did hope that there was some Clause in the First Schedule as to occasional employment or casual employment where exceptions might be made, but I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not so, and that even the Clause would not deal with the casual labourer. Therefore the position really seems to me to be that the casual labourer cannot be insured under this Bill, and further that he cannot be employed by the employer who would otherwise be ready to employ him. Agriculture is the greatest industry in this country, and we ought to enable the agricultural labourer
  1082
  to feel that he is really getting the benefits he is entitled to get in respect of the contribution he is asked to make. I do not feel that we can ask him to accept that view. We had a small committee in Scotland to consider this question. We were anxious that the Government would allow us in Scotland to have power to vary both the contributions and the benefits, because we felt that the conditions in Scotland were not sufficiently understood, and were certainly not met in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to allow that. I am quite prepared to admit that the information submitted was not very perfect. The case was submitted to the actuaries, and all I can say is that, judging from their report, they were equally at sea with us as to what would be the result on the agricultural labourer, and what he would get for his contribution. Mr. Watson, in his report, says:—
  "It cannot, I think, be questioned that the rate of sickness experienced in agricultural communities is lower than the general average rate assumed in the calculations of Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, but, on the other hand, the death rate is lower also, the standard for the purpose of the Bill having been taken as the English Life No. 6, compared with which the death rate in agricultural districts is very low.…. If it were possible to establish what the rate of sickness in the International Ploughmen's Society has been, it might be found to be light compared with the Manchester Unity or Foresters' standards at any given series of ages. But the society is young, at least two-thirds of its members being under forty-five years of age, and it is impossible to predict how heavily the society may be hit if the expected mortality amongst these younger members is not suffered and an abnormally large proportion of them survive to old age. From certain calculations which I have made. I find that the effect of combining agricultural sickness rates with agricultural mortality is to reduce the contribution at the age of sixteen for seven-ninths of the full benefits by 1s. per annum, or barely a farthing per week."
  There is an admission that too much is being paid, and I do not feel at all satisfied that that is the correct sum. I do not think the actuary would suggest that it was. In the concluding portion of Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt's report they say:—
  "Even assuming that evidence could be adduced to support the view that the sickness experience in Scottish agricultural districts is specially favourable, it would appear to be contrary to the general principles upon which the scheme in the Bill has been built up to adopt special rates of contribution for the normal benefits."
  He goes on the view that there is no good in putting forward special rates or conditions, because they have already been taken into account. That is the point we are on now, and it is one that affects the largest industry in the country.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: There are far more people employed in mining. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. MOLTENO: I venture to think still that agriculture is the largest industry in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that these men should be assured that they were getting full value for the contributions which they make. I do not think they are. I would have preferred some form of inquiry to ascertain from some reliable data on the subject. It is suggested that suppose they are paying too much, in several years time we will find it out and then put it right. I think that is highly unsatisfactory. A good many of these men will be dead by that time. I cannot conceive how any business could be carried on on principles of that kind, and I must suggest that this matter of the agricultural labourers is a very important one, and has not received adequate consideration.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I dare say the House will remember that during the discussion on this subject the suggestion was made that the particular Clause was to be limited in its application to certain classes. Have the Government yet made up their mind to what classes it is to apply? The Bill has changed so much from day to day that at the present time I have not the least idea to whom the Clause is to apply. As we have discussed it to-day on the assumption that it is going to apply to the agricultural labourer, one would like to know whether it is a fact. If the right hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General) and other Members of the Government have had time, with the duties of framing new Clauses, to make up their minds upon one of the details of this Bill, perhaps they would condescend to give some information on the subject. The actual terms of the Amendment find justification in the fact that under this Bill for the first time we introduce compulsion. As long as you leave men free to make their own bargains they take into consideration whether or not they can afford to enter into them. But if you are going to compel them the only possible justification is that the compulsion should be in proportion to their means. Therefore it is only common justice, if you are going for the first time to compel them to pay, that the compulsion shall be in proportion to the means of paying which they possess. I do not quite appreciate the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which apparently is that although the principle is good it cannot be carried out because the machinery will be so hard to devise. We have already determined
  1084
  that a person earning under a certain amount is to make a smaller contribution. What difficulty is there in extending this scheme in the other direction and saying that those who earn more will pay more? The only logical excuse for evading this Amendment is the difficulty of its application and the difficulty of devising the machinery. But you need not go into minute details by varying a man's contributions according to every £5 or £10. You might easily draw broad lines of contributions so that a man worth so much would pay, say, a certain amount, and a man who earns £1 or £2 shall be at any rate on a somewhat larger scale. The principle could be accepted, and it would be the duty of the Government to work it out.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The reason I cannot vote for the Amendment before the House is because it attempts to do exactly what the hon. Member opposite just now has proposed. It wants to raise the contribution of certain people, but I think that the contribution, the 4d. and the 3d., is quite enough to be paid by anyone.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: My only suggestion was that people with £100 or £150 a year should pay more than those who are earning less.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but I think the amount proposed at present is quite high enough for the benefits which are going to be given, because very often a man who is earning more money has, owing to his position in life, more expenses and, generally speaking, a great deal more to do with his money than some other people. I wish, however, to speak about the casual labourer. I am not so satisfied, as an hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate from this side, that the Government have made a great concession when they say to the casual labourer, "We know your position is very hard. You do not earn enough money, and therefore we are only going to make you pay until January, 1915, and then if we are here we are going to reconsider the whole matter." That is pretty cold comfort for the dock labourers along the Bermondsey side of the river. I hope that the hon. Member will go down and tell them, and take their verdict on the matter the next time he goes to his constituency. This matter is very much more difficult even than it appears in the case of the casual labourer in the docks. There are the men in the building trade, large numbers of whom get a day's or two

  1085
  days' work from an employer to do little odd jobs in houses; and the employer will be called upon with the men to pay 6½d. each. That will, I think, tend very largely to keep the casual men out of that odd kind of job that otherwise may be put at their disposal.
  Then it was stated from the Front Bench this afternoon that a woman under contract of service, if she has to do only one day's work in the week, would have to make a contribution. I would like the House to consider this case of a woman earning 3s. 6d. a day at what is very hard, laborious work, charing or washing, which is as hard for women as navvying is for men. By this Bill you are going to say that the woman who does one day's work in a week, and earns 2s. 6d., is to pay 3d. for this, and her employer is to pay 3d. I call that a monstrous tax, and I do not know anyone here who can defend that tax—to the women at any rate. Then, with regard to decasualising, a great deal has been made of the fact that both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission, referring to methods of dealing with unemployment, are in favour of decasualisation, but neither of those Reports asks for decasualisation without provision being made for those who will be squeezed out. There is not a line in the Majority or the Minority Report saying that the State should take action in the direction of decasualising labour until it has made provision for the men who will be squeezed out. I deny the right of any Government directly or indirectly to bring in a scheme that will decasualise these men and squeeze them out without making provision for them. Everyone is in favour of decasualisation, but no one has the right, however much we may feel that labour ought to be organised and regularised, to say that they will do it at the expense of part of the living that men or women get to-day. That is the strongest ground against this Bill applying to casual labourers at all. I am not one of those who say to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that, because you are taking this line you are devoid of sympathy, and that you are doing it merely because you want to impose hardship on people. I believe that in your hearts you think you are going to do a good thing for them, but I would put it to you whether you yourselves knowing the facts think that it is right to impose this tax for the next four years?
  You might, after all, even at this time of day, easy your scheme if you take them
  1086
  out of the scheme and leave them to the Public Health authorities to deal with. If taken out of this scheme I am perfectly certain that this House and the community generally would be compelled to-deal with them long before the four years were gone by. It is all very well for people who do not have to live in a small way to impose these taxes. All of us here, whether we are employed or are unemployed, while we are Members of this House, will draw our £400 a year, and none of us will be called upon to make any provision for the time when we are out of work, when the House adjourns. The professional man will draw these salaries and never be asked to make provision. Even the Insurance Commissioners will not be asked to put so much a week away to insure them for the time when they are sick or disabled, but the House will make provision. Here you are supposed to be dealing with the very poor and destitute. I have put forward the case of the dock labourer, and the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Pearce) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) have put it forward, and no one denies that the same can be said with regard to builders' labourers. I think that the Government should meet us and say that casual labourers shall come out of the Bill, and should make some other provision for them, or make them absolutely exempt from payment at all. At present under your Bill you exempt people under 9s. a week. I thought that that meant all the people who earn less than 9s. a week, but it is an entirely different proposition. This Schedule is based on daily earnings, and not on weekly earnings at all, and that makes all the difference. A woman in a factory may be earning 9s. a week and she will get insured for nothing, and a non contributory principle will apply, but another woman will be only earning 2s. 6d. a day in a week and will have to contribute. I think that is a monstrous injustice, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Rufus Isaacs) to consider those two or three facts, and tell us what his own honest opinion on them really is.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to say a few words, particularly with regard to agricultural labourers and agriculture as affected by this Bill. We are now at the Report stage, yet one would hardly believe that to be the fact after the Debate to which we have listened. There has been an immense number of changes in the

  1087
  Bill since it was first introduced. Speaking broadly, very nearly all those changes tend in one direction, and that is to break up the Bill into compartments. As the Bill was originally introduced we had one area, namely, the area of the whole United Kingdom. We had practically uniformity of benefit: first of all, as regards all the different classes insured under the Bill. And as regards the units through whom insurance might be effected, I am right in saying, I believe, that the minimum of any society which could be treated as a separate unit was to be 10,000. That is not so now. The unit of the United Kingdom has been broken up into four. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong; it is merely a matter of statement, but it has a bearing on the particular argument I desire to use. You have broken up the basis of area into four, and you have completely altered the basis of uniform benefit, having introduced different benefits for different people. There is a much wider choice of benefits than there was when the Bill was introduced. I do not think hon. Members will deny that. The benefits are infinitely wider than they were when the Bill was introduced, and I do not think the hon. Member opposite can contradict me.
  Mr. BOOTH: I was only desirous of catching the exact words used by the hon. Gentleman, and I had not the least intention of contradicting him.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There is a much greater choice of benefit, and the benefits are much more in compartments than they were. In addition to that, instead of having a minimum of 10,000 you have now removed that limit altogether, and any number of persons can form themselves into a society and can get different kinds of benefit for the people in the immediate vicinity.
  Mr. BOOTH: Five thousand.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, five thousand; but, at any rate, the argument has just been used by the Attorney-General that agricultural labourers in particular districts will be able to form their own special societies in order to obtain special benefits. Therefore, what I say is generally true, that you have broken up the Bill into compartments in regard to all these three matters, but the one matter on which there has been no change at all is that of contributions. Why? I can understand the principle on which the Bill was brought in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was hopeful that he would be able in this Bill
  1088
  to introduce over an enormous and varying area of employment in the country a flat rate, or one unit of contribution. He has been driven from that ground, which he has found to be untenable, and he has been driven into compartmenting the Bill. But having abandoned the flat rate principle in regard to those three matters, he ought also to put the fourth matter of contribution on the same basis, certainly in regard to agricultural labourers. The agricultural labourer's wages are lower, and the profits of agriculture are smaller, certainly in money, than are wages and profits in any other industry in the country.
  I am dealing with agriculture as a whole, and it is true to say that you are putting a burden of 26s. a year upon agriculture in respect of every man employed in that industry. That is the broad way of looking at it—that 26s. a year is the same burden identically with that you are putting on other trades, where the risks are much greater and the wages are much higher. I look at this from the broad view, and I repeat that you are placing a burden of 26s. upon that particular industry—a burden identical with that which is imposed upon other industries, and, if you are going to adopt the principle of compartments, then you should also apply it to the question of contribution. I admit that if it be proved that you cannot make a concession to agriculture without injuring the community as a whole, then agriculture must assent to this proposal. I do not ask that the interests of agriculture shall be considered to the detriment of the interests of the whole community, but I do say that if, without injuring the interests of the whole community, you can put in compartments in the Bill in regard to benefits, or area, or numbers, it should also be done in regard to contribution, and some consideration should be given to what is desired by those engaged in the agricultural industry.
  I do not think the Attorney-General gave us a complete answer. He said it was quite true that sickness among the agricultural population is less, but that the agricultural labourer will get other benefits to compensate him for his loss in connection with sickness benefit. That is not what the agricultural labourer or the small farmer wants. What they want is not identical contribution, but identical benefit. That is the very point. I take it that the object of this Bill is not contribution, but benefit. This Bill was not introduced in order to take 3d. from everybody's pocket; the object of the Bill is to give

  1089
  benefits. What the agricultural labourer says is, "Give us equal benefit. We want these benefits, and desire to have them; but, owing to the particular conditions of our industry, we are entitled to ask for those benefits at a less contribution." On behalf of agriculturists, for whom I have some right to speak, I tell the Government that they are not treating agriculture fairly. They have left the flat rate; they have put the Bill into compartments; and, in doing that, they lay themselves open to the demand on behalf of the agricultural interest that they should consider that industry and its needs on special grounds, and that they should give agriculture the same benefits at less contribution. This has been proved to be possible, and is possible, in the ordinary current practice. Nobody can deny that agricultural labourers at this moment do actually obtain the same benefits as are obtained in other trades at less contribution than those to the great friendly societies. All we ask is that agricultural labourers should be treated under the Bill as they are treated now, obtaining the same benefits as are given in other trades for less contribution.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have referred to the second part of the Fourth Schedule, which contains the additional benefits, of which there can be repayment of part of the contribution which has been paid. If it is true that the sickness is less then they will be in a position to give as an additional benefit the repayment of part of the contribution which the man has to make.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This is another instance of the extraordinary love of the Government for machinery and officials, merely for the purpose of getting contributions into the machine at one end and drawing them out at the other, though a good deal less than when they went in. Surely simplicity is worth something. We rural folk are simple in our nature. We can understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he tells us that we are going to get certain benefits for less contribution, but we do not understand when we pay the same contribution, why it should go into his mill merely at the end of a few years to get some advantages. I can quite understand that there would be a justification for the policy of the Government if it were not a certainty that there is less sickness among the agricultural population. It would be a fair argument in favour of their policy if they said, "We do not know that your sickness
  1090
  is less." My hon. Friend behind me quoted chapter and verse showing that among agricultural labourers there is less sick benefit by 25 per cent., the figures being 1s. 6½d. for the agricultural unit in the friendly societies at the age of thirty, as against 2s. in the industrial section.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not want to interrupt, but the statistics which were quoted by the hon. Member for Cambridge included accidents, and the reason why the miners get a higher sickness benefit from the friendly societies is that they get payment during the time they suffer from accidents. But in respect of ordinary sickness, other than that caused by accidents, in my opinion the agricultural labourers get larger benefits than the miners.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I admit that factor, and I do not want to minimise it at all. I am grateful for the interruption, as there is always something one does not appreciate. But even allowing the fullest weight for that fact, I am sure no one can pretend that, under the conditions of agricultural industry, sickness is not less frequent than in the industries carried on in towns. I have made my case clear as to agriculture, and now that we have admitted the principle of compulsion, and now that the Bill has been put into compartments, I submit that the question of contribution, especially in regard to agricultural labourers, should be dealt with. I desire to make my appeal on behalf of the agricultural interest as strongly as I can, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the grounds on which it can be granted.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think it is rather fortunate for the agricultural labourer that he is not able to take the advice so freely given to him by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I think it would be much better for him to pay the sum which is specified in the Bill and to get the benefit. If there is an extra payment, the sum can only be a small one, and additional benefits will be granted under the Bill. If the agricultural labourer had to choose between paying less than 4d. and getting then the same benefit and paying 4d. and getting something more, then I would strongly recommend him to pursue the latter course and not the former. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me if I do not follow him further in his argument, as I rose to refer to some points which were made by the hon. Member for Bow and

  1091
  Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I think that the hon. Member cannot too carefully bear in mind the element of prevention which exists in this Bill. It is an exceedingly easy process for any man of heart to get up and plead the case of the casual labourer. That is one of the easiest things to do, but if there is any virtue in this Bill, what is it that it is doing? We are going to insure some 14,000,000 of people, and by that process I will venture to say that in the course of not more than fifteen years we shall prevent the manufacture of the casual labourer, and of the very class on whose behalf the sympathies of my hon. Friend are so easily, though I will not say easily, but naturally, excited. We shall prevent the manufacture of thousands, and, as the years go on, of tens of thousands of this particular class. I do submit to the House with confidence that nothing could be more deplorable than that the present existence of tens of thousands of those unfortunates should cloud our minds and prevent us putting our hands to this measure of prevention, which is going to prevent largely, though I will not say altogether, the manufacture of this particular class. My hon. Friend so far forgot, as he usually does, the provisions of the measure he was discussing that he mentioned the builder's labourer. The builder's labourer is one of the persons dealt with in Part II. of the Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I said so.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sorry if I did not follow the hon. Member's remarks with strict attention, but if he said so, and if he thought so, that did not appear to have made any particular impression on his argument. The builder's labourer is included in Part II. of the Bill, and there again we have the prevention of the very class of persons who excited my hon. Friend's sympathies. My hon. Friend joined with another of my hon. Friends in urging the House to exempt casual labourers. How can we possibly exempt them without placing a premium on their employment?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Or charge them nothing.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, but one of the suggestions was to exempt them, which seems to show that the hon. Member had not considered that exemption would mean making casual labour. I
  1092
  think that the House also would be well advised not to give too much attention to what I hope some employers will forgive me for calling their threats with regard to casual labour. One of the most deadly privileges the capitalist possesses under our present social system is that he can take a dip into the labour market and that he can find men to suit his temporary purposes, and that he can thrust them back the very moment or the very hour they are done. That is a deadly privilege and it is so great a privilege to the capitalist that I do not think it will be foregone for the sake of the payment of 4d. when the man is so employed. It is worth very much more than 4d. to an employer to be able to do that. I therefore think we may disregard the threats that when this Bill is passed there will be an amount of decasualisation, although I am not at all sure, cruel as the process might be, that it might not be a very good thing for the country and the House of Commons if that sudden decasualisation occurred, because, then the problem would be so thrust before us in this House that we should have to deal with it in a manner which is not likely to occur under present circumstances. I am perfectly sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not satisfied to leave the position of the casual labourer as it is. We have the pledge as to limitation, and I am sure the Government did not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend as to that limitation without the full intention of carrying that Amendment into effect, and without intending to do something in this particular matter before many years are past, and I hope before 1915. At any rate the Bill will map out this problem as it was never mapped out before, and when that mapping out is done, I hope that we in this House shall have the opportunity of dealing with the problem in a more satisfactory way.
  Colonel HICKMAN: The Attorney-General told us that under the new Clause we passed the other day the agricultural labourer could get back part of his original premium as an extra benefit. I think that to carry that through to its logical conclusion we must imagine that the agricultural labourer must belong to a society of agricultural labourers alone, because if he belongs to any of the large friendly societies such as the Foresters or the Manchester Unity then he would come in with the ruck of the other people, and would be on a level with all the other trades. That being so, it carries the matter one step

  1093
  further. Looking at Clause 30, I take it that there would be considerable difficulty in the case of agricultural labourers forming societies of their own in leaving the large friendly societies if there was any opposition on the part of those friendly societies. Therefore, I think that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look into that subject he will find that there is rather a difficulty in the agricultural labourer getting those terms which he really foreshadowed by this new Clause. I would ask him to look the matter up.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I could not quite follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) when he said that the Government had abolished or abandoned the flat rate. I understand that the meaning of "flat rate" is that the contributions are equal. It is true they differ as far as employer and employed are concerned. With regard to the German system it is vastly more complicated than that under this Bill. That system has been in operation for twenty years and has proved to be extremely popular. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out the German system has five classes each with a special flat rate and each dependent on the rate of wages. As those vary from year to year, sometimes high, and sometimes low, the complications must be enormous and such almost as to make the Bill unworkable. Notwithstanding all those immense difficulties, with their experience in Germany, the Bill has been very popular, and no one of any note desires to abandon it. I think if we were to adopt a system of assessage it would destroy the whole Bill. This Bill is based on the methods of the friendly societies, which are based on the flat rate system. The object of this Bill is to extend the scope and interest of the friendly societies. In Germany the permanent invalids only are insured in the State-aided scheme. The result of that is this, that the local societies endeavour to pass on their permanent invalids to the State funds.
  Under this Bill the members of the friendly societies will endeavour to get the sick people well, whether they are permanent invalids or temporary. That alone makes the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much superior to those contained in the German insurance scheme. There is one point which aroused the sympathy of hon. Members below the Gangway, namely, the position of the casual labourer, which looks almost incapable of solution at the present time. That is why it is the intention of the Government to
  1094
  reconsider that class in three years' time. One very valuable feature, and perhaps the one most valuable, in the Bill, is that it will give absolute knowledge as to whether workers are honest bonâ fide workers or not. It will enable us to tabulate correctly the position of each worker, so that we shall know in future how they ought to be dealt with. Therefore, I feel convinced that, the more the populace of this country get to understand the enormous benefits of this Bill, and when they realise that for lower contributions they are going to get greater benefits, and when they understand that it is a much better Bill than that which is already successful in Germany, then. I believe the whole United Kingdom will come to bless the day when this Bill came into active operation.
  Mr. NIELD: I am bound to say I do not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he objects to this Amendment on the ground that it would raise the contribution. The limit of income is such that even if the Amendment were carried it would never exceed the amount authorised by the Bill, and would remove a sense of very great injustice from those whose wages are very small. Again I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the laundry working men. He and his Friends have done their best to displace me in the representation of my Constituency. They have not succeeded, and they never will succeed if this Bill passes without the exemption of the laundrymen. If that is not done it is equivalent to endowing me with a freehold for life, while there is no reason for refusing to do it. The case is one of those whose work is comprised within four days of the week by reason of the special circumstances, and whose wages are extremely low, and who are casual in so far as the employment is not regular, although the same person would be employed for two or three days per week, and as it cannot be a complete week's employment it comes within the category of the women to whom the hon. Member refers who may get one day in the week and half-a-crown, and out of that have to pay threepence. I have told this House, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was present at the time, of the representations which have come to me from my Constituency, which he knows so well, in respect of this matter. It may not disturb him to be told that an enthusiastic follower of his own, who tells me he was a member of the right hon. Gentleman's club, has foresworn

  1095
  allegiance to him in consequence of this Bill. That man tells me he has to employ sometimes as many as twenty women on the Tuesday, or on whatever day in the week the work is ready for ironing, and that out of that twenty but four are employed for the rest of the week, while sixteen are not so employed. The result is that the hardship will be very great. If this Amendment were carried the women would pay 1d. and the employer would pay his contribution. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the health statistics in the laundry trade? The death rate is abnormally low, as also is the percentage of sickness, strange though it may seem. Surely under these circumstances this large body of workers ought to be considered with a view to their being given some relief. The objection has been taken that, although this levy is being made now, in the course of time it may be returned. But supposing it were possible to form a society for this special class of workers, what guarantee is there that the same people will get back any proportion of what they have paid? Three years is a long time. Many of the members may have gone abroad or died. The just thing would be to reduce the contribution originally. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the substantial grievance of these people in humble life, and to allow them to come in by paying a proportionate amount, having regard to the very low wage they earn.
  Mr. WHELER: I represent a Division in which a large proportion of the agricultural labourers are not at all regularly employed. Throughout the De-bate it has been assumed that agricultural labourers as a whole are in very regular employment. In my Division we have a large number of men who are employed on farms at various periods of the year, but not regularly, nor at regular periods. This year in particular, owing to the dryness of the summer, there was failure of such crops as the turnip crop, with the result that this class of agricultural labourer has suffered very severely. On all farms there are a certain number of men in regular fixed employment, but in addition there are a percentage of agricultural labourers who are dependent on jobs of one sort or another throughout the year. I support this Amendment because these men, owing to the irregularity of their employment, would be unable to accumulate sufficient
  1096
  funds to become members of approved societies. That will be the case especially in the districts where there are hop gardens and fruit orchards. This year there was a bountiful fruit harvest, and the men had a certain amount of employment. But last year there was a complete failure of the cherry crop, with the result that in many orchards the cherries were not picked at all, and consesequently these men were put in a very difficult position. The case of the hop-picking class, too, has never been met. The hop-picking season may last for six weeks, but in the event of a shortage of the crop, it may last only three weeks. Unless something is done in the direction suggested by the Amendment, the men on whose behalf I am speaking will never have sufficient funds to insure. Owing to the irregularity of their employment they will fall into arrears, and I doubt whether they will even be able to become Post Office contributors. In the south-east of England we have probably more of this class of agricultural labourers than other parts of the kingdom, and I hope that something will be done to meet their case.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Clause 87 (3) refers particularly to the grouping of small societies, but I do not think it is quite clear what must be the number of members of these societies to form a group. Can you have more than one group in a county, say, one of 2,000 members and another of 3,000? If you cannot do that, you may in certain counties find it very difficult to form a group of societies of agriculturists totalling up to 5,000.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You may have half-a-dozen groups in the same county, so long as each aggregates 5,000 members. Is that the point?
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Take a county which has a mining population, an industrial population, and a small agricultural population. The miners may have their own group of societies which they desire to amalgamate, and the industrial population may have theirs. The agricultural population may have a number of small societies which they wish to form into one county group; but, supposing they do not number 5,000 members, can that group be formed, or is it essential that each group should have 5,000 members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As long as there are 5,000 in each group they can form

  1097
  as many groups as they like. But supposing the agricultural group cannot get 5,000 members, they can group with another agricultural society across the border, and thus make up their 5,000. The group need not be confined to the county.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: The county feeling is very strong. It will be difficult to get the small societies to group at all, but to get the small societies of one county to group with the small societies of another will be very difficult indeed. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this point, because it may be a matter of considerable importance to the agricultural population. The Clause is not at all clearly understood in the country, and it has never been discussed in the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give further attention to it, with a view to Amendments being introduced in another place enabling a group of agricultural labourers to be formed in a county, even though it does not number 5,000 members.
  Mr. WEIGALL: I should like to emphasise most strongly the point just made. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not realise the enormous pride that these local societies have in themselves. During the last fortnight in my own Constituency, I have been astonished to see how much the agricultural labourer feels the position of his small rural society under this Bill. It is true that agricultural labourers will insure themselves more freely than any other class of the community, so long as it is done voluntarily; but I am certain, from what I have seen and heard during the last fortnight in my Constituency, that if you apply compulsion they will not be so ready to do it. They are particularly anxious as to what will happen to their small societies. I have told them that they can go into the county pool. I did not realise until this afternoon that they would have to have 5,000 members. That, I am afraid, knocks the rural societies on the head. We shall certainly not be able to find 5,000 members in my county. The life of one village is a thing entirely apart from the life of another village two or three miles away. If it is laid down that each group must contain at least 5,000 members I am afraid the county pool system will fall to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in an airy general way that out of this Bill the agricultural labourers are to get power to increase their wages, to improve their houses, and so on. Representing, as I do,
  1098
  a large number of agricultural labourers, I should very much like to hear something more definite as to how these desirable results are to be attained. I would only like to observe that if he had that in view, as a result of the finance of this Insurance Bill, that he will keep it in view when he introduces the Finance Bill next year; because I feel perfectly sure, from our experience in the past, that the agricultural labourer is not going to increase either his wages nor his housing accommodation. So far, however, as the point I got up to raise is concerned, I do feel most strongly that unless the Government can make some concession as to lowering the number of members required for the county pools the use of the pools will be very much diminished. The agriculturist in my part of the world is afraid of supervision, except it be the supervision of the people he knows. To tell him he has got to be under the supervision of Insurance Commissioners immediately raises a wall between him and this system. The powers of the Insurance Commissioners will be enormous. Do we realise that they are getting the powers that ought to belong to the Houses of Parliament, that they are to be given the judicial powers that ought to belong to the Law Courts, and that they are to administer these powers almost without check, let, or hindrance? I, therefore, say in respect to the agricultural labourer, if he feels he is to be under the supervision of men who are given these enormously autocratic powers, that his fear of them is very well founded.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I desire to deal with the question of the limitation of the membership of the groups. I had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the number to 1,000. Unfortunately it was not debated, because the guillotine fell. I am confident that had it been debated the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have appreciated the position, and have made a reduction. From the beginning of the Debates on the question of the small societies the Chancellor has always expressed a desire to keep them in existence, and to do nothing detrimental to their carrying on their work in the future as they have carried it on in the past. As a matter of fact, in making this 5,000 as the limit of the group of the county associations, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—though he must know it—that it will have the effect of destroying the whole object of keeping these small societies in existence.

  1099
  In my own county of Oxfordshire the small societies, including the village clubs, number probably about 5,500. You cannot possibly get all these societies to join a group. Therefore, in that county, the provision that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put into the Bill for grouping them will be simply lost. I have had numbers of meetings since the Amendment was introduced and brought in by the Chancellor. I can assure him that the societies have all taken the matter up very earnestly, for they have a great desire to continue and to join a group. When, however, it is suggested that they should go outside the counties—well, they would not do that, or are not likely to do it. I would urge the Chancellor most earnestly to reduce the number to 1,000 or 2,000, and then he will have accomplished the object he has in view; the societies will be satisfied, and they will not feel that sense of injury that otherwise they would do.
  On the question of the agricultural flat rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement that I cannot agree with when he said that there was no unemployment among agricultural labourers. I am sorry to say that that statement does not apply in the district that I come from. There are numbers of unemployed there, and they are likely to be so from the nature of their employment. Yesterday a large farmer told me that he had had to discharge a number of men because there was no turnip hoeing to be done. These men, who otherwise would have been in employment, will be out of employment for the rest of the winter. I also take objection to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the agricultural labourer will in future pay 4d. for benefits for which he has hitherto been paying 8d. I shall be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain that more particularly, because it would undoubtedly make this Bill a very much more popular Bill with the agricultural labourer. If the right hon. Gentleman can show that as soon as this Bill becomes law the agricultural labourer will get for 4d. what he now has to pay 8d. for it will do good. My experience is—having secured all possible evidence—that he is now paying 4½d. for what he will get for 4d. when the Bill comes into operation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do you include sanatorium and maternity benefits.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I do not include sanatorium benefit. In lieu of maternity
  1100
  benefit they get burial benefit, which they prize very much, and which you do not give them in this Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do they get 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks when they are ill, and 5s. per week after?
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: All I say is this: they practically get for 4½d. what they will get for 4d. under this Bill. From the evidence of the local societies, I am prepared to prove it. I have had their statements and have had them inquired into. If they are to get for 4d. what they have hitherto been paying 8d. for, I think it would be an advantage if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain how it comes about. A statement is a very different thing from actual proof. But on this question of numbers I again earnestly urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider if he cannot see some way of reducing them and so accomplishing what he wishes. Otherwise the 5,000 will destroy the object he has at heart, and render the Clause nugatory and useless.
  Mr. MOUNT: I did not intend to say anything had it not been for the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to my hon. Friend just below me. I always understood that in connection with these groups of societies, unassociated societies, which are in Subsection (3) of Section 37 of the Bill, there is no limit to the numbers which the group may contain. My reason for believing that—and that is the general impression of most Members connected with agricultural constituencies—is that you have three classes of approved societies—one which must have 5,000 members, one consisting of associated societies, and one of groups to which no limit is put.
  The Chancellor, in his extraordinary statement, said that if the group of agricultural societies did not get their numbers within the limits of the county that they could go outside the boundary and so make up their numbers to 5,000. I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Section 37, Sub-section (3).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite right.
  Mr. MOUNT: Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was wrong when he said the numbers these groups consisted of? Because if he is right, I do think we have not been treated fairly.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite right, but the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hicks Beach) put to me quite a different question; or so I understood him. What I understood the hon. Member to put to me was, whether in a district partly mining and partly agricultural, or partly industrial or partly agricultural—of which there are a good many instances—whether the voluntary societies were forced to join some county association, or whether the agricultural societies could form their own group, I replied, "certainly." I have no doubt they will do so in many cases. If they form a group in the ordinary sense of the term, they must have 5,000 members. But the hon. Member put to me Sub-section (3), which is a totally different thing where they do not form a group. Section 37, Sub-section (3) says,
  Any such society which has not joined any other association as aforesaid, and which carries on business in any county or county borough shall, for the purpose of this Section be grouped with the other unassociated societies carrying on business in the same county or county borough.
  This is gathering up the fragments and putting them all into the same basket. That is the compulsory grouping of the remnants of societies.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: How many members?
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: 5,000?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is gathering up the remnants. I thought the hon. Member who put the question to me was apprehensive that the societies once they were inside the county would be forced to join the county group, which would contain mining members and others. That is only when they have failed to form a group of their own; then, of course, if they fail to form a group and decline to join the group outside the counties, the remnant is gathered up and formed into one association.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Of miners, agriculturists and others?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. It is assumed that two-thirds of the surplus of the individual branch will belong to the individual branch. It is only the balance that goes to the group. That is a point which is almost forgotten. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hamersley) quoted
  1102
  Oxfordshire. He said that if you took all the societies in Oxfordshire and the slate clubs they only numbered 5,500. He must remember that these are voluntary societies. When this Bill is passed everyone in the village will be compelled to join some society or another. They will probably join their own village society. Thus the membership will be doubled.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: The answer to the question is that the number will not matter.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad I satisfied the hon. Gentleman. I should like to say a word about that society that gives benefits for 4½d. I have heard of it so often, but I am wholly unable to find such a society that has passed through the actuarial test, and that is very important. I have never been able to get a society, and I have searched high and low, which was ever able to give those benefits, or anything approaching them, for 4½d.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I know a society that has done it for eighty years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] The Buntingford Union Association.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What does it give?
  Lord R. CECIL: It gives benefits at least as good as are given under this Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to see the figures for that society and the document.
  Lord R. CECIL: Certainly.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, if there are large contributions from outside they may do it.
  Lord R. CECIL: There are not.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I venture to say there is something which the Noble Lord has overlooked. If he tells me there is any society in any village in the United Kingdom which is actuarialy sound, and, of course, if it has been running for eighty years it has stood the test, that gives 10s. sickness benefit for twenty-six weeks and 5s. per week up to seventy for invalidity, and is giving maternity benefit of 30s. in each case, and is providing sanatorium benefits, and is also paying for management, because that is included as a penny, and that there is a surplus of 10 per cent.

  1103
  provided after all that, and also in addition that every man who enters at the age of forty is treated as if he were sixteen——
  Lord R. CECIL: No, of course not!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Which is equivalent to an addition of 25 per cent. of the benefits, then I say there must be something fundamentally wrong in my calculation and in those of all the actuaries I have ever met.
  Lord R. CECIL: I fully admit it does not treat people at the age of forty on the same footing as people of the age of sixteen, which seems to me a thoroughly unsound footing, but I do not argue that now, but it gives 10s. a week for fifty-two weeks, 5s. a week so long as disablement lasts, and it gives surgical treatment up to £2, according to the discretion of the committee, and it gives a funeral benefit of £5 on the death of a man and £3 on the death of a wife or widow. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the contribution?"] The average contribution of members is 4d. between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, and the members all join about that age.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to know the cost of management.
  Lord R. CECIL: The cost of management is very cheap.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should rather like to see these figures, but if they can do it at 4d., that proves that when this Bill comes into operation they will be able to give double benefits. This society will be able to give twice as much at least as the result of that, because they can get their money under this Bill, and if they can get people to manage at an equally cheap rate on forming a group of 5,000 in that county, their benefits will be perfectly amazing. The Noble Lord will take it from me that I am not doubting his word when I say that I am very sceptical.
  Lord R. CECIL: I have only got the documents of the society. I cannot pretend that I held an inquiry into the matter.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Upon the statement of the Noble Lord they give medical benefits up to £2.
  Lord R. CECIL: No, surgical treatment. There is no particular medical benefit.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The first thing hon. Members have to get out of their minds is that there is any substantial
  1104
  difference between twenty-six weeks' sickness benefits and fifty-two weeks. Every friendly society will tell you that, and, as a matter of fact, when I proposed to double the number of weeks from thirteen to twenty-six it only made a difference of £560,000 per annum. Any member of a friendly society will tell hon. Members that there is very little difference in the extension of the time of sickness benefit. Fifty-two weeks looks as if you were doing something very sumptuous, but there is very little difference in it. I should be very much surprised if it is a farthing per member. What does make a difference is medical benefit.
  Lord R. CECIL: I did not quite complete my account. I should say that sickness begins on the first day, and not on the fourth day.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That perhaps would make a difference of one-fifth of a penny, or about £560,000 per annum.
  Lord R. CECIL: It makes a difference to the beneficiaries.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It makes a difference of one-fifth of a penny. Medical benefit makes a difference of 1½d.; maternity benefit makes a difference of ½d., that is 2d., and sanatorium benefit makes a difference of one-third of a penny, so there is 2d. and one-third at any rate which the Noble Lord would have to add to his 4d., making it 6⅓d.
  Lord R. CECIL: You give no funeral benefits.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The next thing the Noble Lord says is that the management is very cheap. The management expenses come to 1d. on the average in every society throughout the Kingdom. Of course if you can get men to work for nothing, if the printing is done for nothing, or if members go round and do voluntary work, you can run a society very cheaply; otherwise you must spend 1d. per member for management. If this society does not spend it now they need not spend it in future, and they can give that penny over for medical aid for the rest of the family. How can the Noble Lord say that the benefits his society give correspond in the slightest degree to the benefits we give in this Bill? There are sanatorium and maternity benefits, and there is in addition to that, medical benefit, which between them amount to 2⅓d., not one of which the society of the Noble Lord

  1105
  gives. The only thing he says it gives is sickness benefit for fifty-two weeks and £2 towards surgical treatment. There is nothing of the 10 per cent. of additional benefits and the 25 per cent. for the equalisation of ages.
  Lord R. CECIL: They give funeral benefits amounting to £5 for a man and £3 for a wife or widow.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: £10 funeral benefit comes to about 1d. and £8 would amount to something like ¾d. benefit.
  Lord R. CECIL: What about the first three days of sickness benefit?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That works out at about one-fifth of a penny. So that the actual figures of the Noble Lord, apart altogether from the additional benefits, shows that it would cost his society at least 6½d. to give the minimum benefits under this Bill. Here he gives us a society which is run as cheaply as any society can possibly be run, with practically the whole of the work done as voluntary work, because the Noble Lord tells me that one penny is not spent upon management.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not want to mislead the House. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how it works out in pennies, and the actual amount would not, of
  course, be of any value for the purpose of discussion such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is engaged in. I can tell the actual amount spent, but that would be of no value.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How many members are there?
  Lord R. CECIL: Just under 1,000.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very difficult to argue this matter, because the Noble Lord has not the whole of the facts. All I know is that management costs one penny. If it only costs a half-penny in this case, then, in order to produce the minimum benefits which this Bill gives the members of that society would have to pay 6d. That shows that when you analyse these things they hopelessly break down. I am not suggesting that the Noble Lord is attempting in the slightest degree to mislead the House. I know he is incapable of that, but I think he will find, on looking into this matter, and comparing it with the actuarial figures, it is quite impossible that these minimum benefits could be given by that society. I think I have now dealt with all the points put to me.
  Question put "That those words be there inserted.
  The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 175.

  Division No. 423.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Hebert Pike (Darlington)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, J. L.

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boyton, James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Croft, H. P.

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Louth)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newman, John R. P.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hicks-Beach and Col. Hickman.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Adamson, William

  Glanville, H. J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Alden, Percy

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Phillips, John (Longford, E.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Hackett, J.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Barton, W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Henry, Sir Charles E. H.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hinds, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Boland, John Pius

  Hodge, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brace, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  John, Edward Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, W.

  Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sheehy, David

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Shortt, Edward

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Joyce, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Snowden, Philip

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Clough, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wardle, George J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Waring, Walter

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Delany, William

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Webb, H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dillon, John

  Molloy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Doris, W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Munro, R.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Neilson, Francis

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Nuttall, Harry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Furness, Stephen

  O'Doherty, Philip

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Sir CHARLES HENRY: I beg to move, in Part I, after the word "week" ["4d. a week"], to insert the words "and in the case of members of the Territorial Force whilst in civilian employment, 2d. a week." The object of this Amendment is to give preferential treatment to members of the Territorial Force. In Committee, on Clause 5, replying to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wilts, asking that preferential treatment should be given to members of the Territorial Force who were voluntary contributors, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly said, that if he
  1108
  allowed that Amendment it would only bring in a very small number, whereas a large number of the members of the Territorial Force would come within the scope of employed contributors. After the discussion on the last Amendment I think we have to admit that the flat rate has to some extent been modified. The object of this Amendment is that the members of the Territorial Force should pay 2d. a week, and it is not the intention to have the benefits in any way curtailed. As far as I can ascertain from different friendly societies and approved societies, they

  1109
  would not object to members of the Territorial Force being brought in at the reduced rate, because it is well known that they are not admitted to the force unless they are physically sound. If on the other hand the approved societies would not admit them at the reduced rate, by forming a society of their own, the members of the Territorial Force, with the contribution of 5d. as employed contributors and the contribution from the employer, would be able to get better benefits for themselves. The great object of this Bill is to improve the standard of health of the people of this country, and in my opinion there is no more effective way of accomplishing this object than by attracting young men to join the Territorial Force. During the time they are there they are physically sound, and they have a good training to make them fit when they retire.
  According to recent accounts the Territorial Force is not in a particularly flourishing condition, and, I believe, if some inducement was given in this scheme, it might help recruiting and bring members into the force. It may be said there is no material consideration in a difference of 2d. per week, but it is 8s. 8d. a year, and that is more than half a week's wages of many of the members. It would help to pay the additional expenses they incur in having to attend drills, etc., and it would show the Government recognise those men who give voluntary national service should receive special consideration in a national scheme of insurance. The acceptance of my Amendment would mean a redution of 8s. 8d. on the contributions of the members of the Territorial Force. At present there are about 250,000 members. About 200,000 would come within the category of employed contributors. Even if the Territorial Force was up to its full strength, 300,000, about 250,000 might be regarded as employed contributors, and the reduction on the contributions of the whole of those 250,000 would mean about £110,000 a year. I hope I shall not be told a scheme which involves about £25,000,000 of different contributions will in any way be endangered by making that small concession. I hope also some concession will be made to the employers of the members of the Territorial Force. I should like to see their contributions reduced 1d., which would mean a sum of £50,000. We cannot disguise the fact that a good many employers who take members of the Territorial Force suffer considerable
  1110
  inconvenience when they are called out for training. I therefore think they deserve some degree of consideration and recognition.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Who is to provide the money?
  Sir. C. HENRY: The money will be practically found by the approved societies. The members of the Territorial Force are the best class of life, and the approved societies would be able to pay the same benefits on reduced rates. I believe this proposal would be fairly popular, would meet with general approbation, and would add to the strength of the Territorial Force.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I wish to second this Amendment, principally with the object of doing some good to the Territorial Force. I understand the Territorial Force at the present time is something like 50,000 under establishment. This fact has given the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) some considerable trouble, judging from speeches I have read in the papers lately. In fact, he went so far as to throw out a challenge to a certain association to which I, in common with the officers of the Territorial Force, belong. I allude to the National Service League. He said if the gentlemen belonging to this association would only put their backs to the work and try to get recruits for the Territorial Force they would do much more good than they were doing by their propaganda. It would be much more to the point if the Under-Secretary of State for War would give his undoubted energy in trying to get a little money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the object of this Amendment. If the money were found, either in the War Office Vote or otherwise, then we could offer some inducement to the ordinary citizen to spend some time of his life in learning to defend his country. At the present time there is practically no inducement whatever, and it is only by the patriotism of the particular individual we have been able to get the 250,000 soldiers we have now. If this concession, reducing the contributions of the men serving in the Territorial Force from 4d. to 2d. were made, it would make a very great difference indeed, and would induce a great many more young men to join the force.
  Mr. McKENNA: The object of this Amendment has been fairly and frankly

  1111
  stated, both by the hon. Gentleman who moved it and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it. Their case is that they wish to do some good to the Territorial Force. That, I can assure them, is an object which the Government share with them, and, if this were the proper place and this Bill afforded a convenient opportunity for doing good to the Territorial Force, they would have no better friends than upon the Government Bench; but, when we turn to the business of this proposal, I regret to say it does not stand examination. What is the case of my hon. Friend? He says he believes the friendly societies would accept members of the Territorial Force on payment of 5d. instead of 7d. That belief does great credit to his heart, but unless he is able to give evidence in the nature of pledges by friendly societies, great and well-known friendly societies, that they would accept these members at 5d. instead of 7d., I must beg leave to decline to share his view. Then he says the money would practically be found by the approved societies. I have always observed that the word "practically" is almost synonymous with "not." The approved societies could not pretend to find the necessary difference between 5d. and 7d. out of their funds. If they found the money, it would mean they would be finding it at the expense of their other members.
  Colonel HICKMAN: The War Office might find it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to that point. There could be nothing more disastrous to the reputation of the Territorial Force than if the members were living as a kind of charity on the kindness of other members of friendly societies.
  Sir C. HENRY: They might form an approved society of their own.
  Mr. McKENNA: One thing at a time. Therefore, I am afraid the suggestion that the approved societies should find the difference themselves is impracticable. Then there is the third suggestion that the members of the Territorial Force should form an approved society of their own. We have no actuarial figures before us to show that even in a society of their own, that they could still obtain the minimum benefits of the Bill with their contributions of 5d. My hon. Friend has not established his case with a single proved statement as to the value to the members of the Territorial
  1112
  Force of a contribution of 5d. The hon. and gallant Member for Wolverhampton threw across the House a suggestion that the difference should be found by the Government. If he had proposed that in his speech he would have been out of order, and I should be equally out of order in discussing it now. We are, therefore, limited to the suggestions actually made, each of which, I fear, would prove entirely impracticable. While the Government would be prepared to accept any proposal which would assist the Territorial movement, I do not believe for one moment that the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's Amendment would have any beneficial influence on the Territorial Force. At any rate it is quite impracticable to work, and, under these circumstances, I regret that I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept it.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am sorry the Home Secretary has said what he has. Of course we all knew there was only one way in which to meet the difficulty, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we should be out of order if we proposed it. If the hon. Gentleman opposite had framed his Amendment for the special purpose of inviting an increased contribution on the part of the State, it would not have been in order, although we are aware that is the only way in which this thing can be done. The hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House tried several times to bring the case of the members of the Territorial Force forward when we were in Committee, but were always referred to the Schedules as the only opportunity of raising the question. We had no opportunity of doing that owing to the pressure of the guillotine, but to-night we have arrived at a point when we can raise the question, and now we are told we cannot press it, because to do so would put us out of order. The Government, however, have known for weeks and months of the desire of some hon. Members to press this matter on their attention. When the Home Secretary tells us that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to enforce his argument by quoting statistics, he knows as well as anybody that we are prevented from developing the case. But the Government were not prevented from inquiring into the question for themselves during the period which has elapsed since it was first raised, and if they had had any inclination to adopt the view put forward by the hon.

  1113
  Member opposite, they had ample time in which to do it. I think it would have been far more satisfactory for the House if they had availed themselves of that opportunity.
  On the merits of the question, I hold that members of the Territorial Force ought to have every possible advantage given to them. I gather that even the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are agreed upon that. If that be the case, and if the House agrees that members of the Territorial Force ought to be treated differently from other ordinary members of the community, there is one way in which their case can be met. The Government can recommit the Bill and reframe their Financial Resolution. I gather the Home Secretary is not prepared to take that course. I can only express my regret at the decision of the Government, and say that if the hon. Baronet will go to a Division I will support him in the Lobby.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I also desire to support the Amendment. The Home Secretary has told us we should be out of order in discussing ways and means by which effect can be given to it. But this is the first opportunity we have had of saying a word on behalf of the Territorial Force, and of urging that they should secure some advantage from the passage of the Bill. The Home Secretary expresses vast sympathy with the Territorial Force, but says this is neither the time nor place in which to give effect to it. Is there any place or any time where it would be possible to give some encouragement to members
  of the Territorial Force, and to their employers as well? Can we do anything at all? The answer to these questions is usually stereotyped. We get sympathy expressed on behalf of the force, but we are told that the particular point at which the suggestion is made is neither the place nor the time to give effect to that sympathy in a practical way. The Home Secretary told the hon. Gentleman opposite that he had not given a single proved statement in support of his argument. This Amendment gives an advantage to members of the Territorial Force. We do not want an approved statement. Hon. Members have asked the House to consider what is merely a practical scheme without giving elaborate proofs and figures. The Amendment says simply that exceptions should be made on behalf of employed persons who are members of the Territorial Force. My hon. Friend the Member for the Sevenoaks Division has indicated that there are methods which can be adopted to give full effect to that proposal. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, so that we may record not merely our sympathy with it, but our desire and intention to do something for the advantage of the Territorial Force. Should the Amendment be carried I am certain means may be found by the Treasury Bench to take the necessary steps to carry it into effect.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 166.

  Division No. 424.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fell, Arthur

  Newman, John R. P.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldman, C. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gretton, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Boyton, J.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hohler, G. F.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Horner, A. L.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Larmer, Sir J.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Croft, H. P.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Starkey, John R.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Swift, Rigby

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Talbot, Lord E.

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir C. Henry and Col. Hickman.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Wheier, Granville C. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Adamson, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Alden, Percy

  Hackett, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinbrgh, Central)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Barton, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bentham, George J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hodge, John

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Boland, John Pius

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Robinson, Sidney

  Brace, William

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Johnson, William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgteon)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Shortt, Edward

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrock

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Snowden, Philip

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summers, James Woolley

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Wadsworth, John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  De Forest, Baron

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wardle, George J.

  Delany, William

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Webb, H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Martin, J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dillon, John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks. E. R.)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doris, William

  Molloy, Michael

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Munro, Robert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Needharn, Christopher T.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Neilson, F.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Furness, Stephen

  Nuttall, Harry

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingwarth and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move in Part 1., to leave out "7d." ["in the case of men 7d. a week"], and to insert instead thereof "6d."
  In this Amendment there are two points which we do not raise: first of all, the question of contribution, and secondly the question of a flat rate. We assume that both of these points have been settled. The only question I want to raise is the burden of the incidence of the contribution, particularly upon the workmen's shoulders.
  1116
  Our original proposition was that the three contributions should be equal: 3d., 3d., and 3d., but under the present circumstances it is impossible for us to ask the State to increase its burden, and so the field upon which we stand this evening is the narrow field of raising the question of the contribution from the workmen, and whether in the case of workmen earning some 15s. a week it should be as much as 4d. This point has really never been specifically discussed. It has been

  1117
  referred to from time to time, but it has never been raised as a definite and separate issue. The argument of the Government is this; it states that it would be very beneficial to everybody concerned if every man and woman earning wages could make adequate provision for sickness and permanent invalidity. There is no dispute on that point. We are all agreed about that. But it would also be a very good thing for everybody concerned if every man and woman who earned wages could supply themselves with a good library, with a full cupboard, and ample housing accommodation situated in a very clean street, in the midst of delightful country scenery. We are all agreed about that. But the situation which we have to face is this unfortunate one, that the incomes of the majority of the wage-earners are not sufficient to enable them to do everything that they ought do, and when we begin to catalogue the desirable and even the necessary things of life and say sickness ample, food ample, clothing and so on, we discover that before we come to the end of our catalogue we have come lamentably to the end of our income. And the consequence is that we have to face this very interesting and very intricate problem of how a man with 15s. a week can best spend his money. If we say to him that there are certain things which he ought to do, and which we are going to compel him to do completely, then we are saying in the same breath that other things which he ought to do he can either do very incompletely or not at all. That is the position that we occupy in reference to this contribution. The Government says, we abstract from the sum total of the desirable and necessary things the provision for sickness, and we compel everybody to make this provision. We insure them against it, and we are so determined that they shall be insured against it, that they shall not handle at all the necessary premiums, but those premiums are going to be deducted from wages by the employers. Then they say further, in the second Section of Schedule 4, "if we are taking more from you than is necessary to do the things which we declare to be absolutely necessary—namely, insurance against sickness and invalidity and so on, then we will make provision that the surplus shall go in matters which are of secondary importance—what they call their additional benefits. I think that is the situation.
  9.0 P.M.
  Is that situation a rational one? I say it is not. That a man with 15s. a week
  1118
  should pay the same insurance premium as a man with £2 a week is really absurd, and you cannot get out of it. From the point of view of the man who brushes on one side the question of individual income it is a perfectly sound proposition, because if sickness comes in varying proportion to the man with 15s. a week and the man with £2 a week it comes oftener to the man with 15s. than to the man with £2, and from that point of view the flat rate is a perfectly logical rate. They get the same benefit precisely, but the man with 15s. a week has got to organise his expenditure on a totally different footing from the man with £2 a week, so that the argument that they get the same benefit has nothing to do with the question at all. They will get the same benefit if you compel them to spend £20 a year on good books, but the chances are that the man with 15s. a week will have a better head than the man with £2 a week to take advantage of the book. Nevertheless, that does not justify such an absurd proposition as that which I suggest. Therefore, my contention is that the reply which has been so common from the Front Bench, and the constant displaying of the benefits in a sort of Regent Street shop window, is no reply at all. It does not touch the point. We will discuss the benefits when we have settled the premiums. We will discuss what he gets after we have settled how we can pay for it or what he can pay. I dare say the same old argument and the same old reply will be made, but that reply has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the argument. The argument that we are putting up is an argument which relates to the man who has an income which is going to suffer deductions, and not anything that you are going to give him ten, twenty, or fifty years hence in the shape of benefits. I want to drive home another reply to the argument which we have heard frequently stated from the Front Bench, and which we heard this afternoon. It is said if there is a surplus at the time of the valuation it goes to additional benefit, but that only makes the case worse. Assuming, to begin with, that you are charging too much, that is not a virtue but a vice. It is just as much a vice as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says to me, a taxpayer, "I want £200,000,000, and you have to pay your share," when, as a matter of fact, he only wants £150,000,000. It is no virtue for a man to so absolutely overestimate the cost of Government that he charges 50 per cent. too much, and at the end of

  1119
  the year to boast about his balance. That sort, of Chancellor of the Exchequer should be discharged rather than blessed, and to say "We give you a tremendous number of secondary additional benefits" is, as a matter of fact, a blemish on the scheme rather than an advantage, as it seems to be regarded by some of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
  There is another point. We had a very dramatic display this afternoon of argument in a graphic method. We had that diagram which is ultimately going to find its way into the Tea Room. It showed that the perpendicular rapid rise of the curve-took place after the average life of the poorer paid workman had come to an end. He is not there at all when these benefits come. When that diagram goes into the Tea Room, if some hon. Member would take the liberty to draw in blue pencil a line which marks the average limit of life of the classes with, say, 20s. a week average income, he will discover that the blue line will come before the upward curve becomes very prominent. There, again, if the average sickness, taken right through the diagram, is going to be the basis of the actuarial calculation, the class I have in my mind, the 15s. a week man, is practically outside the scope of the heavier insurances. I think all that really ought to be much more scientifically worked out and much more carefully put into the Bill, and that the machinery of the Bill should be much more accurately adjusted to meet the circumstances than is actually the case. That is our case against the 4d. The State, of course, could have stated what it has said—10s., and so on, is the minimum; it is no use having a scheme of this kind unless you have 10s. That is what it has said. But it ought to have said in addition to that, "We have to find out what the various grades of wage-earners can pay," and then, having found that out, it ought to have said, "then we, the State, have to find the remainder." But that was not the process at all. The process apparently has been that the State discovers that the mass of expenditure required can be divided into ninths, and says, "All that we, the State, can afford to pay is two-ninths, and we have to shuffle the rest on to the backs of the employer and the employed." That is a very bad way, and it has landed us with the 4d. being imposed upon wages of 15s. a week. My impression is that 3d. from the workman, 3d. from the employer,
  1120
  and two-ninths from the State—if we cannot do more, and we cannot raise the question whether we can get more on the Report stage—would be amply sufficient to give the prime benefits for which the Bill was drafted and brought in. Let us knock out the extra benefits. They do not rank at all. The prime purpose of this legislation, the fundamental idea which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his mind, can, I believe, be adequately met by the scale I propose.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend. I agree with every word he said. I believe the benefits promised in the Bill could be met by contributions of 8d. per week from the three contributing parties. While we have heard a great deal this afternoon about the low paid agricultural labourer, I would point out that he is a great deal better off than the labourer in the large towns. If you go into the factories, or engineering works, or into mining districts, you will find a very large number of men whose wages range from 15s. to £1 per week, and their expenditure upon household requirements is a great deal more than that of agricultural labourers. That being so, I think the Amendment whereby the contribution of these low paid wage-earners would be reduced to 3d. would be a boon. I would like to point out also that there are hundreds of homes in the large cities where the father is earning 16s. or 17s. per week, and he may have a family of five or six dependent upon him. That man is a great deal worse off than the single person whose wage is 9s. per week. That being so, we are justified in asking the Government to consider the Amendment seriously. As regards the labouring classes in the larger towns, we hear that in the cotton mills wages are very low indeed. In fact there are a large number of men earning 17s. or 18s. per week. Many of these men are parents. Many of them perhaps have sons who begin, at fifteen years of age to help to keep the home going. They would have to pay 4d. a week until they are twenty-one years of age. I think the condition of these people should be seriously considered, if not by the Government, at any rate by the House of Commons.
  Ministers have got up and pointed out the benefits the worker is going to receive; and one would be led to believe that everyone insured under this Bill is going to get 10s. per week for a certain number of weeks, and 5s. for the rest of his life.

  1121
  It is not so. What we on these benches wish is that as few men as possible should come upon the benefits, and I am quite satisfied that in a few years' time the health of the nation will be so improved that 8d. per week will not be required to meet the expenditure on benefits. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) that we ought to proceed simply with the minimum benefits promised in the Bill, and leave time to prove whether the contributions will provide additional benefits or not. I do earnestly appeal to the Government and Members of the House of Commons to give this Amendment their most careful consideration. I do not altogether agree with the actuaries. I do not speak as an expert in these matters, but actuaries make mistakes; and in my opinion they have made a great mistake in this case in regard to the amount of money required to meet the liabilities under the Bill. The arguments based upon the figures furnished by the actuaries remind me of an advertisement on the hoardings, "If 'John Bull' says it is, it is so." If the actuaries say it is so, then it is so; but I believe time will prove that the actuaries have made a great mistake as to the revenue required to meet the expenditure under the Bill.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I desire to support the Amendment on the ground of the relief it will afford to the heavy burdens which fall upon the working classes in connection with this Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) suggested that he did not intend to call upon the Treasury to increase its grants, but that he proposed the contributions should be reduced to 6d., the workman only paying 3d., and that certain benefits should be eliminated from the Bill. I think I can show that all the benefits suggested under the Bill can be maintained by the simple process of extending the period of the sinking fund. I intended to move an Amendment in the Committee stage with that object, but unfortunately it was guillotined, and we never reached it. By extending the period of the sinking fund from eighteen and a-half years to eighty years you would be able to reduce the contribution from 7d. to 6d., and charge the workman only 3d. It is acknowledged that the burden imposed by the Bill is a very heavy one. The hon. Member for Leicester has given an illustration showing how heavy is the incidence of the charge which falls upon the working classes. If the burden is so heavy it
  1122
  should be made as imperceptible as possible, and that would have been done by accepting the proposal which I intended to make. Let us remember that for eighteen years the benefits are going to be the same. The benefits will only change after eighteen and a-half years. Let me point out that at present the younger lives will receive no contribution whatever from the State. More than that, all the younger lives that come in during the next eighteen and a-half years will receive no contribution from the State. Between 400,000 and 500,000 will come into the scheme under the Bill in the next eighteen years, and you will have 7,000,000 coming under the Bill and obliged to contribute, and being told that they are going to get a contribution of 2d. from the State, while in reality they are not going to receive a farthing. Let me make good this assertion. The older lives come into this scheme, some of them at the age of sixty, receiving a 2s. 6d. benefit for 4d. The average of all the benefits under the scheme works out at 9d., and in order to give a man who comes under this Bill the average of 9d. for 7d., the Government are giving a contribution of 2d. But in the case of the younger lives see how it works out. If the Government were to contribute towards them as well they would be receiving 9d. for 7d. But what happens is that they contribute 7d. and the Government, under Clause 51, immediately proceeds to deduct one and five-ninths of a penny; therefore, the benefits are correspondingly reduced by the equivalent. Hence, also, the Treasury contribution is reduced by two-sevenths of one and five-ninths of a penny, or four-ninths of a penny. Therefore the total reduction comes to one and five-ninths plus four-ninths of a penny, which means 2d. In other words, the younger lives contribute 7d. and only receive 7d. worth of benefit, and not 9d. worth. Under this Bill you are forcing these younger lives to come in and pay 7d., and yet you are depriving them of the State subsidy of 2d. But under our alternative proposals, which I hope will also meet the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment we reduce the contribution from 7d. to 6d. So it works out that instead of deducting one and five-ninths of a penny every week you only deduct five-ninths of a penny. In other words you are left with five and four-ninths of a penny only to represent seven-ninths of the benefit. Therefore the total benefits are nine-sevenths of that. The 6d. is to be the contribution in future if this Amendment is accepted, and immediately five-

  1123
  ninths of a penny are deducted from the 6d. instead of one and five-ninths of a penny as at present prescribed in the Bill. In other words this leaves five and four-ninths of a penny instead of 6d.; this represents seven-ninths of the benefit. Therefore the total benefit represents nine-sevenths of five and four-ninths of a penny. In other words, the position is this: If the hon. Member's Amendment is carried and my proposal is accepted, they will be getting for 6d. contribution 7d. worth of benefit. This is an enormous advantage for the younger lives coming in for this reason: under existing schemes they pay 7d. and only receive 7d. instead of 9d. Under this proposal they would be paying 6d, and receiving 7d. in return. The advantage to the State is this: that instead of having to contribute 2d. they would only have to contribute 1d. Finally, let us see how this really works out. The younger lives are to receive a State subsidy of a 1d. instead of receiving nothing. As far as the older lives are concerned, the contribution is going to be reduced from 7d. to 6d., and they are going to receive 9d. worth of benefit for 6d.—instead of 9d. for 7d., though the State will be called upon to contribute only 1d. instead of 2d. This operation does not increase the responsibility of the State. Older lives are going to have a higher benefit but a smaller contribution, and so far as younger lives are concerned you are going to give them a State benefit which otherwise they would not receive. For these reasons I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their decision on this matter, accept me Amendment of the hon. Gentleman and recommit Clause 51 to enable the sinking fund to be reduced from one and five-ninths of a penny to the five-ninths of a penny.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member who spoke last has greatly complicated the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). He has introduced to it another set of ideas which are quite foreign to the purpose of my hon. Friend in moving his Amendment to reduce the joint contribution from 7d. to 6d. Before I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, I should like to say a word upon the suggested plan of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman). His first point is that the young person who enters the scheme at the age of sixteen receives no benefit from the State contribution. That
  1124
  is quite true. It is not novel. It was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Bill and he explained what was the remedy under this scheme for that undoubted drawback. However, the entrant himself at the age of sixteen does get a considerable advantage. He pays 4d. and receives benefits which he could only, without this scheme, obtain by contribution of 7d. What is his peculiar advantage under the Bill as it now stands? After eighteen and a half years, when he is still only thirty-four years of age, he will come into the scheme at increased benefits and he will enjoy those increased benefits for a longer period than those who enter the scheme above the age of sixteen at the present time. The hon. Member has left that fact entirely out of his calculation. The large part of contributions in the earlier days of membership of an approved society are purely to build up the reserve. Any person who enters at sixteen is the person who is going to get the benefit of the scheme at the early age of thirty-four and a half years. That is to say, if a person of the age of sixteen enters the scheme in the first year, in eighteen and a half years he will get the full benefit of the money which will become available at the end of that period. How does the hon. Member propose to meet the case? He proposes to extend the waiting period from eighteen and a half years to eighty years, so that the unfortunate youth who enters at the age of sixteen would have to reach the mature of ninety-six before he could obtain his share, of his additional money. According to the scheme of the hon. member, instead of getting the benefit at the age of thirty-five, for the saving of a 1d. in his contribution, he would, under the scheme of the hon. Gentleman, lose far more than the value of that 1d. during the remainder of his life. The hon. Gentleman informs the House that if the period be extended to eighty years instead of being limited to eighteen and a half years, the period for the payment of the initial debt of sixty-seven millions, the contribution of 5–9ths of a 1d. would be sufficient to make good the deficiency. Is he quite sure of that?
  Mr. GOLDMAN: If the Government make the concession.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am assuming that the concession is made to extend the period of the payment of the initial debt from eighteen and a half years to eighty years. Would 5–9ths of 1d. pay it? I doubt very

  1125
  much whether it would pay the interest, much less the sinking fund.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: According to the original scheme we were required to redeem this amount in fifteen and a half years. By the concession which the Government has since made, the period has been increased to eighteen and a half years, and the amount is now swollen from sixty-two million pounds to sixty-eight million pounds. That being so, my figures would be altered to a certain extent from the eighty years, and would be increased to ninety years. That is due to the concession which the Government has made. The calculation I have made includes interest.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member's figures have been sprung upon me, and it is very difficult on the spur of the moment to enter into a difficult calculation as between five-ninths of a 1d. and seven-ninths of a 1d. Still, I very much doubt whether it would be possible that five-ninths of a 1d. would pay even the interest on the Sinking Fund in ninety years. I doubt whether it would be sufficient alone to pay even the interest; and, so far as the Sinking Fund is concerned, it would be annually increasing instead of diminishing. I am informed by competent authorities that five-ninths of a 1d. would not pay the interest, and that, so far from paying the debt, there would be an annual increase of that debt. I am afraid that the interesting calculation made by the hon. Gentleman would not bear actuarial examination. I turn now to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). On another stage of the Bill he proposed an Amendment to divide the 9d. into equal parts, 3d. to be paid by the employer, 3d. by the workman, and 3d. by the State. I do not intend, of course, to take such advantage as I might of every argument he put forward. What has he based himself upon? My hon. Friend says that 4d. is too heavy a contribution to exact from the workman earning 15s. a week. It is undoubtedly a considerable proportion of his income. But what is our experience at the present time? It is an actual fact that the special class of workman whose case has already been put before the House, the agricultural labourers, with wages at 15s. a week and less, are very largely insured at the present time.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Fifteen shillings a week, plus other things.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am taking 15s. a week, and less, all included for agricultural labourers. There are agricultural labourers whose wages are 15s. a week, plus other things, but there are agricultural labourers with much less wages than 15s. a week in money, and whose total wages, all included, do not exceed 15s. a week. Yet, amongst that very class, you find that a considerable proportion of them are already insured in friendly societies, with a contribution of no less than 6d. a week. Undoubtedly, nobody will dispute that it is a heavy exaction upon wages of 15s. per week, but it is an exaction which a large number of agricultural labourers are now more than willing to pay, and willing to pay for less benefits than this Bill offers. Persons with an income of less than 15s. a week have been willing to find 6d. for less benefits than are offered under the Bill, and it cannot, therefore, be suggested that they will be unable to pay 4d. where they have paid 6d. before, and it cannot be disputed that they will be better off with a payment of 4d. than they are with a payment of 6d. But is the hon. Gentleman justified in basing the whole of his argument on the case of a man whose wages are 15s. a week? Really, on my hon. Friend's Amendment, the only point we have to consider is whether, taking the extreme lower limit of 15s. a week, 4d. is too heavy a demand to make. Below 15s. a week the Government are in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester that the contribution under the Bill should be less. But taking the extreme case, and having regard to the amount of the voluntary contribution already paid by agricultural labourers with small wages, I do not think it can be fairly said that 4d. is beyond the power of workmen to pay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester slightly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire in more detail, argued that these benefits could be given upon a total contribution of 8d., being 3d. from the employer, 3d. from the workman, and 2d. from the State. What proof is there of that? I wish to follow the argument fairly. Undoubtedly in the report of the actuaries it appears that there is a margin over and above the actual amount required in order to give the immediate benefit, but no actuary would advise that the scheme is sound unless there were such a margin. Is it reasonable that the Government should make itself responsible for a scheme of benefits which no first-class actuary in

  1127
  the country could be found to guarantee as financially sound. It may prove, and I am pretty confident it will prove, and it ought to prove, that on the expiration of the period of the first valuation that the distribution of the benefits has not exhausted the whole of the funds available. No doubt it would then be possible to consider either the extension of the benefits by additional benefits, or else the repayment of contributions. It is provided in the Bill that additional benefits may be provided amongst other ways by part payment of the contribution, so that the suggestion is not altogether excluded from the Bill. But no Government could be expected to introduce a scheme which on the face of it was not merely actuarialy sound, but as well approved of by competent actuaries. From that argument, I regret to say, that the suggestion of my hon. Friend that all the benefits could be provided for out of the contribution of 8d. instead of 9d. could not be found sound.
  The hon. Member commented on the Paper which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited earlier showing how at the later ages in life the rate of sickness rapidly increases, and he argued that the scheme had not been scientifically considered because, as he truly said, in many classes of employment in the country the workman died before they reached the average age at which the rates of sickness rise very quickly. That is true, but my right hon. Friend was dealing in averages. It is equally true that in those trades in which the mortality is great, and in which, perhaps, the average age of death may be fifty, instead of sixty, as in the more healthy trades, there is an equal amount of sickness, but the age of sickness comes earlier. It is impossible to argue from tables which are drawn up to cover the average over the country the case of individual trades. My hon. Friend could not suggest that if you take a very unhealthy trade where the average of life is not beyond fifty, that because the whole average of sickness——
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. McKENNA: The average workingman's life is over sixty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no." "It is not over forty."] I think the mortality tables show that the average of life is far longer than my hon. Friend suggests. I do not mean the expectation
  1128
  of life. I know of no trade in which the average mortality is as low as the age of forty.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Masons.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The grinders of Sheffield.
  Mr. McKENNA: The average age of general masons is far over forty. Take the most unhealthy trade in which you may say that the average death rate is not much more than forty. In that there has been a great deal of sickness before that age, and in those special trades the period of sickness occurs earlier in life. That does not vitiate the tables or show that they are wrong, and it is quite impossible to argue as to one trade from the whole average over the whole country. I think my hon. Friend is not justified in arguing that the scheme has not been considered scientifically. On the contrary. This scheme, involves immense difficulties, and I venture to say there has been no scheme ever produced in this House which from beginning to end has had the advantage of more scientific investigation and examination than this insurance scheme. I should think we should have no difficulty in convincing my hon. Friend, though it is not a matter easily discussed over the floor of the House, that those tables which my right hon. Friend exhibited do justify in every detail on a scientific basis the actual scheme on which the Bill has been founded.
  Mr. FORSTER: I was very much interested in the speech which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) made in introducing his Amendment. He spoke with great knowledge and with great moderation, and, to my mind, he carried conviction, and the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman) made bearing on the same point was, I think, not fully appreciated by the Members of the House who listened to it. What is the question that underlies both the speeches? The question is, Are you giving full value for the contributions which you ask the workman or the contributor to pay? I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth, that by postponing the payment of the sinking fund, I will not say for the full term of eighty years, but for some time, at any rate, you would have at your command a sum of money which would enable you to make some reduction in the contributions that you invite under

  1129
  this Bill. I think a very ample margin has been allowed by the actuaries in their estimates. You must not exhaust that margin, but you might draw on it to a certain extent to supplement what is saved by postponing the payment to the sinking fund.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would not come nearly to 1d.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think you could get very near to 1d., and it would be well worth while seeing how near 1d. you could get, knowing that you have at your command all the resources of the State to supplement any deficit that is found to exist after the Act has been working for a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that that is an impossible situation; that you must know actuarily how you stand, that before you embark on this scheme at all you must be able to say precisely what your liabilities are. A great many of our liabilities are not precisely defined now; many of our responsibilities are not laid down with that certainty which some of us would desire. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would display in this matter some of the courage which he undoubtedly possesses in others I think he would be able to allow this reduction in the total contribution to be made, and it would be greatly to the advantage of the persons concerned. The question raised by the Amendment is not confined to members of the working classes. What the hon. Member for Leicester proposes is a reduction in the total amount contributed by employers and employed, and he has advanced a very strong argument for carrying the saving under his proposal to the benefit of the employed persons. If we had had more time I should not have ventured to say what I am going to say, although I believe it to be strictly in order on this Amendment.
  There is another consideration which the House ought not to leave out of account, and that is the possible effect upon the wage-earners of imposing a burden—I do not call it a tax—upon the employers of labour who will be affected by this Bill. There is a large class of men, insured persons themselves, who will have to pay for the insurance of those whom they employ—servants in small households and so on. This Bill is going to hit them very hard. I remember talking to a friend of mine, a clerk in the City, who told me that amongst the more poorly paid clerks, whenever an unexpected cause of expenditure arises,
  1130
  there is only one fund out of which they can meet it, namely, the fund which they have provided for their holidays. Their budgets have to be made with scrupulous care; every item of expenditure has to be weighed; and my friend told me that it is a common practice amongst men of that class, after they have provided for all the expenses they can foresee, to set aside so much for their annual holiday. If they are called upon to meet any extraordinary expenditure the holiday fund is the only one out of which they can meet it. We do not want to deplete the holiday fund of these men, especially when we are dealing with a matter affecting their health. There is nothing that will tend so much to lessen the liability of these men to come upon the fund as good holidays and fresh air. There is another class of employers—those who cannot afford to pay more than very low wages. Personally I, in common with with every other Member of the House, hate to contemplate the payment of wholly inadequate wages. But it is idle to leave out of account the fact that there are some businesses carried on at the present time that cannot afford to pay anything but miserable wages.
  Take the ready-made clothing trade. Years ago, before there was any question of this Bill, I was told by one who is a considerable man in that world that his expenditure has to be very strictly limited, because the moment his cost of production exceeds a certain figure German competition ruins his business. He is driven to bring his cost of production below the figure at which he can meet German competition, and the only way in which he can do that is by paying a rate of wages of which he is ashamed, and which he hates to pay, but which does at any rate keep his workpeople alive, and for which he can find any quantity of people to apply for vacant situations. What are we to do with men like that? To impose any really serious increase on their cost of production—anything like 6d. a week per man—might be fatal. You may say that that is a business which it is far better should come to an end. I know there are Members who take that view. But the workpeople do not take that view, for the reason if you drive them out of that employment they will find it exceedingly difficult to get any other employment at their trade. To my mind there is-only one way in which you can meet that sort of difficulty, and that is to put an end, as far as we can, to any form of unfair

  1131
  competition. There are other employers besides those who pay low wages who will be very much concerned if this Bill passes as it stands. I have here a communication which I received a couple of days ago from one of my Constituents. It puts the point so shortly that I hope the House will allow me to read it. This is written by a large firm of fruit growers:—
  "Our last year's turnover was £5,491, out of which we got less than £60 profit. We paid away in wages £2,481, and I think the new Bill, if it becomes law, will cost us about 10s. per week; that is to say, it will absorb practically half the profit of last year. We cannot afford to continue business on these lines. The only alternative is to lower wages or to give up business. Which do you advise us to do?"
  [HON. MEMBER: "What is his rent?"] His rent is the ordinary rent which land in that part of Kent commands—probably from £2 10s. to £3 an acre. The right hon. Gentleman makes an exclamation of horror.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  Mr. FORSTER: Something very akin to it. The point really is this: It is not a question of the rent he has to pay; it is the question whether or not this Bill is going so to interfere with his business as to make him unwilling to continue his work as at present conducted. He probably employs on an average forty men. He says it will cost him 10s. a week under the Bill. That is 3d. a week for forty men. Those are cases which we cannot leave out of account. Anything which is going to tend to make employment more difficult and less easy to secure is going to go far to counter-balance any advantage which we hope to give when we pass this Bill into law.
  There is one further trade to which doubtless the Chancellor of the Exchequer will refer when he comes to speak. I mean the cotton trade. This business has to consider the export trade generally. They have found, so I am told—I do not speak from experience—the greatest possible difficulty in keeping their cost of production so low as to enable them to overcome the difficulties which they meet in foreign tariffs, world-wide competition, and so on. Members of the House have been inundated with memoranda fired into them by leading men in the cotton industry, and leading employers of labour in other parts of the country, dealing with this problem. It is possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have something to say which will satisfy them and relieve the apprehensions
  1132
  which they have at the present time. I think we ought to remember that this is a Bill for insuring against sickness and unemployment. It does not prevent either. It only provides the benefits where either occur. But if by anything that we do we are ging to make employment less secure and less remunerative, or make it less worth the while of employers to employ the fullest possible number of hands, then I am afraid we shall only create that which we have set out to cure.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. The speech which we have just listened to illustrates the possibility of organising a combination against the Bill which has nothing in common. My hon. Friend proposes to take 1d. off in order to give it to the labourer, whilst the case of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is rather a reduction of the employer's contribution. He wants 1d. off the employers in order——
  HON. MEMBERS: To kill the Bill.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no, that is not the proposal of the hon. Member. Nor will he be able to induce the Labour party to accept ½d. and give the other ½d. to the employer. On the contrary, the only effect of the success of the combination will be to start the scheme as a bankrupt one. I want all those in the House of Commons who really have the courage to face all these difficulties and desire to start the scheme on a sound financial basis, to really say so, rather than to merely appear to do so, and to be able later to go to their constituents and say, "I voted to get 1d. off," whether the scheme was a bankrupt one or not. The hon. Gentleman said, "Why does not the right hon. Gentleman go as near as he can?" Just realise what that means? A penny produces three million pounds according to the advice of the best actuary we have been able to employ, and according to the advice of any actuary who has been employed by anybody, Hon. Members opposite have employed an actuary, hon. Members below the Gangway have employed their actuary. There is no surplus you can reckon on which is above £1,800,000. Take 1d. off, and you start a scheme which is bankrupt to the extent of £1,200,000. That is the proposal—to start with £1,200,000 acknowledged deficit. The hon. Member appealed to me and said, "Why have you not the courage to start

  1133
  the scheme, which is £1,200,000 to the bad, according to the advice, of your own actuaries?" I admit my courage fails me.
  Mr. FORSTER: If it had been in order—and here is one of the difficulties that we have in raising these things on the Report stage—I should have said to the right hon. Gentleman, "Make the contribution of the State 2d."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then the hon. Gentleman, without any sort of support whatever, challenges the statement made by not merely the two actuaries, but by Mr. Watson as well, that our contribution is 2d.—that the contribution of the State is equivalent to 2d. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I wonder whether the hon. Member who says "No" has spent five minutes on going into the figures? I am sure he has not. Even if he had, I would rather have the opinion of Mr. Watson, and certainly that of the two distinguished Actuaries, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Wyatt. Provision is made for £1,800,000. That is the whole surplus that the societies will manage. Could anyone go into the scheme without any margin; without a penny for contingencies? It would be perfectly absurd. To start the scheme without any margin at all would be the work of a lunatic, unless you are prepared to go forward and say, "Put the 1d. on to something else."
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is perfectly consistent. He would put the whole of the 1d. on to the State. That is logical, if the House of Commons or any other House Were to reject a contributory scheme. But so long as you are going to have a contributory scheme or any scheme, if you start a State scheme, I think this House would be entitled to say, "Are you really going to start a State scheme bankrupt; with £1,200,000 to the bad, and which has not even got a 2 per cent. margin?" The thing is absolutely impossible. The House of Commons would be entitled to impeach the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Minister, who started it. How are we to meet it? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) said, "Why cannot you postpone your linking fund?" Let us see what that means. In eighteen years you will be able to declare additional benefits to the extent of 25 per cent. That means that the people who come into this scheme for the first time—the young people who have been able to go on contributing for eighteen
  1134
  years—will at the end of that time be able to declare additional benefits of 25 per cent. They will be able to add one-fourth to every penny in that year to create fresh benefits, because Parliament will then decide what benefits are best. The proposal from the hon. Member opposite is you should put them off. For how long? No one figure has been given except that by the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman). He said, "Put it off for eighty years. It is a matter of no interest to anybody here."
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I said it was of the most vital interest to the present generation to see that the whole burden should not rest upon them, seeing they are going to get no advantage.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman wishes to shunt the whole burden on to posterity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate, seeing that people over sixteen are coming in upon good terms I think it is desirable that those who are over sixteen and up to thirty should be able to get better benefits in eighteen years' time. I venture to lay this down, that any Member of this House—because we have all our responsibilities and have no right to cast it upon the Government—who proposes to take one penny off should be prepared to propose an alternative. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has done it. He proposes to put off the benefits. [HON. MEMBERS: "The additional benefits."] I have already said so—the 25 per cent. additional benefits. Is there any one else in this House who would be prepared to put off the additional benefits for eighty years to wipe out this deficit? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] There is one other, then. Let me point out that this deficit comes to £2,000,000 a year, and you could not do that in this way. It would be impossible to do it, and the hon. Gentleman would find his conclusion very difficult to solve.
  I do not accept the proposition that this is a burden upon the employer. It is perfectly true it will add to the establishment charges, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman means that it is going to come out of the profits, taking one year with another, or at the end of five years, that a man who has paid £60 towards this object will have to deduct that £60 out of his profit. Why? Because it would be absorbed in the establishment charges. All his competitors will have to pay it. [HON.

  1135
  MEMBERS: "What about his foreign competitors?"] The foreign competitors are paying twice as much. An hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. I will give him some figures. I say it would be absorbed in the industry in the course of one, two, or three years. It may be that in existing contracts he will have to pay it out of his own pocket. The first case given was the case of the employer who manufactures ready-made clothing. The manufacturer of ready-made clothing will compete with other manufacturers of ready-made clothing, who are paying exactly the same thing. Every manufacturer of ready-made clothing in the United Kingdom will be paying exactly the same charges, and if this is a handicap for one manufacturer it is a handicap for everyone of his competitors in the country.
  I come now to the foreign competitors. The hon. Gentleman opposite gave the case of a manufacturer of ready-made clothing, who said he found it very difficult now to fight his German competitors, and that if this tax was put on it would make it still more difficult. There is very little influx of ready-made clothing into this country, but, on the other hand, we are the greatest exporters of ready-made clothing in the whole world, so that ready-made clothing is the very last trade in the world that ought to be quoted. Take the cotton trade. It is true I had the privilege of receiving a very important deputation from that trade some time ago. I observe that my friend, Sir Charles Macara, rather complained that a letter he sent me was not replied to. That is a very unusual thing, and I cannot help thinking that there has been some mistake in the matter. I am sure I left instructions that it should be attended to and I am exceedingly sorry if it was not attended to. Having dealt with that point, I come to the question put to me about the cotton trade. What is the case there? Our only competitor is Germany, and she is a competitor at a long, long distance behind. I forget what the proportion is, but my recollection is that the imports from Germany into this country are very small. We have the largest export trade in the world. I am not sure, and I am quoting here from memory, whether our exports are not as great as all the other countries in the world put together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Greater."]—and our only competitor is Germany. Let us take the case of Germany. Take the case of a spinner earning
  1136
  about 26s. a week. The cotton employer of this country will have to pay 3d. in respect of each spinner. The cotton employer in Germany is now paying 6d. in respect of the same operative. In this country the workman himself will be called on to pay 4d. In Germany he has to pay 9½d.—that is to say, the cotton employer in Germany has to pay twice as much as the cotton employer in Lancashire, and the cotton workman in Germany has also to pay more than twice as much as the cotton workman in this country.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Does not that include accident and old age?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hear, hear.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that that is really a stunner. But it really means that he is paying more in respect to accident in Germany than he is paying in this country. I can give him figures if he wishes to look into the subject.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It was I who asked whether it included provision for accident and old age.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman, but to the very exultant cheer of the hon. Member for Colchester. In regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Lawson), it does not in either case include accidents in Germany. As I have already pointed out, old age in that case is part of a contributory scheme. In this country the whole burden of old age is upon the funds. Really the burden on the German employer is heavier, and there accident insurance is very much heavier than it is here. From the figures which were put before me the burden looked twice as heavy. Therefore the burdens of the German employer are considerably heavier than the burdens of the British employer would be under this Bill, and the Germans are our great competitors. Take the French scheme. I will take the case put by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster). Under the scheme in operation in France the employers pay considerably more than the employers in this country. Whatever part of the world you go to you will find that the employer is paying more, and the workman is paying more, and this is extending all over Europe. Go to Austria. The Austrian employer is paying twice as

  1137
  much as the British employer. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is his Income Tax?"] It is considerably higher. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is double."] What I want to point out is when you come to competition at home every employer will be paying the same, and every employer has got to take that payment into account when he is quoting his prices against his competitors. Every man in business knows that the real competitor in most trades—I agree that the cotton trade is an exception—is the home competitor. An hon. Member has quoted some laundry tables, but you do not get your ironing done in Germany. The same applies to the building trade. You cannot build your house in Germany or in France. So that in the vast majority of the trades you have rather to reckon with the home competition—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO."]—and when you come to consider that you will find that inasmuch as the employers have all to pay the same charges none of them get any advantages over the other. When you come to foreign competition there you find that every real competitor we have got in the market has to pay twice as much as we have to pay here.
  Mr. A. G. HARVEY: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is really of the opinion that with regard to the cotton trade Germany, France, and the nations of Europe are our sole competitors? I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a very serious competition to the cotton trade in its export trade comes from the Bombay mills and the Japanese.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, of course, with the hon. Gentleman, who knows far more about the cotton trade than I presume to know; but, at the same time, that is a competition with which you have got to deal at the present moment, and the most important competition there, is not a competition of an extra 3d. per week to the workman. The mere difference of an additional 3d. per week added on to the charges does not amount to the estimation of a hair when you are really competing with people who are only paying 1s. or 2s. a week wages. Let me point this out to the hon. Gentleman. Why is it we are able now to beat the competition of Japan and of India, when they are only paying 6d. and 1s. per week wages——[HON. MEMBERS: "Per day"]—when they are only paying 6d. per day and even less than that very often. We are able to do it because our labour is more efficient than theirs. That is the real reason, and everything
  1138
  that increases that efficiency must also increase our competitive power against them. These people are getting such poor wages; they are so badly looked after, and their hours of labour are so long that they have not the physique to compete with our workmen. Why are we able to beat even the German employé, who are getting poorer wages? Because our better wages make better workmen, amongst other things.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Hear, hear. Raise them higher.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has evidently got a good deal of support on that. There is no doubt, at any rate, it tends to increase the efficiency of the workman, and does make him a more formidable workman for competition. If you give him better medical attendance, take better care of him when he is ill, look after him when he is in sanatoria, the result is a much more formidable man to fight, whether it is the German, the Japanese, or anybody else. It is because I believe—and I believe it from the experience of Germany—that the result of this Bill will be to increase the efficiency of the workman that I am not, for that one reason, afraid of foreign competition.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish there were there moments left before we go to a Division, but there are at least a few moments, and I should like, as the right hon. Gentleman referred to an "exultant cheer" of which I must admit I was guilty when a little daylight was let in on his argument with regard to what the Germans pay and to what we pay, to say just a few words on that particular subject. The right hon. Gentleman has again tonight called the attention of the House to the different amounts of contributions paid by the employers and the workmen in Germany as compared with the contributions to be paid by the employers and the workmen here. He has done that more than once, and the learned Attorney-General, in his Second Heading speech, made the same sort of comparison. They both of them have put it to the House as though they were comparing like with like. If they are not comparing like with like there is no object in the comparison at all. I say that the comparison made is absolutely misleading and untrue, and for this reason: the German contribution includes payments for a system of invalidity benefits totally different from the bedridden benefit given under the British scheme.

  1139
  German invalidity can be claimed if the insured person is not able to earn one-third of his ordinary rate of wages. The British benefit cannot be claimed if the man is able to dig in his garden; therefore, it is totally misleading to compare the two. The German contribution includes payment for the first thirteen weeks' sickness due to accident. Under the Clauses of our Bill any benefit gained under the Workmen's Compensation Act has to be taken into account, and is deducted from the benefit which can be received by the workman under this Bill. If you are comparing like with like, you should be receiving something like £6 10s. for thirteen weeks extra under the British Bill. In addition to that, this contribution is payment for old age pensions from seventy onwards. Old age pensions are now costing thirteen millions, paid by workmen and employés in the contribution. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the cost of old age pensions was equal to 5d. per week contribution; if we add that to the 4d. of the workman and 3d. of the employer that would be only the beginning of a fair comparison. But that was not said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, or by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General in his Second Reading speech.
  In addition to that the German contribution includes a funeral benefit. Ours does not, and, taking the case of a man earning 26s. a week, which in Germany would include a funeral benefit of £4 8s., could the Chancellor of the Exchequer provide that out of the 4d. from the workman and 3d. from the employer? If not he has no right to compare our contribution with the German contribution. There are, in addition, other benefits which go to account for the larger contributions made by the workman and employer in Germany. But the

  Division No. 425.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Boland, John Pius

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chapple, Dr. William Alien

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clough, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barton, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  point of the argument is not so much the amount of the contribution as the effect of the additional contribution on the present state of employment. The point the hon. Member for Sevenoaks took was this: that this was an additional charge upon British industry. The German charges have been going on for ten or twenty years, and notwithstanding those charges we have found it difficult to compete with Germany in respect of many articles of manufacture. What we are now doing is loading ourselves with an additional charge without the power which the Germans have of getting it back by means of a protected market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer instanced the case of the ready-made clothing trade, and said that in the case of British employers the charge would not fall upon their profits, but it would fall on their establishment charge. Who is going to pay the establishment charges? If this particular charge is not coming out of profits—it certainly is not coming from heaven, so the consumer will have to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I gather, admits that; therefore, will it not be a charge upon the industry of this country, or upon the people who live by the industry? The right hon. Gentleman said there was no import trade in ready-made clothing. But is there not an export trade? Does not this charge increase the cost of the manufacture of ready-made clothing in this country, and will the export trade be improved by the extra charge being put upon it?
  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 25th October, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That 7d. stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 156.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, M.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., South)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Delany, William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lundon, T.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dillon, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Doris, W.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Rowlands, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sheehy, David

  Ferens, T. R.

  Molloy, M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shortt, Edward

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Munro, R.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hackett, J.

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Waring, Walter

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Webb, H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Winfrey, Richard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'lets, Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  Keating, M.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hills, John Waller

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Ashley, W. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Baird, J. L.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Hodge, John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Faber, Captain W. B. (Hants, W.)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Banner John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Barnes, George N.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Horner, A. L.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Hudson, Walter

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Hume-Willams, W. E.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Goldman, C. S.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Johnson, W.

  Boyton, J.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brace, William

  Greene, W. R.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gretton, John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Lansbury, George

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Crean, Eugene

  Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

  Martin, Joseph

  Croft, Henry Page

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  1142

  1143

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts., Watford)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wardle, George J.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Nield, Herbert

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Snowden, Philip

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Starkey, John R.

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Swift, Rigby

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Touche, George Alexander

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. Parker and Mr. C. Duncan.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. SPEAKERthen proceded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, necesary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting under the Order of the House of the 25th October, as amended by the Order of the House of the 30th November.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "over" ["over the age of twenty-one"],
  and insert instead thereof the word "of"—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Amendment proposed: Leave out "twenty-one," and insert instead thereof the words "or upwards."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes 51.

  Munro, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Swift, Rigby

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Webb, H.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Rowlands, James

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Whyte, A. F.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Seely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

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

  Sheehy, David

  Winfrey, Richard

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Shortt, Edward

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Radford, G. H.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Pea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Reddy, Michael

  Summers, James Woolley

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hodge, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Boyton, James

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Wadsworth, John

  Brace, William

  Johnson, W.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Wardie, George J.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Crean, Eugene

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. Parker and Mr. C. Duncan.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Further Amendments made: In the same paragraph, leave out the words "wages or other" ["whose, wages or other remuneration"].
  After the word "employer" ["lodging by their employer"], insert the words, "and the rate of whose remuneration does not exceed 3s. 6d. a working day."
  In the second paragraph, leave out the words "wages or other" ["where the rate of wages or other remuneration"].
  In the third paragraph, leave out the words "wages or other."
  After the word "remuneration" ["remuneration does not exceed 2s."], insert the words "exceeds 1s. 6d. but."
  In the fourth paragraph, leave out the words, "wages or other."
  After the word "remuneration," insert the words "exceeds 2s. but."
  In Part II., paragraph (1), leave out the word "over" ["sex over the age"], and insert the word "of."
  After "twenty-one" ["of twenty-one whose wages"], insert the words "or upwards."
  Leave out the words "wages or other remuneration do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day, and who are not provided with," and insert instead thereof the words, "remuneration does not include the provision of."
  After the word "employer" ["by their employer, the following"], insert the words "and the rate of whose remuneration does not exceed 2s. 6d. a working day."
  In paragraph (2), leave out the words, "wages or other."
  After the word "a" ["a day"], insert the word "working."
  In paragraph (3), leave out the words "wages or other."
  After the word "remuneration" insert the words "exceeds 1s. 6d. but."
  After the word "a" ["a day"], insert the word "working."
  In paragraph (4), leave out the words "wages or other."
  After "remuneration," insert the words "exceeds 2s. but."
  After the word "a" insert the word "working."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.

  RULES AS TO PAYMENT AND RECOVERY OF CONTRIBUTIONS PAID BY EMPLOYERS ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS UNDER PART I. OF THIS ACT RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
  (1) A weekly contribution shall be payable in respect of each calendar week during the whole or any part of which an employed contributor has been employed by an employer: Provided that where one weekly contribution has been paid in respect of any such week no further contribution shall be payable in respect of the same week, and that where no remuneration has been received and no services rendered by an employed contributor during any such week no contribution shall be payable in respect of that week.
  (2) The employer shall, except as hereinafter provided, be entitled to recover from the employed contributor the amount of any contributions paid by him on behalf of the employed contributor.
  (3) Except where the employed contributor does not receive any wages or other pecuniary remuneration from the employer, the amounts so recoverable shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Act or any contract to the contrary, be recoverable by means of deductions from the wages or other remuneration, and not otherwise; but no such deductions may be made from any wages or remuneration other than such as are paid in respect of the period or part of the period in respect of which the contribution is payable, or in excess of the sum which represents the amount of the contributions for the period (if such period is longer than a week) in respect of. which the wages or other remuneration are paid.
  (4) Where a contribution paid by the employer on behalf of an employed contributor is recoverable from the contributor but is not recoverable by means of deductions as aforesaid, it shall (without prejudice to any other means of recovery) be recoverable summarily as a civil debt, but no such contribution shall be recoverable unless proceedings for the purpose are instituted within three months from the date when the contribution was payable.
  (5) Where the contributor is employed by more than one employer in any calendar week, the first person employing him in that week or such other employer as may be prescribed shall be deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the provisions of Part I. of this Act relating to the payment of contributions and of this Schedule.
  (6) Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners may provide that in any cases or any classes of cases where employed contributors work under the general control and management of some person other than their immediate employer, such as the owner, agent, or manager of a mine or quarry, or the occupier of a factory or workshop, such person shall, for the purposes of the provisions of Part I. of this Act relating to the payment of contributions and of this Schedule, be treated as the employer, and may provide for allowing him to deduct the amount of any contributions (other than employers' contributions) which he may become liable to pay from any sums payable by him to the immediate employer, and for enabling the immediate employer to recover from the employed contributors the like sums and in the like manner as if he were liable to pay the contributions.
  (7) Where the contributor is not paid wages or other money payments by his employer or any other person, the employer shall be liable to pay the contributions payable both by himself and the contributor, and shall not be entitled to recover any part thereof from the contributor.
  (8) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, the employer shall not be entitled to deduct from the wages or for otherwise to recover from the contributor the employers' contribution.
  (9) Any sum deducted by any employer from wages or other remuneration under this Schedule shall be deemed to have been entrusted to him for the purpose of paying the contribution in respect of which it was deducted.
  (10) The Insurance Commissioners may by regulations provide that in the case of outworkers the contributions to be paid may be determined by reference to the work actually done, instead of by reference to the weeks in which work is done, and any such regulations may apply to all trades or to any specified classes or branches of trades, and may determine the

  1149
  conditions to be complied with by employers who adopt such a system of payment of contributions.
  (11) For the purposes of this Schedule the expression "calendar week" means the period from midnight on one Sunday to midnight on the following Sunday.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (1), leave out the words "in respect of" ["in respect of each calendar"], and insert instead thereof the word "for."
  After the word "of" ["in respect of any such week"], insert the words "an employed contributor in."
  After the word "of" ["shall be repayable in respect of the same week"], insert the words "him in."
  After the word "week" ["during any such week"], insert the words "or where no services have been rendered by an employed contributor during any such week and the employed contributor has been in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit during the whole or any part of that week."
  Leave out the words "no contribution shall be payable," and insert instead thereof the words "the employer shall not be liable to pay any contribution either on his own behalf or on behalf of the contributor."
  After the word "employer" ["such other employer as may be prescribed"], insert the words "or employers."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

  BENEFITS UNDER PART I. OF THIS ACT RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Part I.—Rates of Benefits.
  Table A.—Ordinary Bates.
  Sickness benefit: for men the sum of 10s. a week throughout the whole period of twenty-six weeks; for women the sum of 7s. 6d. a week throughout the whole period of twenty-six weeks, or at the option of the society during the first thirteen weeks the sum of 10s. a week for men, and the sum of 7s. 6d. for women: for the second thirteen weeks, 5s. a week for men and women alike together with—
  In the case of men either—

  The sum of 2s. 6d. a week for the first two weeks;

  Or the sum of 2s. a week for the first four weeks;

  1150

  Or the sum of 1s. 6d. a week for the first six weeks.

  And in the case of women either—

  The sum of 2s. a week for the first two weeks;

  Or the sum of 1s. 6d. a week for the first four weeks;

  Or the sum of 1s. a week for the first six weeks.

  Disablement benefit: the sum of 5s. a week for men and women alike.
  Where any such option as aforesaid has been exercised by a society it shall not be lawful for the society to exercise a new option until after the next subsequent valuation of the society, and an option must be exercised as respects all the members of a society.
  Table B.—Reduced Rates in the Case of Young Persons.

  Sickness Benefit—

  for males, the sum of 6s. a week during the first thirteen weeks and the sum of 5s. a week during the second thirteen weeks.

  for females, the sum of 5s. a week for the first thirteen weeks and the sum of 4s. a week for the second thirteen weeks.

  Disablement Benefit—

  for females, the sum of 4s. a week.

  Table C.—Reduced Rates for Persons over Fifty in Certain Cases.
  Where the insured person is over 50 and under 60 at the time of becoming an employed contributor—

  For men, the sum of 7s. a week throughout the whole period of twenty-six weeks.

  For women, the sum of 6s. a week throughout the whole period of twenty-six weeks.

  Where the insured person is over 60 at the time of becoming an employed contributor—
  For both men and women the sum of 6s. a week for the first thirteen weeks, and 5s. a week during the second thirteen weeks.
  Table D.—Rates and Conditions for Married Women.
  Sickness benefit: during the first thirteen weeks, the sum of 5s. a week; during the second thirteen weeks, 3s. a week.
  Disablement benefit: the sum of 3s. a week.
  Sickness and disablement shall not be payable during the two weeks before and four weeks after confinement, except in respect of a disease or disablement neither directly or indirectly connected with childbirth.
  Part II.—Additional Benefits.
  (1) Medical treatment and attendance for any persons dependent upon the labour of a member.
  (2) The payment of the whole or any part of the cost of dental treatment.
  (3) An increase of sickness benefit or disablement benefit in the case either of all members of the society or of such of them as have any children or any specified number of children wholly or in part dependent upon them.
  (4) Payment of sickness benefit during the second thirteen weeks of disease or disablement at the same rate as during the first thirteen weeks thereof, or from the first, second, or third day after the commencement of the disease or disablement.
  (5) An increase of maternity benefit.
  (6) Allowances to a member during convalescence from some disease or disablement in respect of which sickness benefit or disablement has been payable.
  (7) The building or leasing of premises suitable for convalescent homes and the maintenance of such homes.
  (8) The payment of pensions or superannuation allowances.
  (9) Payments to members who are in want or distress including the remission of arrears whenever such arrears may have become due.
  (10) Payments for the personal use of a member who, by reason of being an inmate of a hospital or other institution, is not in receipt of sickness benefit or disablement benefit.
  (11) Payments to members not allowed to attend work on account of infection.
  (12) Repayment of the whole or any part of contributions thereafter payable under Part I. of this Act by members of the society or any class thereof.
  Part III.—Benefits for Married Women who do not become Voluntary Contributors at Reduced Rates.
  Payment of the sum of 5s. a week on confinement during a period not exceeding four weeks on any one occasion.
  Payment of the sum of 5s. a week during any period of distress, subject to the discretion of the society or committee administering the benefit.
  In Part I., Table A, leave out the words,
  "Or at the option of the society during the first thirteen weeks the sum of 10s. a week for men, and the sum of 7s. 6d. for women: for the second thirteen weeks, 5s. a week for men and women alike together with—
  In the case of men either—

  The sum of 2s. 6d. a week for the first two weeks;

  Or the sum of 2s. a week for the first four weeks;

  Or the sum of 1s. 6d. a week for the first six weeks.

  And in the case of women either—

  The sum of 2s. a week for the first two weeks;

  Or the sum of 1s. 6d. a week for the first four weeks;

  Or the sum of 1s. a week for the first six weeks."

  Amendments made: Leave out the words,
  Where any such option as aforesaid has been exercised by a society it shall not be lawful for the society to exercise a new option until after the next subsequent valuation of the society, and an option must be exercised as respects all the members of a society.
  In Table B, leave out the words "young persons" ["in the case of young persons"], and insert instead thereof the words "unmarried minors."
  In Part II., after paragraph (4), insert,
  (5) The payment of a disablement allowance to members though not totally incapable of work.
  In paragraph (8), at the end insert the words "whether by way of addition to old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or otherwise."
  After paragraph (8) insert,
  (9) The payment, subject to the prescribed conditions, of contributions to superannuation funds in which the members are interested.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  REDUCTION OR POSTPONEMENT OF SICKNESS BENEFIT AND WHERE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE IN ARREAR.

  Table.

  (1)

  {2)

  Where the arrears amount to

  Rates of Sickness Benefit during first Thirteen Weeks.

  Men.

  Women.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  4 contributions a year on average

  9

  6

  7

  3

  5 contributions a year on average

  9

  0

  7

  0

  6 contributions a year on average

  8

  6

  6

  9

  7 contributions a year on average

  8

  0

  6

  6

  8 contributions a year on average

  7

  6

  6

  3

  9 contributions a year on average

  7

  0

  6

  0

  10 contributions a year on average

  6

  6

  5

  9

  11 contributions a year on average

  6

  0

  5

  6

  12 contributions a year on average

  5

  6

  5

  3

  13 contributions a year on average

  5

  0

  5

  0

  For both Men and Women.

  5s. 0d., commencing 5th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 6th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 7th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 8th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 9th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 10th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 11th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 12th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 13th day after commencement of illness.

  5s. 0d., commencing 14th day after commencement of illness.

  Notes.
  Where the insured person is by virtue of any of the provisions of Part I. of this Act, other than those relating to arrears, entitled to sickness benefit at a rate lower than the full rate, this Table shall have effect as if the entries in the first column were so shifted down that the first entry therein was set opposite the entry in the second column next below the entry specifying the rate of sickness benefit to which the insured person is entitled.
  When the rate of sickness benefit during the first thirteen weeks to which the insured person is entitled is by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, other than those relating to arrears, less than 5s. a
  In Part III., leave out the words "Payment of the sum of 5s. a week," and insert instead thereof the word "Payments."
  After the word "of" ["of distress"], insert the words "sickness or."
  After the word "subject," insert the words "to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners and."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  week, this Table shall have effect as if such lower rate were therein substituted for the rate of 5s. a week. Where a society has exercised an option as to the rate of sickness benefit under the Fourth Schedule to this Act, the foregoing table shall apply subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.
  Amendments made: In Table leave out the words "during first thirteen weeks."
  Leave out the words "where a society has exercised an option as to the rate of sickness benefit under the Fourth Schedule to this Act, the foregoing table shall apply subject to such modifications as may be prescribed."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

SIXTH SCHEDULE.

  LIST OF INSURED TRADES FOB THE PURPOSES OF PART II. OF THIS ACT RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  (1) Building; that is to say, the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings, including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in builders' workshops or yards.
  (2) Construction of works; that is to say, the construction, reconstruction, or alteration of railroads, docks, harbours, canals, embankments, bridges, piers or other works of construction.
  (3) Shipbuilding; that is to say, the construction, alteration, repair or decoration of ships, boats or other craft by persons not being usually members of a ship's crew, including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in a shipbuilding yard.
  (4) Mechanical engineering, including the manufacture of ordnance and firearms.
  (5) Ironfounding, whether included under the foregoing headings or not.
  (6) Construction of vehicles; that is to say, the construction, repair, or decoration of vehicles.
  (7) Sawmilling, including machine woodwork.
  Amendment made: At the end, insert the words "carried on in connection with any other insured trade or of a kind commonly so carried on."—[Mr. Buxton.]

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.

  RATES AND PERIODS OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  In respect of each week following the first week of unemployment, seven shillings, or such other rates as may be prescribed either generally or for any particular trade or any branch thereof:
  Provided that, in the case of a workman under the age of eighteen, no unemployment benefit shall be paid while the workman is below the age of seventeen, and white the workman is of the age of seventeen or upwards but below the age of eighteen, unemployment benefit shall only be paid at half the rate at which it would be payable if the workman was above the age of eighteen.
  No workman shall receive unemployment benefit for more than fifteen or such other number of weeks as may be prescribed either generally or for any particular trade
  1156
  or branch thereof within any period of twelve months, or in respect of any period less than one day.
  No workman shall receive more unemployment benefit than in the proportion of one week's benefit for every five contributions paid by him under this Act:
  Provided that for the purpose of the foregoing paragraph—

  (a) in the case of a workman who satisfies the Board of Trade that he has habitually worked at an insured trade before the passing of this Act, there shall be deemed to be added to the number of contributions which he has actualy paid five contributions for each period of three months or part of such period during which he has so worked before the passing of this Act, up to a maximum of twenty-five contributions; and

  (b) where contributions are paid under Part II. of this Act in respect of any workman at intervals greater than a week, that workman shall be entitled to treat each contribution as so many contributions as there are weeks in the intervening period.

  Any time during which a workman is under Part II. of this Act disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit shall be excluded in the computation of periods of unemployment under this Schedule.
  A period of unemployment shall not be deemed to commence till the workman has made application for unemployment benefit in such manner as may be prescribed.
  The power conferred by this Schedule on the Board of Trade to prescribe rates and periods of unemployment benefit shall not be exercised so as to increase the rate of benefit above eight shillings per week or reduce it below six shillings per week, or to increase the period of unemployment benefit above fifteen weeks, or to alter the proportion, which the period of benefit bears to the number of contributions paid, except by rules confirmed by an order made in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of this Act relating to special orders.
  Amendments made: After the word "of" ["of unemployment"], insert the words "any period of."
  In paragraph (a), after the word "he" ["that he has"], insert the words "is over the age of twenty-one and."
  Leave out the word "passing" ["passing of this Act"], and insert instead thereof the word "commencement." Consequential Amendment made.
  In paragraph (b), after the word "where," insert the words "owing to the fact that the wages or other remuneration of a workman are paid at intervals greater than a week or any other like reason."
  Leave out the word "contribution," and insert instead thereof the words "of such contributions."
  Leave out the word "intervening."
  At the end of the paragraph, insert the words "for which the contribution has been paid."—[Mr. Buxton.]

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.

  CONTRIBUTIONS TOR THE PURPOSES OF PART II. OF THIS ACT RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  Rates of Contribution from Workmen and Employers.

  From every workman employed in an insured trade for every week he is so employed

  2½d.

  From every employer by whom one or more workmen are employed in an insured trade, in respect of each workman, for every week he is so employed

  2½d.

  Provided that in the case of a workman below the age of eighteen 1d. shall be substituted for 2½d. as the contribution from the workman and from the employer, but for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions in respect of such a workman the 1d. shall be treated as two-fifths of a contribution.
  Every such period of employment of less than a week shall for the purposes of this Schedule be treated as if it were employment for a whole week, except that, where the period of employment is two days or less, the contributions both of the employer and of the workman shall be reduced to one penny if the period does not exceed one day and to twopence if it exceeds one day; and in such case in reckoning the number of contributions under Part II. of this Act and the Schedules therein referred to contributions at such reduced rates shall be treated as two-fifths or four-fifths of a contribution as the case may require.
  Amendment made: After the word "workman" ["in respect of such a workman"], insert the words "except as regards the payment of unemployment benefit before he reaches the age of eighteen."—[Mr. Buxton.]

TENTH SCHEDULE.

  PROVISIONS OF THE FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901, APPLIED TO SPECIAL ORDERS MADR UNDER PART I. OF THIS ACT RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
  80.—(1) Before the Insurance Commissioners make any special order under this Act, they shall publish, in such manner as they may think best adapted for informing persons affected, notice of the proposal to make the order, and of the place where copies of the draft order may be obtained, and of the time (which shall not be less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to the draft order by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to the Insurance Commissioners.
  (2) Every objection must be in writing and state—

  (a) the draft order or portions of draft order objected to;

  (b) the specific grounds of objection; and

  (c) the omissions, additions, or modifications asked for.

  (3) The Insurance Commissioners shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to them to be affected which is sent to them within the required time, and they may, if they think fit, amend the draft order, and shall then cause the amended draft to be dealt with in like manner as an original draft.
  (4) Where the Insurance Commissioners do not amend or withdraw any draft order to which any objection has been made, then (unless the objection either is withdrawn or appears to them to be frivolous) they shall, before making the order, direct an inquiry to be held in the manner hereinafter provided.
  81.—(1) The Insurance Commissioners may appoint a competent person to hold an inquiry with regard to any draft order, and to report to them thereon.
  (2) The inquiry shall be held in public, and any objector and any other person

  1159
  who, in the opinion of the person holding the inquiry, is affected by the draft order, may appear at the inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent.
  (3) The witnesses on the inquiry may, if the person holding it thinks fit, be examined on oath.
  (4) Subject as aforesaid, the inquiry and all proceedings preliminary and incidental thereto shall be conducted in accordance with the rules made by the Insurance Commissioners.
  (5) The fee to be paid to the person holding the inquiry shall be such as the Insurance Commissioners may direct and shall be deemed to be
  Amendment made: At the end insert the words "part of the expenses of the Insurance Commissioners in carrying this Act into effect."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next, 6th December.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND INSURANCE SOCIETIES BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
HEALTH VISITORS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
DUBLIN POLICE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
EDUCATION (SCHOOL AND CONTINUATION CLASS ATTENDANCE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
ALIENS (PREVENTION OF CRIME) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
PUBLIC HEALTH (ACQUISITION OF WATER) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
DUBLIN PARLIAMENTARY REVISING BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
PILOTAGE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
EXPENSES OF AID TO POLICE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
COUNTY COURTS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

LUNACY [SALARIES].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of any additional Commissioners in Lunacy appointed under any Act of the present Session relating to Lunacy."
Resolution agreed to.

LUNACY BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
One drafting Amendment made.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (BELFAST) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: The Government are taking business rather rapidly. I should like to know something about the nature of this Bill.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The object of this Bill is, at the expense of the Corporation of Belfast, who have by a unanimous resolution expressed their willingness to do it, to augment the salary of each of the two resident magistrates of Belfast by £200 a year, with a corresponding increase of pension, which also will be borne relatively, by the corporation. The necessity for this arises from the great growth of Belfast, and from the fact that when the salaries were fixed at £675 Belfast was a much smaller place than it is now. The population was 180,000, and the number of cases in the police-court about 22,000. In 1909 the population was 386,576, and the number of cases in the police-court had increased proportionately, I am sorry to say, to 63,465. In 1909 each magistrate sat in the court 264 days. In 1887 a Commission presided over by a judge recommended that the salaries should be increased.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the question, "That this House do now adjourn."

RUSSIA AND PERSIA.
Mr. MORRELL: I take this opportunity to refer very shortly to the very serious state of affairs in Persia, and to ask for
1162
some fuller explanation than we have yet had of the attitude which the Government have taken in this crisis. I am extremely sorry that the Foreign Secretary himself has not found it convenient or possible to be here. Notice has been short. It is not, I freely admit, the most convenient opportunity for raising an important question of this sort; but in these days one must take what opportunities one can get. As I understood that it was impossible for the Foreign Secretary to attend to-morrow, and as the matter seems to mo to be one of extreme urgency, I determined that it was best to bring it forward to-night. Exactly a week ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was explaining to us how the situation in Persia stood. He was justifying the ultimatum that had then been delivered to Persia by the Russian Government, and also the attitude of the British Government. He told us that the situation, no doubt, was a very serious one, but he thought a solution would be found. He went on to say that the Russian Government was loyally standing by the agreement which they had made with this country. At the very moment the Foreign Secretary was speaking the Russian Government was preparing a fresh ultimatum to deliver to Persia—a further ultimatum more peremptory, more insulting in tone—as I think—than anything that had yet been done. This ultimatum, if the newspapers are to be believed, the Persian Government was advised by our Government to comply with.
I hope very much that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some information on that point—a point on which I questioned him this afternoon. We all know that the Russian troops are advancing upon Teheran. It is quite possible to spend a good deal of time in showing how vitally this must affect our interests, the safety of India, our prestige in the East, and the trade of this country with Persia. I propose to confine myself to a very much simpler consideration of the question—how far our honour is affected by the attitude which we are taking up in this crisis, how far we are loyally carrying out in the spirit as well as in the letter the engagements we have entered into with the Persian people. Here is a country which for years past has been suffering under a rough despotic Government setting about at last to establish constitutional liberty. Everyone was watching with interest the attempt which was being made in Persia to establish a government on lines that would

1163
render it more consonant than any Government in Persia hitherto with the real wishes of the Persian people. All they asked of us was a fair chance, and no interference either from Russia or this country. We pledged ourselves by the most sacred obligations to give them the opportunity of a fair chance, which they asked. I do not want to refer at any length to the Anglo Russian Convention. Everyone knows that was based upon the integrity and independence of Persia. Spheres of influence were no doubt to be allotted to Russia and to this country. The Foreign Secretary intimated and made it perfectly plain that these spheres of influence were to be of an economic character purely, and that no partition of Persia was contemplated by this country or by Russia.
"Under this ngreement"—
said the Foreign Secretary, speaking in this House immediately after the Convention on the 17th February, 1908—
"we bind ourselves not to seek certain concessions of a certain kind in certain spheres. But these are only British and Russian spheres in a sense which is in no way derogatory to the independence and sovereignty of Persia."
And he went much further. When the Persian Government protested that they were afraid partition was intended, the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he instructed our Minister at Teheran to assure the Persians in the most emphatic way that there was no such intention on the part of this country, and that the object of the two Powers, Russia and England, in making certain spheres should in no way be taken as an attack upon, but was rather to insure every effort for, the independence of Persia, and that not only did that not give them any excuse for intervention, but that their object in these friendly negotiations was not to allow one another to intervene on the pretext of safeguarding their own interests. That was the pledge solemnly given less than four years ago. What I ask is how far we, in our policy towards Persia, carried out the spirit of the pledge which we gave to the Persian people. Ever since that pledge was given the Russian Government have been engaged, as everyone who studied Persian affairs knows, in a long series of acts of intervention and interference with the internal liberties of Persia. They have interfered in every way in all attempts to put the Constitutional Government of Persia on a real sound basis, and they have made
1164
administration practically impossible. Over and over again they have supported rebellion, and they have interfered with the due exercise of the authority of the Persian Government.
What I want to know is how far our Government ever made protests against the action which Russia has taken? The action of Russia has culminated in the two ultimatums to which I have referred, the second of which is, in my judgment, absolutely incompatible with any idea of the sovereignty and independence of Persia referred to by the Foreign Secretary. If the Persian Government is not to be at liberty to appoint their own advisers, even when they are not British or foreign subjects, how can it be said that in any way Persia is still retaining the privileges of a sovereign state? The action of the Russian Government has made constitutional government in Persia well-night impossible, and all this time, to our shame I hold, we have been acquiescing in the action that Russia has taken. I am not here to defend all that Mr. Morgan Shuster has done in Persia. He may in some cases have shown tactlessness, and may not have had quite the diplomatic manner which was acceptable to the Foreign Offices in St. Petersburg and London. He was attacked by "The Times," and replied with a letter which "The Times" could not answer. He has been guilty of Anglicising the Persian service—in other words, he appointed four or five gentlemen to positions which they were quite qualified to hold who happened at the same time to be British subjects. Whatever you may say about Mr. Shuster, no one will deny the ability he has shown and his fidelity to the Government he was trying to serve. Now he is to be hounded out in a way which I venture to think is a scandal and a disgrace to the Government which is endeavouring to drive him from Persia. Whatever you may say about Mr. Shuster, no one will deny the integrity and ability he has shown in his devotion to the Government he was trying to serve.
It is a monstrous thing in my judgment that any Government should send an ultimatum giving forty-eight hours' notice such as was sent by Russia to Persia. What I ask my hon. Friend is, what hand the British Government had in that ultimatum, and what consent did they give to it? The hon. Member told us at question time that they were informed beforehand, but were

1165
they consulted as to the main articles of it? I hope the hon. Member will give us a clear answer upon that point. [An HON. MEMBEE: "You are not going to give him time."] I only want to put these particular points. I think it is time that some protest should be made in this House against the action which the British Government has taken. It is very valuable I know to have the friendship of Russia, which the Foreign Secretary prides himself upon having retained, but the friendship of Russia will be bought too dearly if it is bought at the price of the good name and the honour of this country.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I think it is almost, if not quite, impossible for anyone, even if the Foreign Secretary were here, to reply in the limits that are possible at this stage of the evening to the whole of the points raised by my hon. Friend. He asks me to tell him how far we have carried out in the past and how far we are carrying out in the present the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement. He asks me how far we have ever protested against anything which Russia has done, which is certainly in itself a very large order; and he asks me, "Do we adhere to what we have said in the past with regard to the Anglo-Russian Agreement?" He asks me also to give the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to what has been done respecting Mr. Shuster. It is quite impossible for me to go into those large questions at the present time. The point which I understood he wished to raise on the Adjournment of the House was a very limited one, and upon that matter I have consulted my right hon. Friend, and on that matter alone I am sorry to say, am I now able to make any statement. My hon. Friend gave notice of his intention to raise this exact question,
"Might he take it that no kind of protest had been made against the Russian demands?"
That was, I think, the supplementary question which he asked, and I said he might not so take it. On that point I can explain matters. As the answer which I gave this afternoon showed, we did not make any representations to the Russian Government in opposition to the first two of the Russian demands. The reasons for that were given in the answer. But, with regard to the third claim—namely, of an indemnity for the expenses to which the Russian Government had been put in their expedition, representations have been
1166
made to the Russian Government. It has been pointed out that Persia will be unable to pay an indemnity without obtaining a loan, and that the burden of the indemnity will make it harder for the Persian Government to secure order on the southern trade routes, which is a very necessary matter in the interests of the trade of this country. On matters beyond that, so far as I understand the matters which my hon. Friend desires to raise, I must ask to be excused from making any statement this evening.
Mr. DILLON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can state whether the Russian Government used the name of the Government of Great Britain in delivering the ultimatum?
Mr. ACLAND: No. The ultimatum was her own ultimatum entirely, and our name was not used in the matter. There was no authority for using it or in any way for taking it as an ultimatum of both Governments. That was made clear by the answer I gave.
Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman answer one question of which I gave him full notice: whether the Foreign Office advised the Persian Government to comply with this ultimatum?
Mr. ACLAND: On that and any other point, it is really undesirable that partial statements should be made. I only make this appeal to the House, and state it in this way, because, as the House knows, the adjourned Debate on Foreign Affairs is coming on next week. There will be a whole day's debate, and the Secretary of State will, of course, then make a very full and considered statement with regard to the whole of the Persian question. In those circumstances, he asked me to ask the House that I might be excused from making any partial statement on any partial point which cannot possibly put the House in full possession of the facts. It is only because of the full opportunity which my right hon. Friend and the House will have next week that I ask to confine my reply to the particular point which I believe my hon. Friend wished to raise.
Mr. KING: I am sure we have listened with interest, though hardly with satisfaction, to the remarks which have been made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Really we are entitled to information of a larger and more ample

1167
character than he has given us. I trust that at the earliest possible moment we shall have a full and ample statement from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs himself. At this time, and on such an occasion as this, with all due respect to the Under-Secretary, we should be very glad to see someone else here in his place. I would like just to refer in this connection to one matter which I intend to raise a discussion upon as soon as I get an opportunity. I wish to know whether there have been any communications from the German Government or from the United States Government on this subject. It seems to me that already there have been echoes or rumours in the Press of the idea that we may have in this matter further complications with other Governments besides the Russian Government. To my mind, it is sufficiently complicated and mixed up already, but it may become even more so. There is an element of satisfaction to be derived from the statement of the Under-Secretary that a communication in the nature of a mild protest—I should have liked it to have been very much stronger—had been sent to Russia with regard to her claim for an indemnity. It is perfectly obvious that Persia, in her present position, is absolutely unable to pay an indemnity such as Russia would be satisfied with, and a claim of this kind cannot be put forward in the interests of the integrity and independence of Persia. If it is insisted on it will amount to an almost fraudulent excuse for taking away the independence of Persia altogether. I trust that that point will not be overlooked.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Kingstown Harbour.
  Kingstown Harbour.
  Land Valuation (Forms IV. and VIII.).
  Land Valuation (Forms IV. and VIII.).
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
  SERVANTS AND CHARWOMEN.
  SERVANTS AND CHARWOMEN.
  Cattle Mutilation.
  Cattle Mutilation.
  Withholding Rents.
  Withholding Rents.
  Teachers' Salaries.
  Teachers' Salaries.
  Footbridge at Kells.
  Footbridge at Kells.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants.
  Evicted Tenants.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Waterford Prison.
  Waterford Prison.
  Smerwick Pier.
  Smerwick Pier.
  Damage to Fishing Boat.
  Damage to Fishing Boat.
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Curragh Camp (Carpenters).
  Curragh Camp (Carpenters).
  Cavalry Regiments (Commissions).
  Cavalry Regiments (Commissions).
  Army Aviation Department.
  Army Aviation Department.
  Military Assault (Claim for Compensation).
  Military Assault (Claim for Compensation).
  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.
  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.
  Soldier's Discharge.
  Soldier's Discharge.
  Army Horses.
  Army Horses.
  Factory Act Prosecution (Appeal).
  Factory Act Prosecution (Appeal).
  Colliery Accidents (Employers' Medical Men).
  Colliery Accidents (Employers' Medical Men).
  Imprisonment for Debt.
  Imprisonment for Debt.
  Advisory Committee for London.
  Advisory Committee for London.
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Work for Unemployed.
  Work for Unemployed.
  Railway Mileage (European Countries).
  Railway Mileage (European Countries).
  Cork Free Press Company, Limited.
  Cork Free Press Company, Limited.
  French Lighthouse.
  French Lighthouse.
  Walfisch Bay (White Population).
  Walfisch Bay (White Population).
  Postal Losses.
  Postal Losses.
  Walsall Post Office.
  Walsall Post Office.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the o Amendments, agreed to.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland praying that land within the burghs may be exempted from the operation of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and also a similar Petition from the City and Royal Burgh of Dunfermline.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he can give us any information as to the course of business for the remainder of the session.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Earl has put this question, as I am sure the House is naturally interested in knowing the course of business before it. I will state how we think it well for the business to proceed. During the course of this week we expect to receive from another place three important measures—namely, the Coal Mines Bill, the Naval Prize Bill, and the National Insurance Bill. I hope that the Coal Mines Bill and the Naval Prize Bill will reach their last stages respectively in another place to-morrow. In that case we would propose to read those two Bills in this House a first time to-morrow evening. The National Insurance Bill
450
will reach your Lordships' House, if all goes well, on Wednesday next, December 6. I trust that it will meet with your Lordships' convenience to take the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill on Wednesday next, the 6th instant, and the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill on Thursday, the 7th. I ought to mention that on Thursday next the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, proposes to call attention to the state of affairs in Persia and to inquire as to the policy of His Majesty's Government, but I understand from hint that the discussion need not be a long one. My idea would be, subject to your Lordships' approval, that Lord Curzon's Motion upon Persia might be taken before we proceed to other business on Thursday. We could then go on with the Coal Mines Bill after the Persian discussion was over. We propose asking the House to take the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill on Monday, the 11th instant. It is, of course, our confident hope, as it is that of the whole House, that the Prorogation should take place before Christmas, and supposing that we sit on Friday, December 8, and on Friday and Saturday, December 15 and 16 respectively, as I think the House might be disposed to do, that would give us—though I am afraid it is not a large, figure—between to-morrow and the 19th ten working days. There will be a few Bills of minor importance which will come before your Lordships which have already been mentioned by the Prime Minister in another place, but with the important or unimportant exception of the Finance Bill, I have mentioned the principal measures which will be submitted to your Lordships before the end of the session.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What day does the noble Viscount propose to take the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I said that we proposed to take it on Wednesday next, the 6th instant.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know whether it would be possible for the noble Viscount, on account of circumstances with which he is familiar and in respect of which the whole House will feel the deepest sympathy with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, to put off the Second Reading of that Bill until the early part of next week.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am quite sure the noble Earl is right when he says that the whole House, without distinction of Party, deeply sympathises with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. As to the postponement of the Naval Prize Bill, noble Lords opposite know that it is far from easy when you come to a rather congested state of things like this to adjust and readjust, but I will carefully consider the point with an earnest desire to meet noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I may say that I have just had the advantage of hearing Lord Lansdowne's views on this matter, and I think that if the Whips on both sides discuss it no difficulty will be found in coining to an arrangement.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COPYRIGHT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Infringement of Copyright.
2.—(1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything the sole right to do which is by this Act conferred on the owner of the copyright: Provided that the following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright:—

(i) Any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review, or newspaper summary:

(ii) Where the author of an artistic work is not the owner of the copyright therein, the use by the author of any mould, cast, sketch, plan, model, or study made by him for the purpose of the work, provided that he does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of that work:

(iii) The making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situate in a public place or building, or the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs (which are not in the nature of architectural drawings or plans) of any architectural work of art:

452

(iv) The publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bonu fide intended for the use of schools, and so described in the title and in any advertisements issued by the publisher, of short passages from published literary works not themselves published for the use of schools in which copyright subsists: Provided that not more than two of such passages from works by the same author are published by the same publisher within five years, and that the source from which such passages are taken is acknowledged:

(v) The publication in a newspaper of a report of a lecture delivered in public, unless the report is prohibited by conspicuous written or printed notice affixed before and maintained during the lecture at or about the main entrance of the building in which the lecture is given, and, except whilst the building is being used for public worship, in a position near the lecturer; but nothing in this paragraph shall affect the provisions in paragraph (i) as to newspaper summaries:

(vi) The reading or recitation in public by one person of any reasonable extract from any published work.

(2) Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who—

(a) sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or hire; or

(b) distributes either for the purposes of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright; or

(c) by way of trade exhibits in public; or

(d) imports for sale or hire into any part of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, any work which to his knowledge infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made within the part of His Majesty's dominions in or into which the sale or hiring, exposure, offering for sale or hire, distribution, exhibition, or importation took place.

(3) Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who for his private profit permits a theatre or other place of entertainment to be used for the performance in public of the work without the consent of the owner of the copyright, unless he was not aware, and had no reasonable ground for suspecting, that the performance would be an infringement of copyright.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I move to amend the proviso to subsection (1) by adding, after the word "work" at the end of the subsection, the words in my Amendment. The object is to eliminate from the acts which constitute an infringement of copyright the performance of any song or other musical composition on the title page of which the word "Copyright" does not appear. I think the Amendment on the face of it clearly shows its intention. It is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("work") insert ("or the performance in public of any song or other musical composition which as printed and published for sale does not bear on its title-page a notification that prior to its performance a licence from the owner must be obtained; or the publication of the reproduction of any photograph or photographic reproduction which does not carry on itself or immediately beneath it the word 'Copyright'").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): This question was a good deal discussed in the Committee, and I think by a very large majority we came to the conclusion that the Amendment was not only unnecessary but unworkable. There is protection given for these cases by the clause giving full discretion to the Court as regards costs as well as damages. The origin of the provision requiring performing rights to be expressly reserved were the proceedings in old days of certain persons who made a rather illegitimate use of the right which then existed to sue for a penalty. Consequently an amending Statute was passed in 1882 to prevent their operations, and the provision to which the noble Lord refers was introduced for that purpose. But it was found to be unworkable, for the reason that the author of a song, for instance, very seldom has control over the printing, and it is impossible for him to see whether the word "Copyright" is put on or not. Moreover, it was found that the provision did not stop the operations of those who brought actions in order to extract blackmail. But those operations were stopped by the subsequent introduction of the clause giving the Court control over costs and damages, and we have incorporated that clause in this Bill. On the other side there is this very great difficulty. The Berlin Convention has laid down that all technicalities such as registration are to be got rid of by the great Powers which are giving each other the benefit of their copyright system, and if we inserted this Amendment in the Bill we should be excluded from a large number of the benefits derived under the Berlin Convention. For these reasons I would be glad if the noble Lord would not insist on this Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I quite see that the reasons which the noble Viscount has given against my Amendment are powerful ones, and I therefore withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): The noble Lord has a second Amendment on this clause, to add to subsection (1) a new subsection—viz.:
(vii) The republication of any article or paragraph published in a magazine or news paper, unless in the original publication the word "Copyright." appears either at the head or at the foot of the said article, or in the case of a paragraph, or the article from which the paragraph was taken; always provided that a period of not less than twelve hours shall have elapsed between the original publication and the reproduction.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not move that Amendment.
Clause 5:
Ownership of Copyright, &c.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that—

(a) where in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright; and

(b) where the author was in the employment of sonic other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the coarse of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright.

(2) The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limitations to the United Kingdom or any self-governing dominion or other part of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence, but no such assignment or grant shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the owner of the right in respect of which the assignment or grant is made, or by his duly authorised agent.
Provided that where the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright therein, no assignment of the copyright, and no grant of any interest therein, made by him otherwise than by will after the passing of this Act, shall be operative to vest in the assignee or grantee any rights with respect to the copyright in the work beyond the expiration of the twenty-five years from the death of the author, and the reversionary interest in the copyright expectant on the termination of that period shall on the death of the author, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, devolve on his legal personal representatives as part of his estate, and any agreement entered into by him as to the disposition of such reversionary interest shall be null and void, but nothing in this proviso shall be construed as applying to the assignment of the

455
copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work as part of a collective work.
(3) Where, under any partial assignment of copyright, the assignee becomes entitled to any right comprised in copyright, the assignee as respects the right so assigned, and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of the copyright, and the provisions of this Act shall have effect. accordingly.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved an Amendment in proviso (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 5, after the words "where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of," to insert "continued" before the word "service." The noble Earl said: This matter has, I know, been discussed a good deal, and I have merely put down this Amendment in order to ask the noble Viscount if he can give a declaration that the words "where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service" do not include a sculptor or an architect who receives a commission for work. If he could give me that assurance I would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, after ("of") insert ("continued").—(Tice Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Before the noble Viscount replies, I am anxious to express a hope that he will give no such assurance as the noble Earl asks. The words may be vague, but surely while the contract of service lasts, if only for a week, this clause ought to apply.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I agree with the noble Viscount; but I think I can give an assurance which will remove the difficulty which the noble Earl feels. A contract of service means a contract which creates the relationship of employer and employed. If you merely give a commission to an architect or sculptor to produce a design or a bust for you that, does not create the relationship of employer and employed between the parties. Therefore I think the noble Earl may take it that in that respect his doubt is allayed. The scheme of the clause is to declare quite clearly for the future that the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright. To that two exceptions are made. There is the definite case of a commission, and the case of a contract of service; and there
456
is another point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, is going to call attention with which we are ready to deal. Lord St. Aldwyn may rest assured that we have no intention of departing from what is the great principle of this clause; and the question which the noble Earl put to me is one which, I think, is capable of a satisfactory solution consistently with the clause.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the insertion in Clause 5 of a new proviso, that "Where in the case of an architectural design or drawing for the erection or restoration of any building, the design or drawing was ordered by some other person and the author was paid for superintending such erection or restoration, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such design or drawing was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."
The noble Viscount said: I have given notice of this Amendment in order to raise again a point which I raised when we were discussing this Bill in Committee, and with regard to which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill promised consideration. I confess that I hoped from what, he said that he would have been able himself to place an Amendment on the Paper to meet what I wished, but he has not done so, and I fear, from what he has told me, that he will not be able to agree to this Amendment. This Bill for the first time gives copyright to the profession of architects. I confess it seems to me very doubtful whether they ought to have been admitted to copyright at all. The profession is by no means an ill-paid profession, because when an architect has made a design for which he is employed by some other person, he is, after having made the design, employed to carry out the work at a very considerable percentage of the total cost of that work. Therefore I maintain that he receives as much remuneration in such cases as he is at all entitled to. As the Bill now stands, the architect would not only receive that remuneration, but if the employer who had paid him, and fully paid him, for his work, desired to repeat that work in

457
another building, he would be obliged to pay what really I must call blackmail to the architect for the copyright of the designs. The case that occurred to me was this. A landowner, or a local authority, or a municipal authority, might desire to erect cottages or artisans' dwellings. They would naturally obtain from an architect plans for the first of those dwellings. They would employ that architect to superintend their erection, and he would be paid for the work. They might then desire to repeat that design to a very considerable extent, and in that case, as the Bill now stands, they would have to make a payment to the architect on every cottage or artisan's dwelling they built on the same plan whether they employed the architect again or not. It is a difficult matter, as everybody knows, to build houses of this kind at a cost which will as a pecuniary investment recoup those who undertake them, and this is really an additional burden to be imposed by Parliament on the cost of these houses. I maintain that as the Bill now stands the interest of the public has not been sufficiently considered. Therefore, my Lords, I have ventured to propose in this Amendment that a third exception to the general rule shall be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("copyright") insert ("and
(c) Where in the case of an architectural design or drawing for the erection or restoration of any building the design or drawing was ordered by some other person and the author was paid for superintending such erection or restoration, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such design or drawing was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Viscount first raised this point in Committee, and I was struck with the individual cases which he gave and undertook to set to work to see whether, consistently with the principle of the Bill, I could find some words which would cover these cases without destroying the principle. I regret to say that after the most careful consultation with the experts I have wholly failed to do so. The principle of this Bill is to give to the architect copyright, which he has not had up to now. It was thought wrong that if an architect was employed to design a cathedral, for instance, or a beautiful house, and had at great pains
458
made a design for that purpose and the person who employed him to do so did not carry out the design, or, having carried it out, wished to set up another, that the artistic work, which was the creation of the architect's brain just as much as literary copyright would be, should pass from the architect unless the person who commissioned him had stipulated to obtain it. We felt that the root principle of this Bill was to bring in architecture as one of the Fine Arts for which copyright might be secured, and there has been a great response to that among architects themselves.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That, of course, is natural; but it is not wrong. They may be quite right in asking that the creation of their art should be protected just as much as in the case of the sculptor or painter or man of letters. That is the position which architects have taken up, and that is the position which the Government have accepted in this Bill. The Amendment which the noble Viscount has placed on the Paper takes the copyright from the architect and gives it, quite contrary to the principle of the Bill, to somebody else, and so difficult is it for him to make a working Amendment that he has to add something else. He provides that there are to be two conditions—where the design was ordered by some other person and the author was paid for superintending the erection. I quite agree that ought to come in. But see the awkwardness of it. Instead of the copyright remaining in one place it remains with the architect until the cheque is given him in payment, and then it shifts from the architect to somebody else. Difficulties of that kind are inevitable if you try to go into the simple principle with which Clause 5 begins—that the copyright is to be in the author of every kind of artistic design except in the two cases in which it is taken out.
After all, there is a very simple remedy for this case. When the Bill is passed the public will know, or will get to know, the law, and if anybody wishes to have a design which he may use hereafter, for instance for the erection of houses, all he has to do is what every owner of a journal does at the present time when he buys an article and wants to have the copyright. He

459
says, sometimes on the back of the cheque, that the copyright is to belong to the proprietor of the journal. It is the simplest thing in the world. In a great many cases the person commissioning an architect will wish to have the copyright, and in those cases he has only got to draft a few simple words to secure to himself the right to call for an assignment afterwards. Architects have suffered very great hardships up to now from having no copyright. The Bill proposes to give them copyright. If you take the copyright away from them, which the Amendment proposes in a most sweeping way to do, you get into a much greater series of difficulties than those with which you are left confronted by the clause as it stands. What you are left confronted with is this, that for the future anybody who wishes to reproduce a building for which he has commissioned an architect to produce a design he must say, in the letter to the architect, "I wish to have the copyright of this design." The Bill will pass, we hope, and the public will get to know of this, and it will be the practice in these cases, as it is already in a great many other cases, for this to be done. It is far better that people should have to take a little trouble than that you should destroy the whole principle which lies at the root of this provision with regard to architects—namely, that at last we are going to give architects the recognition of their right to the creation of their own brains in the same way as we have done it in the case of other artistic persons.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I would ask the noble Viscount whether there is anything in the Bill to provide that the design shall be an original one.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes. If the noble Lord will look at the definition of "copyright" at the beginning of the Bill, he will see that the work must be original in order that there may be any copyright at all.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: Then the design of a labourer's cottage, for instance, would hardly be original.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should think almost never, though there might be some little feature in it of originality.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am glad the noble Viscount does not propose to accept the Amendment which has just been moved. I know there are very great difficulties in dealing fairly with everybody concerned, but I venture to think that the noble Viscount behind me (Lord St. Aldwyn) is not quite fair to the architects in this case. His Amendment would put architects in a worse position than they are in without this Bill, because by a decision of Mr. Justice Ridley in 1904, in the case of Gibbon v. Pease, it was held that under the present law the person who commissioned an architect to design a building was entitled to have the drawings, but that the architect himself, who would naturally keep copies and tracings of all the drawings, was entitled, if he desired at some subsequent date to reproduce any part of them, to do so. Under this Amendment if it were incorporated in the Bill he would part with the right of ever reproducing anything that he had designed, because the copyright would pass to the person who had given him the commission. The Government have thought, and rightly, that architects ought not to be left out of the Copyright Bill altogether. It would, I think be very hard to put them, as the Amendment would do, actually in a worse position than they are in at this moment.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment now before the House felt that the interests of architects had been regarded in the construction of this clause and that the interests of the public had been neglected. I am afraid that criticism applies to a good deal in the Bill. The public has not been sufficiently considered with respect to many of its provisions. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said that there was an easy escape out of the difficulty which Lord St. Aldwyn had suggested; that the employer could contract to secure the right of reproducing the work, and that therefore the matter might be left as it stands—namely, that the copyright should remain with the architect. But I submit that the law ought to conform to common sense. The real question here is whether you are laying down the law in a way which conforms to common sense.
I think I can suggest to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill a way of meeting the difficulty which would satisfy

461
the noble Viscount opposite and at the same tune be consistent with what Lord Haldane says is the main principle of the Bill. Let the architect have his copyright and let that copyright remain with the architect whatever it is worth, meeting thereby the observation made by the noble Earl opposite. But let it not be an infringement of that copyright if the person for whom the design has been produced, and who has employed the architect to superintend the works under that design, uses the design afterwards. That would reserve to the person concerned—it may be an individual or a local authority—the right of reproduction. That I think, would satisfy what Lord Haldane calls the main principle of the Bill, and would also remove the difficulties and pitfalls which would certainly be set to many persons who give architects commissions and would not be prepared for the device of securing by contract that which they ought to secure by the operation of the law.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I quite felt when I placed this Amendment on the Paper that it was open to objection. I had no wish, however, to place architects in a worse position than they have been in under the present law, and if Lord Plymouth is right in saying that the Amendment does that I should not wish to press it. But I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to consider the suggestion which has just been made by Lord Courtney. Surely the person who has employed the architect—limited, if you like, to smaller buildings such as I have had principally in mind, artisans' dwellings and the like—ought to be able to construct other buildings of a similar kind without any infringement of the architect's copyright. That would be, as far as I am concerned, a satisfactory settlement of the question. I feel that, although the noble Viscount is right in saying that it is possible for an employer and architect to contract themselves out of the Bill and to reserve the copyright to the employer, very few people who employ architects will be acquainted with this new law for some little time to come, and there may be cases of considerable hardship in which persons have not contracted themselves out of the Bill because they have not the least idea of the position which this Bill gives to architects with regard to the possession of copyright. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am glad the noble Viscount does not press his Amendment. I would only say about the Amendment suggested by Lord Courtney that we have not got it before us, but as far as I followed it it would be unnecessary or unjust—unnecessary if you are dealing with such designs as those of cottages and things of that kind, for the reason to which Lord Clifford of Chudleigh called attention; and unjust if it was a great building, for instance, a cathedral. In the latter case it would be unjust that a person who had contracted to get a cathedral built should be able to reproduce the architect's designs in which there might have been as much artistic and original work as in a great picture. It seems to me that in those cases if you wish to get the design you ought to buy it from the architect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of proviso (b) the words, "but where the work is a contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical."
The noble Viscount said: In Committee on the Bill I tried to suggest words with regard to the position of those who contribute to newspapers under a contract or salary, and the Government admitted that there was some difficulty in putting a man in the position that because he had been paid a certain salary he was to lose, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, all claim to the copyright. The Government have now suggested words which I have placed on the Paper which will meet that difficulty. But I think it will be felt that possibly the words which they have suggested are a little wide. The words leave things in this position, that where a work is a contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, the copyright, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, shall be in the hands of the author. That has been held by some newspaper proprietors to be likely to cover the reporting of speeches, which, as I daresay is well known, is carried out by a circle very often of ten or twelve reporters, and those reports are copied into

463
other newspapers, for which, of course, no authority is needed from the reporters themselves. Everybody would wish to safeguard to proper extent the work of the reporters, but it would certainly be a change from the existing practice to attempt to lay down that a man who has reported under a contract of service should have the copyright. The one object which I had in suggesting words in Committee was to provide that the existing admirable practice and good understanding between proprietors and the authors of contributions should not be disturbed. I therefore propose to amend this Amendment so that it would read, "but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical," etc. I believe those words would meet the view of the noble Viscount, and they have been accepted by persons representing the proprietors and have been seen and concurred in by those who represent the authors.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, after ("copyright") insert ("but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical").—(Viscount Midleton.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Viscount has in consultation arrived at a happy solution of the difficulty. When we discussed this question in Committee obscurity arose from the fact that it was proposed to affect copyright. The Amendment of the noble Viscount does not touch the copyright. It leaves it to be dealt with by the governing words of the section. Now all he says is that there is to be a right of veto on the publication of this kind of work otherwise titan as part of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical unless the author has given his consent. I think that is a very sensible solution of the matter, and on behalf of the Government I accept the words.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I spoke on this matter in Committee and pointed out the difficulties that might have arisen on the Amendment as originally drafted, and on behalf of the Newspaper Society I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, on the arrangement which has now been arrived at.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL*LORD GORELL had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), after the words "or other part of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends," to insert "or any foreign country." The noble and learned Lord said: My Amendment was intended to deal with a difficulty in the assigning of copyright with limitations to his Majesty's Dominions. I thought that the words "or any foreign country" should be added. I have since discussed this point with considerable care and with some expert assistance, and I am not at all satisfied that the Amendment does not introduce greater difficulty than it was intended to remove. If the noble Viscount takes the same view I would rather not move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My noble and learned friend is right. There is something offhand to be said for his words, but when you come to look into the point the uncertainty which the Amendment would introduce as to the interpretation which the Courts would put upon it makes me think he is wise in his decision not to move the Amendment.
Amendment not moved.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 5 is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to make it clear that a licence to publish part of a work may be given.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, after the first ("work") insert ("or part of a work").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The new clause standing in my name introduces a matter of considerable importance. No doubt the noble Viscount will point out that under the Bill as proposed copyright is to be given by each country on the same terms to foreigners as to its own subjects. But here in England we have had a very cheap and expeditious form of copyright, which is achieved by registering any publication at Stationers' Hall, and that very cheap and expeditious form of copyrighting a work has received the approbation of all parties concerned. I have had quite an unexpected number of letters in its favour since putting down this Amendment, not only from the Newspaper Society, but from individual authors, who have written to say that whatever may be

465
the changes affecting their copyrights abroad they desire most emphatically that the facility of registering at Stationers' Hall should be maintained. As long ago as 1842 Stationers' Hall was recognised as the centre for copyrighting, and it has been used since then and has worked exceedingly well. You can copyright at Stationers' Hall all kinds of designs; it has been used as a centre from which information can be obtained as to previous articles registered there, and has become recognised as the depot for registration. The greatest poachers of copyright in the world are the people of the United States, who, using the same language as we do, are able to take articles, books, and all kinds of copyright matter, unless precautions are taken beforehand which are costly and involve simultaneous publication, to the great detriment of authors and others. If Stationers' Hall could be recognised as the centre of registration in this country, I believe it would facilitate the matter which the Government have in view, which is the nationalisation of copyright. As a specimen of the letters I have received I will read one from a well-known author. He says—
"As an author, and baying always registered my copyrights at Stationers' Hall, I thank you for putting down your Amendment in favour of the present system. I find by personal experience that considerable advantage and convenience exist in the simple method of registering, and the simplicity and ease with which assignments can be effected at a cost of 5s. There does not seem to be any adequate reason for interfering with a long-established practice to which no objection can be taken."
The Amendment is a lengthy one, but it can be summed up in the phrase that it is desirable to retain the Stationers' Hall system of registration. When you have once registered a newspaper at Stationers' Hall, all the articles which appear in the newspaper and subsequent publications become copyright, and that protects the contributor to the newspaper as well as the proprietor, and therefore the system is very conveniently arranged all round. I believe that when this subject was considered in Committee in the House of Commons the Committee came to the decision that it was inadvisable to retain Stationers' Hall in an exclusive position and that the internationalisation of copyright was desirable; but many of my friends are anxious that Stationers' Hall should be retained, and I therefore hope the noble Viscount will give the matter his serious consideration.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) There shall be kept in the hall of the Stationers' Company by an officer (hereinafter called the "registrar") to be appointed by the Stationers' Company, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, such one or more registers as may be prescribed, in which shall be entered the names Of titles of works and the names of authors, and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(2) The author or publisher of, or the owner of or other person interested in the copyright in, any work, shall cause the particulars respecting the work to be entered in the register, and in the case of any artistic work, no action shall be sustainable nor any penalty be recoverable in respect of anything done before registration.
(3) In the case of tin encyclopædia, newspaper, review, magazine, or other periodical work or work published in a series of books or parts, it shall not be necessary to make a separate entry for each number or pert, but a single entry for the whole work shall suffice.
(4) There shall also be kept in the hall of the Stationers' Company by the registrar such indexes of the registers established under this section as may be prescribed.
(5) The registers anti indexes established under this section shall be in the prescribed form, and shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection, and any person shall be entitled to take copies of or make extracts front any such register, and the registrar shall, if so required, give a copy of any entry in any such register certified by hits to be a true copy, and any such certificate shall be primâ facie evidence of the matters thereby certified.
(6) There shall be charged in respect of entries in registers, the inspection of registers, taking copies of or making extracts from registers, and certificates by the registrar under this section, such fees as may be prescribed.
(7) The Stationers' Company shall annually render to the Board of Trade such accounts of their receipts and expenditure under this section as may be prescribed.
(8) The Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing any matters which under this section are to be prescribed, and generally for carrying this section into effect, and any such regulations may require that, in the case of an artistic work desired to be registered, there shall be furnished a representation of the work sufficient for the identification thereof.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: This question has been very closely considered by those who were responsible for framing the Bill and in consultation with a large number of experts. The noble Lord spoke of the good system which used to prevail at Stationers' Hall. I cannot help thinking that he has not looked into the details of that system. I do not know any system that has been more universally condemned. To begin with, the Copyright Committee unreservedly condemned the whole system of Stationers' Hall. At Berlin, at the Convention of the great Powers, the plan of registration was also condemned, and

467
if this Amendment were accepted we should not get the benefit of the Berlin Convention. The Amendment does not even propose to make copyright essentially dependent upon registration. If that were done, there might be something to be said for the system, under which you would be able to go and look in the register and, if the register disclosed copyright in a particular work, then to abstain from printing it. But the Amendment follows the old system of Stationers' Hall. That system is one which was carefully considered in the other House and by the Government before the Bill was framed, and one of the great reforms and simplifications in the law of copyright which we have introduced is the getting rid of that system altogether. On the grounds I have stated we feel bound not to accept the Amendment.
LORD GORELL: As this matter formed a very important subject in the inquiry by the Copyright Committee, I should like to say a word about it. Article 4 of the Berlin Convention expressly says that—
"The enjoyment of the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to the performance of any formality."
This matter was very fully gone into, and the Committee in their Report made this statement—
"The Committee fail to see what advantage to the public can be expected from systems of registration, which are particularly onerous in the case of foreign authors, and, if abolished for them, should equally be abolished for authors of our own country."
This Amendment would require English authors and publishers to register at Stationers' Hall, but, if I appreciate the situation rightly, we could not carry out this Convention if we imposed that on foreign authors whose works come into this country. Therefore the Committee came to the conclusion that it was undesirable that there should be any system of registration. I understand that in the other House a clause of an optional character was introduced, but was finally abandoned, and I think that at the present day there is no necessity for any system of registration. This system dates back to the time when Stationers' Hall had the sole right of printing, and it followed from that that they had a right to keep up the registration. The Amendment would go against the views of the Copyright Committee
468
who carefully considered the matter, and also very much against the clause of the Code or Convention which seeks to get rid of these formalities.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what has been said by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, I beg to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time I do not think all the points have been fully answered. I trust that what the noble Viscount says is true, and that my friends who have written to me on the subject will really not suffer under the Bill. But the point is one which I hope will still receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11:
Summary Remedies.
11.—(1) If any person knowingly—

(a) makes for sale or hire any infringing copy of a work in which copyright subsists; or

(b) sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or hire any infringing copy of any such work; or

(c) distributes infringing copies of any such work either for the purposes of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright; or

(d) by way of trade exhibits in public any infringing copy of any such work; or

(e) imports for sale or hire into the United Kingdom any infringing copy of any such work;

he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for every copy dealt with in contravention of this section, but not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of the same transaction; or in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two mouths.
(2) If any person makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists, or knowingly and for his private profit causes any such work to be performed in public without the consent of the owner of the copyright, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months.
(3) The court before which any such proceedings are taken may, whether the alleged offender is convicted or not, order that all copies of the work or all plates in the possession of the alleged offender, which appear to it to be infringing copies or plates for the purpose of making infringing copies, be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.
(4) Nothing in this section shall, as respects musical works, affect the provisions of the Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902, or the Musical Copyright Act, 1906.
LORD GORELL: Subsection (2) of Clause 11 provides that "If any person makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright, subsists, or knowingly and for his private profit causes any such work to be performed in public without the consent of the owner of the copyright, he shall be guilty of an offence," and so forth. I propose, after the words "If any person," at the beginning of that provision, to insert the word "knowingly." He might be a person in innocent possession of a plate for the purpose of making infringing copies, and he might not know that, they were infringing copies. I think this Amendment is a desirable one and I do not imagine that it will be resisted.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, after ("person") insert ("knowingly").—(Lord Gorell.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Delivery of Books to Libraries.
15.—(1) The publisher of every book published in the United Kingdom shall, within one month after the publication, deliver, at his own expense, a copy of the book to the trustees of the British Museum, who shall give a written receipt for it.
(2) He shall also, if written demand is made before the expiration of twelve months after publication, deliver within one month after receipt of that written demand or, if the demand was made before publication, within one month after publication, to sonic depot in London named in the demand a copy of the book for, or in accordance with the directions of, the authority having the control of each of the following libraries, namely: the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the University Library, Cambridge; the Library of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin; and, subject to the provisions of this section, the National Library of Wales. In the case of an encyclopedia, newspaper, review, magazine, or work published in a series of numbers or parts, the written demand may include all numbers or parts of the work which may be subsequently published.
(3) The copy delivered to the trustees of the British Museum shall be a copy of the whole book with all maps and illustrations belonging thereto, finished and coloured in the same manner as the best copies of the book are published, and shall be bound, sewed, or stitched together, and on the best paper on which the book is printed.
(4) The copy delivered for the other authorities mentioned in this section shall be on the paper on which the largest number of copies of the book is printed for sale, and shall be in the like condition as the books prepared for sale.
(5) The books of which copies are to be delivered to the National Library of Wales shall not include books of such classes as may be specified in regulations to be made by the Board of Trade.
(6) If a publisher fills to comply with this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and the value of the book, and the line shall be paid to the trustees or authority to whom the book ought to have been delivered.
(7) For the purposes of this section, the expression" hook" includes every part or division of a book, pamphlet, sheet of letter-press, sheet of music, map, plan, chart or table separately published, but shall not include any second or subsequent edition of a book unless such edition contains additions or alterations either in the letterpress or in the maps, prints, or other engravings belonging thereto.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add, at the end of subsection (2), the words, "All demands for books, except in the case of the British Museum, shall be made in writing direct to the publisher by the librarian. and it, shall be understood that no book will be asked for which is not intended to be permanently added to the library for which it is claimed."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I have put down at the instance of the Publishers' Association, on whose behalf your Lordships will remember the same point was raised in Committee. There was considerable discussion then, and certain proposals were put forward. The publishers quite realise, and I think they have been wise in doing so, that any book that they publish shall be liable to be demanded by the libraries mentioned, but what they object to is that all books should be sent without any question. It will be noticed that I have excepted from my Amendment the case of the British Museum. The British Museum, of course, should have every book that is published of every sort and kind; but many books of an ephemeral nature are published in which the other libraries cannot possibly be interested, and I am told that in some cases the difficulty is to find room to sort out the mass of perfectly worthless and undigested literary matter. That being so it seems reasonable that the institutions other than the British Museum should not be in a position to ask from the publishers for a copy of every book of every sort and kind that is published. The publishers

471
offer to supply any book that is asked for if it is demanded by the librarian, but in cases where it is not demanded they ask that they should not be put to the expense of sending a copy. I am sorry, as an Oxford man, to differ on this point from the noble Earl the Chancellor of Oxford University (Earl Curzon of Kedleston), but I hope the House will give the Amendment their consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 25, after ("published") insert ("All demands for books, except in the case of the British Museum, shall be made in writing direct to the publisher by the librarian, and it shall be understood that no book will be asked for which is not intended to be permanently added to the library for which it is claimed").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not think the Amendment which has just been moved is a reasonable or a feasible Amendment. I am told by those who have looked into the matter that it would be impossible to work the system if this Amendment were adopted. It should be borne in mind that this right has not been given without very valuable consideration. One would think from what has been said that this demand for copies came as a bolt from the blue, and that this privilege was asked from publishers without any right or reason. But I would point out that after the Union with Scotland, in 1709 an Act was passed giving this right to all the Scottish Universities and to the Advocates' Library, and that was the position for a considerable time. And after the Union with Ireland in 1800 the right was given in regard to Ireland to Dublin University and King's Inns Library. But the right in both cases conferred a copyright which the publishers had not previously in Scotland and Ireland.
The matter was considered more than once, and an Act was passed in 1835 which took away, with a carefully measured compensation, from the four Scottish Universities and the King's Inns Library the right which they then had under the Act of 1709. That left the present five bodies—the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the University Library, Cambridge, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin—with this privilege. Surely the history of this privilege is to be taken into account in considering the question. Everybody agrees that the British Museum should have these copies, and I am sure
472
my noble friend the Chancellor of the University of Oxford has made out a good case for the inclusion of the Bodleian Library. But Scotland and Ireland are in a special position. The British Museum and the libraries of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities provide for England. Is it not reasonable that Scotland, a very intellectual country, should have its library ready to hand in order that its authors and its students and its literary people may have their books collected under one roof where they may go and make their researches and pursue their studies, and so on? Is it reasonable that they should be told in Edinburgh and Glasgow and other places in Scotland, "You must go to the British Museum and forage for your books there."
Similarly, is it not reasonable that Ireland, which has a great centre of learning and a splendid collection of books in Dublin University, should have similar facilities? Their library is open to students and all who make proper application, and they allow a user of it and every fair facility for a user of their books for reading, study, and research. Now my noble friend seeks to cut down the privilege that Ireland at present enjoys by imposing restrictions that would make it much less valuable, as I am told by those who are better judges than I am. It is conceded that the publishers do not make any complaint about the cheap books. But that is not the point. The point is that under the Amendment of my noble friend the libraries will be hit, and hit hard, with regard to the expensive books. Surely it is obvious that they will want these expensive books. What we say in Ireland is, "We may take your cheaper books and look at them at our leisure, but as to your expensive books we tell you without any hesitation at all that those are the very class of books we need for our library." Those are the very books which any great library would wish to have and that poor scholars and students cannot buy for themselves, and it is quite legitimate that they should have a public library to go to where they can examine them at their leisure.
I have read the publishers' letters, most admirable and temperate letters, and I know some of the publishers myself, and they make little or no point about the cheap literature. Their main point is as

473
to the expensive books. Those are exactly the books that librarians are asked for, and they would not be able to supply them. There is little more to be said. The cheap books may pass without discussion. The publishers make little point with regard to them, and even the rubbish may get an advertisement that may do some good to somebody. The object of the Amendment seems to me to mutilate or do away with a privilege which is not only highly prized but most usefully applied by these great seats of learning, and which gives a great deal of benefit to students and authors for the reason that they can indulge in research and study there. At all events they know where the books are, and if they want to examine them they can readily apply at the library.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I do not rise either to oppose or to support this Amendment. I should like, however, to make a suggestion to your Lordships. It seems to me, on reflection, that there are only four ways really of dealing with this question. One is to leave the Bill as it is; the second is to regulate the requests by the libraries, which was the subject of the Amendment that I moved the other day and which your Lordships did not accept; the third is, as I follow Lord Montagu's proposal in the next Amendment, to have an arbitration if there is an objection made by the publishers to supplying the books because they are not suitable, which it seems to me would be very inconvenient and lead to a great, deal of trouble, because one can quite understand that publishers who were very averse to supplying books might practically fight every book, so that it seems to me that it is an impracticable suggestion. But there is a fourth possibility which I venture to suggest to your Lordships, though I have not put it down as an Amendment. In fact, I should not have been in time even if I had wanted to do so, as it only occurred to me after reading this first Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Montagu. It seems to me that what has been objected to chiefly, although, of course, no doubt the expensive books are at the bottom of it, is the demand, without any consideration by the libraries, for everything that is published, and it may be that my suggestion would be a possible way out of the difficulty. It is that it should be put upon the authorities of the library to make a written demand based upon what they consider really
474
needful and requisite and suitable for the library. Of course, that might put an extra duty and burden upon the librarian, but in large libraries he has assistance, and I venture to formulate this as a suggestion worthy of consideration, that the written demand which has to be made—except in the case of the Welsh library, which is to be governed by other regulations—should be sent direct to the publishers of the book demanding it, and the demand should contain a statement by the librarian that in his opinion the book is needful and suitable for the purposes of the library. The demand would have to be signed by him, or one of his subordinates authorised by him to do so. That would place on the librarian the duty of considering what out of the mass of publications was really required and really suitable for the purposes of the library.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I want to say a word about this Amendment. It seems to me, if I may say so, that by putting down this Amendment the publishers have somewhat changed their minds. As I understood the discussion to which I listened in Committee, the idea then was that it was a grievance that the publishers should have to supply the expensive books, and we had an address from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Courtney) upon the political economy of the question devoted to the particular point that, after all, the publishers were not really suffering any wrong because they got it back from the public. But now the Amendment proposes that there should be a demand made for every book, and, if I understood the mover of the Amendment rightly, he not only made no point of the expensive books but he said that as a matter of course they would be asked for and would be given. I venture to say that the proposal in the Amendment, which is all we have to deal with on this occasion, is not only unfair in principle but it would be unworkable in practice. At present, as I understand it, the four libraries mentioned, other than the British Museum, have a common agent in London who gets the books from the publishers and distributes them to the libraries. I venture to say that if you are going to put upon each individual librarian the labour and trouble and annoyance of claiming every book that is published, you will not only put an absolutely impossible amount of work upon him but you

475
will add greatly to the difficulty and friction of carrying on the whole matter.
LORD ASHBOURNE: And add to the expense of the staff.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes, I have no doubt; and the publishers will not get rid of the grievance of having to supply the expensive books. Something has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, about the University Library in Dublin. I put in a plea for the Faculty of Advocates' Library in Edinburgh. That library is, after all, a national library for Scotland; it is as national for us as the British Museum is for England and for London, It is the only really first-class library now in Scotland which is open to the general public, and particularly to students. It is quite a mistake to suppose that this is a mere professional library. It should not suffer disadvantage on account of the fact that it is maintained by the patriotism of the Faculty of Advocates. As a matter of fact, there is a small grant from public funds for the purchase of books, and on one or two occasions the Treasury have given grants for additions to the library and other matters connected with it, but almost the whole expense of the library is defrayed by the Faculty of Advocates with a liberality which does them the greatest credit and which has extended over more than 100 years. They have placed it freely and without charge at the disposal of students from all over Scotland. It would be an injustice to Scotland and to Ireland if the Scottish and Irish people had to come to the British Museum to look for these books. After all, as now put, it does not seem to me that there is any real grievance upon the publishers, because, as I mentioned a few moments ago, the idea of giving up the expensive hooks—with which I confess I had a certain amount of sympathy, because I thought if a book was very expensive and only a limited number was published it might, perhaps, be a grievance—has been, I understand, departed from. I do plead for the right of all these libraries to have the ordinary books that are published. They, may not keep them all, but it is in these very libraries that there is a chance of things that are published being preserved for the use of posterity, and I would express the earnest hope that this Amendment will not be agreed to.
LORD RAYLEIGH: My Lords. I certainly hope that this Amendment will not be accepted by the House. I know there is great apprehension in Cambridge among those connected with the library as to the possibility of such changes taking effect. Many of the arguments have been stated with great force by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I need not repeat what he has said. I would be rather inclined to take the more general ground, that a change should not be made without an inquiry by a Commission or Committee or sonic such body before whom the parties interested should be fully heard. The University of Cambridge—and I have no doubt it is true also of the other bodies interested—have not been heard on this matter, and the objections which they have are very strong. It is natural enough that the publishers should object; one cannot be surprised at that. The publishers are men of business—many authors think publishers are rather too much so, I believe—but anyhow they do not undertake the publication of a book unless they can see their way to a probable profit upon it, and they take care that at any rate part of the burden should be shared both by the writers and by the readers of the books. It seems to me that it would be a step very much in the wrong direction to hamper the action of the Universities in this matter. These collections of books have a national value. It is not only a question of the interests of Oxford or Cambridge or of the Faculty of Advocates' Library in Scotland; it is a great national requirement that there should be public libraries in which all books of any kind of importance are sure to be found. Therefore I earnestly hope that the House will not interfere with the present practice, at any rate without giving much more consideration to the matter than so far has been given to it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, when this matter came before the House in Committee the Government took no active part in the discussion but left it to the consideration of the House, and I propose to take the same course on the present occasion. In what I say I am speaking only for myself. I cannot help feeling that we have been discussing a little wide of what is the real point of the Amendment. We are not discussing whether these libraries should be entitled to have all books which they could reasonably ask for. We

477
are not discussing the question of putting shackles upon them in their endeavours to make a real University library. We are not seeking to limit the class of books which they obtain and which are suitable for University purposes. But do think that the speech of Lord Balfour of Burleigh has shown that we are face to face with a system which is capable of considerable abuse. The noble Lord told us that the great University libraries, instead of asking for the books they wanted, appointed a general agent in London who collected from the publishers, I suppose, all books that he found in the catalogues and sent them down. He did not tell us what was done with them. I am quite sure that these libraries do not continue to encumber their shelves with all the shilling shockers and cheap illustrated books which come within the category. But I think what the noble Lord told us and what we heard on the last occasion shows that, while this is a valuable right which the libraries possess, it is a right which is exercised without consideration for the publishers, and I confess I have more sympathy for the publishers than my noble friend behind me has, nor do I take his view of the economics of the cost of production.
I do very strongly feel in this case that what is reasonable—after all, one has to look to a principle—is that these libraries should get all the books that they require and should not get the books that they do not require. I am quite aware of the difficulty of carrying out that principle by means of any legal sanction. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's proposal to send this matter to arbitration, because the cases are too numerous and too small for arbitration; but I do conceive that what is at the bottom of his Amendment is a desire to put upon the librarian of these great libraries some little sense of responsibility. Let them, by all means, have all the books that they think suitable, but do not let them appoint a general agent to sit in London and call for every book that appears in the publishers' catalogues irrespective of whether the book is really a book which is useful to the library or not. I repeat I have a great deal of sympathy for the publishers and I allow them to know something of the case, but I do not share the feelings of the noble Lord who spoke last that the libraries are likely to suffer in this respect. The librarian gets a
478
catalogue, the books that are likely to be of use to the University are picked out, and then they are written for. The question is how to put that in words. I do not think you can impose any legal sanction, and I do not think it is any use talking of arbitration in this connection, but I do think we should gain something if we imposed a certain amount of moral responsibility on the librarians in this respect.
I have obtained a copy of the words which my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell suggested, and which seem to me to be better adapted to bring this forward than the words of the noble Lord opposite. I will read them to the House in order that the House may catch the sense of them, explaining again that the words do not propose to put any legal obligation or restriction on the libraries, but merely to make it necessary that the librarian should consider the value of the book before applying for it. The proposal is, after line 25—this does not touch the Welsh case, which is dealt. with separately later—to insert:
"A written demand, except in the case of the National Library of Wales, shall be sent direct to the publisher of the took demanded, and shall contain a statement by the librarian of the library for which the demand is made that in his opinion the book demanded is s citable and needed for the purposes of the library, and shall be signed by him or one of his subordinates authorised by him."
I confess I do not think that is imposing an undue burden upon the librarians of these University libraries, considering that they are getting the books free. I feel that it is a hardship that the publishers should not have the protection of some such principle as that, and, speaking for myself, I suggest to your Lordships that the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell afford a solution of this matter which preserves all that the Universities set value on, and at the same time gives the publishers some consideration in the very difficult and expensive obligation which has been placed upon them.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: We are in rather a difficult position because we have on the Paper an Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me for which so far not a single good word has been said by anybody except by himself. We then have the proposal of Lord Gorell, who took part in the debate ten days ago and moved an Amendment which

479
I had the honour of opposing, and which was rejected by a majority of two to one in your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord accepts the decision of the House given on that occasion, but out of the kindness of his heart he suggests certain words which he recommends to us as possibly ameliorating the difficulties of the situation. Then the noble Viscount representing the Government, speaking not for the Government but apparently as an independent member of your Lordships' House, says that he favours the words of the noble and learned Lord, but apparently does not propose them himself, and he really asks us to agree to words which nobody has proposed. In what position are we, therefore? Are we considering the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Montagu, or are we considering an Amendment upon that Amendment which several noble Lords favour but which no one proposes?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am quite willing to propose it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Does my noble friend abandon his Amendment?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am quite prepared to abandon my Amendment and accept. the words proposed by Lord Gorell, because I feel that they would be more suitable, and would carry out, although perhaps in a minor degree, the same object that I have in view.
LORD GORELL: I did not think that I was entitled to move an Amendment at this stage and I only suggested the words for the consideration of your Lordships, thinking that they might afford some means of meeting both sides.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If the House will give me leave I will withdraw my Amendment, and also the second Amendment standing in my name—
Page 11, line 12, after ("thereto") insert the following new subsection:
(7) In the event of a book being claimed by the Librarian of either the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the University Library, Cambridge; the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh; or the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, which the publisher objects to give on the ground that it is unsuitable for the library for which it is claimed, the publisher may appeal to an independent person nominated by the Treasury, whose decision shall be final. Notice of appeal shall be made to the
480
Treasury through the Clerk of the Stationers' Company, and the Treasury shall, if required, appoint an arbitrator once in each year for the purpose of deciding all appeals of which notice shall have been given
and I will propose instead an Amendment in the words suggested by Lord Gorell.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then I suppose I am to understand that my noble friend has withdrawn his own Amendments and that he has substituted for them the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gorell?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Yes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: In that case I hope your Lordships will not accept the new Amendment. I take this line on two broad grounds. In the first place, it seems to me a most undesirable thing that on the Report stage of tins Bill there should be introduced a change vitally affecting these four great libraries of which they have had no notice. The Amendment of the noble Lord was only placed in my hands an hour or so ago; it has never been discussed in the House of Commons, and it played no part in the proceedings of that House at any stage of the Bill. Something approaching it was for the first time suggested to your Lordships' House ten days ago and was rejected by a majority of two to one, and we are now invited, in this haphazard, irregular, and almost undignified manner to accept it at the last moment.
I venture to hope you will not look at this Amendment, and I do so for another reason, which will, perhaps, be of greater weight to those who do not share my views. It is that in practice the Amendment would not secure the objects which Lord Gorell desires. His words are that a written demand shall be sent direct to the publisher of each Look, containing a statement by the librarian of the library for which the demand is made that in his opinion the book demanded is suitable and needed for the purposes of the library, to be signed by him or one of his subordinates. Here we come to what is a fundamental misconception of the objects for which these libraries exist. The noble Viscount opposite spoke of the ease of determining what was and what was not necessary for a University library. The

481
whole point is that these University libraries are not merely University libraries but are national libraries; and in addition to being unwilling, as we are, to rely on the British Museum because of the difficulties, pointed out by one noble Lord, that are experienced by students in coming up to the metropolis, there is the great danger that attaches to a single national library, a danger which we all know was experienced in Paris in the year 1871 when the Bibliothèque Nationale was within an ace of being destroyed by fire. In consequence of these drawbacks to the existence of a single national library in this country we have always thought it desirable, and still think it desirable, to keep other national libraries in Scotland and Ireland and at the two great Universities.
The noble Lord says, why should not the librarian make a demand for the books which in his opinion are suitable? What is the answer to that? It is that, regarding his library as a great national repository of literature, he will make a demand for every book. He cannot do anything else. How can be discriminate? The noble Lord in his Amendment seems to contemplate that the librarian is a man who has time to go through all the catalogues of books that come out, and mite out the names of those that, may appear to him to be suitable for his library. I may point out that the librarian in these cases is one of the hardest worked men in the world; he has to give assistance to students of all nationalities, and has no time to look through the names of 50,000 or 60,000 books as they come out in the course of the year. I may also point out that titles of books are most deceptive. It is almost impossible from the title of a book to judge of what it really is. There is another point that may be put. Even supposing your librarian had the time and even supposing he were a man particularly gifted with powers of discrimination, are you to trust him to judge of works which appear to him to be perhaps worthless or of little value to-day, and yet may turn out of very great value at some future date? The trash of one generation is sometimes the treasure of another, and some of the books which have now the highest value are books which were condemned and in all probability would have been rejected when published. I am sorry to say anything which might appear to cast a reflection upon the University of Cambridge, for which my
482
noble friend behind me has so well spoken, but it is a fact that the Cambridge University Library in the year 1818 rejected, presumably as trash, to use the words of my noble friend Lord Montagu, Beethoven's Sonata for violin, Miss Austen's "Emma," Byron's "Siege of Corinth," Shelley's "Alastor," and Scott's "Antiquary." I dare say similar mistakes were made by the Bodleian Library of that day. It shows how liable librarians are to err, and I should not like to submit any of these libraries to the risks of similar mistakes being made in the future. Is it not better, on the whole, that these libraries should retain the privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed, there really being no alternative method which you can set up?
I would ask your Lordships to believe that those who value the privilege of a University library have given full consideration to the question whether discrimination is possible. Many of us have been thinking over this matter in the last ten days, and I venture to say every one of us has come to the conclusion that, in the first place, you cannot fix on a tribunal or an arbiter, and, in the second place, even if you could, you cannot find a criterion of discrimination such as you desire or which would be of any value. The publishers have hitherto taken up the position that it is the cost to which they object; but, as Lord Balfour so pertinently pointed out, that seems to have been waived now, and the question which remains is, Are we or are we not to admit this great mass of literature? I think it ought to be brought in; it may occupy space, and storage is expensive; but some day it may be of enormous value. Anyhow it is already there, and if the British Museum were to disappear to-morrow we have the other libraries to take its place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adhere to the decision you came to ten days ago, and that you will not accept this Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I would point out that there is nothing in my Amendment which would prevent the library agent in London acting in future for the Bodleian and other libraries exactly the same as he acts to-day. He would pick out the books which he thought important for the library and send to the publishers for them. That would be part

483
of his duty. At the present moment he has to sit down and demand everything, and everything has to be sent to him. That I maintain is a great hardship on the publishers. As regards expense, may I repeat that by my Amendment as well as by that of Lord Gorell the libraries would, on demand, be able to get any books they chose, Therefore I think I was justified in bringing this subject forward, and I think your Lordships will recognise that the publishers have been quite reasonable and have taken up a public spirited position. Having said that, I have nothing to do but formally withdraw my Amendment, for I have no wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division the result a which I have no doubt would be against me.
Amend/neat, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17:
Posthumous Works.
17.—(1) In the case of a literary dramatic or musical work, or an engraving, in which copyright subsists at the date of the death of the author or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, at or immediately before the date of the death of the author who dies last, but which has not been published, nor, in the case of a dramatic or musical work, been performed in public, nor, in the case of a lecture, been delivered in public, before that date, copyright shall subsist. till publication, or performance or delivery in public, whichever may first happen, and for a term of fifty years thereafter, and the proviso to section three of this Act shall, in the case of such a work, apply as if the au hor had died at the date of such publication or performance or delivery in public as aforesaid.
(2) The proprietorship of an author's unpublished manuscript after his death shall be !whir; facie proof of the copyright being with the proprietor of the manuscript.
LORD GORELL: This clause was introduced at my suggestion in Committee. The noble and learned Viscount accepted it subject to a consideration of the drafting, and the object of the two Amendments standing in my name is to place it in a proper form. I think the clause as originally accepted was too wide. It might have given rise to the difficulties pointed out by the noble lord, Lord Courtney, with regard to lectures. The proposal now is to cut it down so as to confine it to the acquisition of manuscripts under testamentary disposition, which would give rise, I think, to fro difficulty and would make the clause inure intelligible. As it is proposed to alter it, subsection (2) would run thus—
"The proprietorship of an author's manuscript after his death where such ownership has been
484
acquired under a testamentary disposition made by the author and the manuscript is of a work which has not been published nor performed in public nor delivered in public shall be primâ facie proof of the copyright being with the proprietor of the manuscript."
That would eliminate difficulties that may arise under wills where manuscripts ale bequeathed to one person and the executor claims that the copyright still remains with him as representing the testator.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("unpublished").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 15, after ("death") insert ("where such ownership has been acquired under a testamentary disposition made by the author and the manuscript is of a work which has not been published nor performed in public nor delivered in public").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: In subsection (2) of the clause as it at present stands I beg to move that the second word—namely, "proprietorship"—should be turned into "ownership," and the word "proprietor" in the third line should be turned into "owner."
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("proprietorship") and insert ("ownership").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, leave out ("proprietor") and insert ("owner").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24:
Existing Works.
24.—(l) Where any person is immediately before the commencement of this Act entitled to any such right in any work as is specified in the first. column of the First Schedule to this Act, or to any interest in such a right, he shall as from that date be entitled to the substituted might set forth in the second column of that schedule, or to the same interest in such a substituted right, and to no other right or interest, and such substituted right shall subsist for the term for which it would have subsisted if this Act had been in force at the date when the work was made and the work had been one entitled to copyright thereunder:
Provided that—

(a) if the author of any work in which any such right as is specified in he first column of the First Schedule to this Act subsists at the commencement of this Act has before that date assigned the right or granted any interest therein for the whole term of the right, then at the date when but for the passing of this Act the right would have expired the substituted right conferred by this section shall, in the absence of express agreement, [-ass to the author of the work, and any interest therein created before the commencement of this Act and then subsisting shall determine; but the person who immediately before the date at which the right would so have expired was the owner of the right or interest shall be entitled at his option either—

(i) on giving such notice as hereinafter mentioned, to an assignment of the right or the grant of a. similar interest the rein for the remainder of the term of the right for such consideration as, failing agreement may be determined by arbitration; or

(ii) without any such assignment or grant, to continue to reproduce or perform the work in like manner as theretofore subject to the payment, if demanded by the author within three years after the date at which the tight would have so expired, of such royalties to the author as, failing agreement., may be determined by arbitration, or, where the work is incorporated in a composite work and the owner of the right or interest is the proprietor of that composite work, without any such payment;

The notice above referred to must be given not more than one year nor less than six months before the date at which the right would have so expired, and must be sent by registered post to the aiding, or, if he cannot with reasonable diligence be found, advertised in the London Gazette and in two London newspapers:

(b) where any person has, before the twenty-sixth day of July nineteen hundred and ten, taken any action whereby he has incurred any expenditure or liability in connexion with the reproduction or performance of any work in a manner which at the time was lawful, or for the purpose of or with a. view to the reproduction or performance of a work at a time when such reproduction or performance would, but for the passing of this Act, have been lawful, nothing in this section shall diminish or prejudice any rights or interest arising from or in connexion with such action which are subsisting and valuable at the said date, unless the person who by virtue of this section becomes entitled to restrain such reproduction or performance agrees to pay such compensation as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "author" includes the legal personal representatives of a deceased author, and the expression
486
"composite work" means any work in which works or parts of works of various authors are incorporated.
(3) Subject to the provisions of section nineteen sub-sections (7) and (8) and of section thirty-three of this Act, copyright shall not subsist in any work made before the commencement of this Act, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this sect ion.
LORD CORELL: The Amendments standing in my name to this clause are drafting Amendments. The word "composite" is used in two places in paragraph (ii) of proviso (a), and the word "collective" is used in the rest of the Bill. It has been suggested that "composite" should be changed into "collective" in both places.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, leave out ("composite") and insert ("collective").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("composite") and insert ("collective").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: My next Amendment is to strike out from subsection (2) the words "and the expression composite work' means any work in which works or parts of works of various authors are incorporated." I move this in consequence of the change already made in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out lines 34 and 35.—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to}
Clause 31:
Abrogation of common law rights.
31. No person shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any literary dramatic musical or artistic work, whether published or unpublished, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or of any other statutory enactment for the time being in force.
LORD GORELL: The words which I propose to add to this clause have for their object the reservation of rights arising from trust or confidence. I think no objection is made to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 7. after ("force") insert ("but nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating any right or jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or confidence").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL*LORD GORELL moved to amend the definition of "collective work"—
"Collective work" means—

(a) an encyclopedia, dictionary, year book, or similar work;

(b) a newspaper, review, magazine, or similar periodical; and

(c) any work written in distinct parts by different authors.

by adding at the end, after the word "authors," the words in his Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to the definition clause consequent upon the alteration in Clause 24 with regard to the word "composite."
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 28, after ("authors") insert ("or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment in Second Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 227.)

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Crofters Acts applied throughout Scotland.
1. From and after the commencement of this Act, and subject to the provisions thereof, the Crofters Act shall be rend and construed as if the expression "landholder" were substituted for the expression "crofter" occurring therein, and shall have effect throughout Scotland.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved to add to the clause the words "but nothing in this Act shall affect the statutory right of anyone, feeling himself aggrieved by any decision given under its terms, to appeal to the courts of law for protection."
The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I feel to a certain extent inclined to apologise, because it is only within the last six years that any such Amendment would have been necessary. Hitherto we have trusted to the Courts of Law whenever there have been grievances between any of His Majesty's subjects that required to be settled. But there has arisen a bureaucratic system by which Courts that are not Courts of Law have a right to determine differences that may occur between one person and another. In this country we have a great many Law Courts and large sums are paid annually by the country, and justly so, for their existence, and I want to know why it is when we have all these Courts of Law in existence it should be necessary to lose the advantages for which we have paid and hand over the duties which the Courts of Law were established to perform to other people who have no legal knowledge to decide between parties. The public have not confidence in these bureaucratic Courts, because they know perfectly well that they have been appointed by politicians, and probably the appointments given to their political supporters, and I think you will all agree with me that at no time have so many awards been so lavishly bestowed upon different members of the Liberal Party. For that reason I think it is my duty to stand up and say that in a case like this, which affects so many proprietors throughout the kingdom, we should, where we have reason to object to any decision given by these sub-Courts, have the right to appeal to trained legal intellects in the Courts of Law.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("Scotland") insert ("but nothing in this Act shall affect the statutory right of anyone, feeling himself aggrieved by any decision given under its terms, to appeal to the Courts of Law for protection").—(The Earl of Galloway.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): The provisions of this Bill are confined to its subject-matter, and if the noble Earl wishes to introduce into its provisions at any point the right of appeal from any tribunal which it sets up, I would submit to him that his proper course would be to suggest an Amendment to that end. But so far as the general right of His Majesty's subjects to appeal to Courts of Law for their protection exists, this Bill does not affect it in the very least

489
degree. I would suggest, therefore, to the noble Earl that his words do not have any very direct effect, and so far as I am advised I am not disposed to consent to their introduction into the Bill. As to his general remark that His Majesty's subjects should have protection against injustice, I heartily agree.
THE EARL.OF HALSBURY: I venture to think that the answer which has been given to my noble friend who moved this Amendment is very inadequate indeed. This is a serious subject, and when we come to Clause 7 I think I shall be able to show the very serious consequences that will flow from making these Commissioners—five, I think they are to be, in number—independent of the law. I do not at all follow what is meant by saying that this is only a general right. What is intended obviously by the Amendment is that you shall not exclude the jurisdiction of Courts of Law from any order of this tribunal if it should be found in conflict with the existing law and with anybody's rights under the existing law. But I would recommend my noble friend to wait until we come to Clause 7, and then I, for one, shall heartily support an Amendment of that character, and be able to show that this is a very serious invasion of the liberties of the subject. In the circumstances I recommend him not to persist in the Amendment as it stands, but to wait until we come to Clause 7 when the Amendment can be appropriately discussed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Who to be landholders.
2.—(1) In the Crofters Acts and this Act hereinafter referred to collectively as the Landholders Acts) the word. "holding" means and includes—

(i) As from the commencement of this Act, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by a crofter to whom in respect of such holding the Act of 1886 applies (hereinafter referred to as an existing crofter);

(ii) As from the commencement of this Act, and subject as hereinafter provided, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by a tenant from year to year who resides on or within two miles from the holding, and by himself or his family cultivates the holding with or without hired labour (hereinafter referred to as an existing yearly tenant);

490

(iii) As from the termination of the lease, and subject as hereinafter provided, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held under a lease for a term longer than one year by a tenant who resides on or within two miles from the holding, and by himself or his family cultivates the holding with or without hired labour (such tenant, or his heir or successor, as the case may be, holding under the lease at the termination thereof being hereinafter referred to as a qualified leaseholder):

Provided that such tenant from year to year or leaseholder—

(a) shall (unless disqualified under section twenty-six of to his Act) be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this sect; in every case where it is agreed between the landlord and tenant or leaseholder, or in the event of dispute proved to the satisfaction of the Land Court, that such tenant or leaseholder or his predecessor in the same family has provided or paid for the whole or the greater part of the buildings or other permanent improvements on the holding without receiving from the landlord or any predecessor ill title payment or fair consideration therefore; and

(b) in every other case shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this section, but shall (unless disqualified under section twenty-six of this Act) in respect of the holding be subject to the provisions of this Act regarding statutory small tenants;

(iv) As from the date of registration, every holding which is constituted by the registration of an applicant in respect thereof on his application under the provisions of this Act respecting the constitution of new holdings (hereinafter referred to as a new holder).
(2) In the Landholders Acts the word "landholder" means and includes, as from the respective dates above mentioned, every existing crofter, every existing yearly tenant, every qualified leaseholder, and every new holder, and the successors of every such person in the holding being his heirs or legatees.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from Clause 2, paragraph (b)—
(b) in every other case shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this section, but shall (unless disqualified under section twenty-six of this Act) in respect of the holding be subject to the provisions of this Act regarding statutory small tenants;
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of the very greatest; importance. It raises one of the largest and most far-reaching points of policy which your Lordships will have to discuss in this Committee.
If your Lordships will look at the framework of the clause, which is rather complicated, you will see that in the first subsection the Bill as a whole is applied to that individual whom we know as a crofter. In the second and third subsections it is applied to those who are existing yearly tenants without leases. That I can understand. Then there is a second category called existing yearly tenants with leases. I do not understand what a yearly tenant with a lease is, but that is not the point that my Amendment raises. If your Lordships will cast your eyes clown to the proviso you will see that in these cases of yearly tenants, with or without leases as the case may be, there are two categories. The first is the case of the man who has made the improvements, or the greater part of them, at his own expense, and has not been compensated for them. So far as he is concerned, I do not raise any question of its being right and fair that he should have an independent tribunal to fix his future rent. One may think and I do think, that it is a matter of very doubtful policy on the part of the landlord to allow the tenant to make improvements of this class. It is not known and has never been contemplated in any part of Scotland with which I am personally acquainted in the management of an estate. I know it has grown up in other places, and I have no doubt, having grown up, it suits the circumstances of those districts, and I have therefore nothing to say in regard to it.
But if your Lordships will look at paragraph (b)—the one which I propose to omit—you will see that in every other case the tenant shall not be held to be an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this section, but shall, in respect of the holding, be subject to the provisions of this Bill regarding statutory small tenants. The statutory small tenants and the obligations put upon them and their landlord are found in the thirty-second clause of the Bill, and, of course, as a consequential Amendment, if my Amendment to this clause is adopted, Clause 32 will fall to the ground as being unnecessary. But I am obliged to raise the question upon this subsection because this subsection is the one which defines the class of person who is described in the Bill as the statutory small tenant. I think I have rightly described the state of matters.
Now, my Lords, the point here is that this statutory small tenant, as he is called, has ex hypothesi done absolutely nothing to get a permanent interest in the holding. He is a gentleman who has taken a holding for a period of years and done nothing to it except cultivate it. If he has improved it, he gets his improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. But here he is to be given two things for winch he has paid nothing—fixity of tenure, and what is called a fair and equitable rent. There has been a great deal of discussion round this question, and I have no doubt I shall I be told by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this is a matter on which gentlemen in the other House of Parliament have agreed to compromise. I brush that argument aside at once by saying that at any rate this House—certainly I myself am not—is no party to any compromise or bargain in regard to this matter. This question strikes at the very root of land tenure in Scotland. Our principle has been that the landlord does the improvements. He lets a certain holding for a period of years under the bargain that he will do the improvements. The whole interest which he gives to his tenant is that he shall cultivate it for that period of years, and at the end of that period his interest in it ceases. I have yet to learn what is the reason in fairness that this gentleman is to be given anything more than that for which he has bargained.
I dislike divided tenure, what is called the dual interest of the tenant who has done the improvements. I think it bad in policy and extremely pernicious in practice, because it makes it almost impossible fairly to decide what is the respective interest of the landlord who owns the land and some of the buildings, and the tenant who does not own any of the land but has put up some part of the buildings. If the landlord has bona fide done the whole of his duty, why is this dual interest to be created? What is the reason in sense or justice or fairness for bringing it in? I understand it in the case of the crofter. It was arrived at after a lasting inquiry, and it was found that there was not only a hereditary interest on the part of many of them in the land which they cultivated, but there was also the practical question that they had, as a fact, put up improvements. I say at once if the tenant has put up improvements the necessity of the case and the fairness of

493
the case is that his interests should be judged, but I have never yet heard of any reason for bringing in this dual interest where the landlord has clone everything in his power to improve and the tenant nothing.
I believe this proposal in the Bill to be absolutely ruinous, and I go so far as to say that any one who advocates it must be animated by some sort of insanity or ill-feeling towards the landlord. I can conceive of no other reason for making this departure in practice. It is the beginning of all the evils which will come upon us through dual interest as has been the case in Ireland and elsewhere. This is a revival of the original proposal to crofterise the whole of Scotland. Here is a case in which the landlord has done everything to preserve his interest, and yet by a stroke of the pen you are going to give the tenant two things for which he has paid nothing. I have asked for the reason why this is to be done, but at present no reason has been given. I may be told that there is a certain demand for it or that it is being done for some other reason, but this has not been preceded by any inquiry. Before you passed the Irish Land Act and the Crofters Act there was an inquiry, but in this case there has been no sort of collected evidence and no judicial inquiry by any impartial tribunal, yet you are asked to make this enormous and far-reaching change in the existing agricultural system of Scotland. I will not elaborate my argument further, but will simply wait to see whether on the ground of fairness and reason any case can be advanced for making this enormous change.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out from (" therefor") to the end of line 31.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord who has just spoken has, of course, no doubt in his own mind that this Amendment strikes at the very root of this measure. He informed your Lordships that Clause 32, to which the proviso which the noble Lord is attacking refers, was introduced into the Bill this year as a result of conference, consultation, and agreement between both sides in the House of Commons. Before referring to that in detail, I should like to remind your Lordships of the case for this change. It is really identical with the case for the whole Bill. It rests upon
494
the admitted necessity, on national as well as on agricultural grounds, for doing something in Scotland to strengthen and develop the system of small holdings. The noble Lord said there had been no judicial inquiry. There was a Small Holdings Inquiry only a few years ago. There was another in the year 1883 by a Committee of the House of Commons.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: On Scotland?
LORD PENTLAND: I think it took evidence in Scotland. It was previous to the introduction by the noble Lord's own Government in the year 1895 of a Small Holdings Act which is now the law, and which has never done any good whatever to Scotland. But those inquiries revealed what I believe is the admitted fact, that while 5ear large towns there may Le some slight increase of small holdings, there his been on the whole a decrease of small holdings all over the country. Small Holdings are gradually being absorbed. Under the present conditions of their tenure and their circumstances they are not a paying form of property. That is part of my case. They are not paying to the tenant and they are not paying to the landlord, and. the consequence is that time after time these small holdings are absorbed and thrown into large farms. But, my Lords, this is the only civilised agricultural country in Europe in which small holdings are not a paying form of property, and the radical and vital difference between the system of small holdings in Scotland and in those countries to which I have alluded is that in Scotland the small holdings are not upon a basis of security of tenure.
I ask your Lordships' pardon for going into what is a Second Reading matter, but it was raised by the noble Lord. I say again that it is the common experience throughout Europe that it is only upon a basis of security of tenure and by grouping your small holdings so that they have economical marketing and purchasing of produce that you can hope to develop agricultural organisation, co-operation, and common effort which make small holdings in other countries successful. We are going to set to work, if your Lordships will allow us, in Scotland to do, not everything, but a little towards remedying this

495
great evil, and surely the first thing we ought to do, before we create new holdings, is to strengthen the economic position of the existing holdings—holdings which are the subject of agreement between landlord and tenant, holdings which have survived the economic decay which has absorbed other small holdings. Surely these form the nuclei round which this effort should Concentrate itself. We should do something for the existing small holder. What are we to do? These small holdings are not, of course, crofter holdings; they are outside the Crofters Act, but they form the vast majority of small holdings in Scotland, because, as I mentioned to your Lordships on Second Reading, landlords everywhere where they could afford it have done the improvements; so that if your Lordships cut out these holdings from the operation of the Bill you will leave almost no holdings in the Bill. That measures the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, and it also measures the extent of the concession which the supporters of the Bill in its original form have made to the Opposition in another place. We have removed these holders from the category of crofters, or landholders as they are now called under this Bill, and we have applied to these statutory small tenants, as they are called under the Bill, the code of Clause 32.
Will your Lordships be good enough, as it is vital to this discussion, to turn to Clause 32. There you will see exactly what has been the arrangement come to. I carefully guarded myself on Second Reading from any implication that in this matter there was an agreement which should hind your Lordships' House. But we at any rate ought to be cognisant of what took place in another place. This clause is the result of conference and discussion there. What does it do? It gives to these existing tenants, tenants who are in their farms by the choice and sanction of the landlord, the right when they come to the end of their lease to a fair rent and to a renewal of their lease. They are to remain under the Agricultural Holdings Act. The landlord is to continue, if he so chooses, to do all improvements. They are not to increase—what the noble Lord objects to—their interest in the holding, but they are to remain there, awl if any difficulty or difference should arise between them and their landlord there is the Land Court to appeal to, and
496
the Land Court is bound to act within the limits of this Clause 32.
With regard to the equitable rent, there is no ground for thinking that there will be any great difference between the opinion of the Land Court and the opinion of a good landlord; and so far as continuity of tenure and the renewal of the lease is concerned, I should have thought that this was the very minimum of security of tenure that you could give to these tenants. Depend upon it this is the very minimum you can give if you are going to encourage these men to put their whole energy into their work and if you are going to put them upon a footing so that they can co-operate and organise with their neighbours and make these small holdings a success. I would repeat to the noble Lord that the justification is the national interest. If you do not have regard to this question of depopulation you will feel it in many different directions in your national life apart altogether from agriculture, and there is no safer or surer or wiser way to increase your country population than to offer to men who labour and live on the land the opportunity of making a secure home and a livelihood in the calling to which they have devoted their lives.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I do
not think the noble Lord has given full attention to the objections raised by my noble friend in moving his Amendment. Although I admit that Clause 32, which we are discussing along with this Amendment, was the result of what is called a conference between the different sides in the House of Commons, I do not think that the full extent to which it affects the tenants on the East and North-east of Scotland was fully realised by those who entered into the conference. In the district which I come from in Scotland, all the tenants who are affected by this subsection and by Clause 32 sit under agreements in writing. There is hardly a case, I believe, in which a tenant sits from year to year without an agreement in writing with his landlord.
The effect of this proposal in the Bill is that the tenant who is at the end of his lease or agreement and wishes to continue in his holding, can, if he does not agree with his landlord, go to the

497
Land Court and ask them to fix what is called an equitable rent. Then, as I read the clause as it stands, the Land Court may deal with this question, and may look at the holding under the very elaborate proposal in subsection. (8) of Clause 32; they may look into all these questions, and may decide what improvements have been mule respectively by the landlord and by the tenant, in what condition they are, and they may fix the rent to be paid in the future. Now that appears to me distinctly to be setting up a body which may go behind and beyond the written terms of the agreement between the landlord and tenant. You have two people coming to an agreement—that is universal in my part of Scotland—and you allow that agreement to be overridden in dealing with the tenancy in the future. If it was clearly laid down in Clause 32 that not only might the landlord and tenant, as it is said in subsection (6), make an agreement as to the conditions of the renewed tenancy, but that the past agreement dealing with any question connected with the tenancy should be held binding upon both parties, I should be rather agreeable to let the clause pass, especially if an Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton, asking that the arbiter under the Agricultural Holdings Act be substituted for the Land Court, is accepted.
I admit that there have been hopes held out under this proposal in Scotland, and that it would be hard to omit entirely to deal with these tenancies. But I quite agree with my noble friend who moved this Amendment that there is certainly room for improving the position of matters under Clause 32. I would suggest that this subsection should be postponed, and that when we get to the details of Clause 32 we should then deal with it and see whether we can put the clause into a shape which would be agreeable to all of us. If that could be done it would be better, as it is rather difficult now to discuss the most important principles contained in this clause upon a subsection which deals in this way with the matter.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division. I do not wish for a moment to speak about the justice of Lord Balfour's statement of the case, because I think the justice is entirely on his side. A landlord who has come to an agreement
498
with his tenant and has erected the whole of the buildings molt in common fairness to have the right to fix the rent. But I would point out to the noble Lord, speaking, as I think I can speak, with a certain amount of experience upon this matter as I live in a crofter county, that in my opinion he will find that the danger of this clause is nothing nearly as great as many noble Lords think. In the case where the landlord does the improvements the average tenant in Scotland will not be such a fool as to go to the Land Court, because, although he might leave his rent reduced by a sovereign, he knows he would be faced with the certainty that when he wanted a new barn or other improvement the landlord would Hot do it for him.
I have some 400 or so of these small holders, and a certain number of them immediately after the Act was passed elected to go under the Crofters Act. I certainly do not pretend to be a beneficent landlord because I am a poor landlord, and poor and beneficent are not terms which usually go together. From the mere fact that my other tenants know that they have an average chance of getting help in the construction of their holdings, not one of them wishes to go under the Act, and many of the tenants who did go under the Act now wish they could come out of it. And if you go to the southern parts where estates are richer and where more is done for the tenants, I think you will find that at first there will be a certain number of applications from individuals to get a fair rent fixed, but after the first rush is over these unfortunate individuals who will, so to speak have been taken in by the measure of His Majesty's Government will find that they will not have that same freedom or, rather, the landlord will not be so willing to do the improvements for them, as was the case in the past. The landlord will take up the logical position, "You have a fair rent fixed, and why should I do any more for you? Go and ask the Land Court for any improvements that you want." I do not for a moment dispute the justice of Lord Balfour's contention, but I do not believe, once the small holders realise that they gravely imperil the chance of the landlord doing anything more to help them, that many of them will take advantage of this clause. For that reason I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am inclined to second the proposal which was made just now by the noble Marquess, Lord Huntly, that your Lordships should not arrive at a decision on this point, which is really a point almost vital to the Bill, at this particular stage. If your Lordships were not to arrive at a decision until you had discussed Clause 32, it. would be possible if you saw fit afterwards, when you came to Report, to accept Lord Balfour's Amendment, which would really become a consequential one. That is a matter, of course, for the noble Lord himself to consider. The Secretary for Scotland said that there was a certain amount of consultation and agreement with regard to Clause 32 in the other House. Throughout the whole process of this Bill there has been no real agreement in the other House, because if your Lordships will refer to the proceedings which took place in Grand Committee and in the House itself on Report, you will find that the Unionist Members moved Amendment after Amendment and made proposal after proposal nearly every one of which was rejected. The difficulty in that House was that they were only about eleven or twelve in number, and they met the usual late which is encountered by a minority. But, my Lords, I certainly was surprised to hear the noble Lord put forward as part of his argument that small tenancies do not pay either the tenants or the landlords, and it struck me as very strange that in that case the noble Lord proposes to increase them.
LORD PENTLAND: I am afraid I cannot have made my point clear to the noble Lord. What I meant to convey was that under present conditions these small tenancies were not profitable, and that was one of the reasons which induced the Government to endeavour to alter the conditions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I quite accept that alteration; but at the same time the words "under present conditions" were not used by the noble Lord, and it seemed to me rather a strange argument.. After saying that small tenancies pay neither the tenants nor the landlords he asked, "Why is it?" and he said that it was owing to insecurity of tenure. What ground has the noble Lord for making an assertion like that? It is contrary to all
500
my experience, and I believe it is contrary to the experience of every noble Lord here connected with Scotland. I can say this, that for nearly fifty years now I do not think I ever got rid of a small tenant, and I believe other noble Lords can say the same. I do not know whether my tenants have leases or not, but all I can say is that not one of them has ever put forward any complaint on that ground; and as to security of tenure, I can only say that the tenants—my tenants are, and I believe everybody else's, for I am not in the least better than other people—are just as secure as their landlords. If the noble Lord will produce any instances or any proof whatsoever in support of his assertion that the reason why small tenancies do not pay is that the tenants are insecure, then he will
do a thing that he has never done up to the present time.
What has the noble Lord's argument always been when we have asked him for facts? He has said, "I know better than facts." The noble Lord shakes his head, but I think if I were to go into the other room I could produce proof of it from the reports because I have heard him say so. What has been his argument? He says that the people who know are the Members of Parliament for Scotland. He appeals to the representatives of the electors for facts with regard to agriculture. I do not want to say a single word of disrespect to any Member of Parliament for Scotland further than this, that a good many of them are Englishmen; and as for the knowledge which they possess, or any attention they have given to the subject of agriculture in Scotland—well, I will not say anything more about it. Then the noble Lord says we must do something for the existing small holders. I think he will find when this Bill comes to be worked that very few of the existing small holders will appear before your Land Court. That is my present conviction. But to say that there is no ground for assuming that the view of the Land Court will be different with regard to rent from that of a good landlordߞwell that is a question I should be much more ready to answer if I knew who is going to be the Chairman of this Land Court and who are to be the persons who will compose it.
Let me point out this, that whether your Lordships accept Clause 32 or whether

501
you do not, the proposals in this Bill are, I am afraid—and I have some reason to believe it—a death-blow to the application of capital to land in Scotland, and particularly to small holdings. Do you suppose that in future any prudent man will lay out money on a small holding? I have done it myself—I have been foolish enough—and other noble Lords have done the same. I quite agree with the noble Lord; it certainly does not pay me—not in one way, yet, it, does in another, because I have always endeavoured to be on the best of terms with my neighbours of all kinds. But now all this is to be placed under the Land Court, and the taxpayer is to pay for this in future; he is to make up the difference between a holding that pays and a holding that does not pay.
I do not think any one can in logic or having regard to facts argue against what Lord Balfour of Burleigh said. I believe Celt everything he said is quite true, but I do not go so far with hint as to advise year Lordships to strike out Clause 32. is will tell you my reason in a very few words. Under Clause 32, at all events, all questions of compensation have to be determined under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. Lord Clinton, in a subsequent Amendment which we shall conic to on Clause 32—and this is one of the reasons
why I hope your Lordships will not come to a conclusion on this question just at this moment—proposes that rent should be fixed according to the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Acts with regard to these existing tenants. I think that is any great improvement. I cannot see any reason, when you are putting existing tenants under the Agricultural. Holdings Acts for everything else except rent, why you should bring in this Land Court. at all. Existing tenants are under the Agricultural Holdings Acts for compensation and other matters. Then why not put them under those Acts for rent and so make the thing complete? if that is adopted I hope your lordships will accept Clause 32–1 do not mean to say that I think it a perfect clause, because I do not at all. If I had been asked to suggest the way in which the noble Lord should have drawn his Bill. I would have said, "Have two sets of tenancies —one set the new holdings and holdings which are under the Bill, and the other set the existing holdings and all future voluntary holdings which shall
502
not be under the Bill." if would have said, "Make as many holdings as you like under your Bill; take the land, erect the buildings, do what you like with regard to new holdings; but, with regard to existing holdings, leave things as they are, if you do not want to do away with the good feeling winch exists between landlords and tenants and if you do not wish to divert to the Land Court capital which was applied notoriously under conditions that the whole tenure was voluntary both as regards landlords and tenants." That is what I should have done. I do not claim to be an authority on these matters, but that is the way I should have drawn the Bill if I had had to draw it.
Now with regard to Clause 32. The reason why I should not be in favour of striking it. out is this, that with the suggested Amendment Clause 32 will be all under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, whereas if you strike out Clause 32 you then fall under the Crofters Acts. To apply the Crofters Acts to the existing holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland would be an atrocious act of spoliation, because a crofter can do anything he likes; he can erect any sort of building he chooses, and it is then in his power to claim and to get compensation from the landowner who has not been consulted in the matter at all. Under Clause 32, however, he must be consulted with regard to a building. I think I have explained to your Lordships why Clause 32, although I do not approve of it, is less bad, in my opinion, than the ordinary proposals of the Bill, and therefore I cannot support. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, at all events at this stage, in striking the clause out.
LORD CLINTON: I think it is quite clear that on this side of the House we entirely agree with the arguments which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has used in proposing his Amendment, in that we can see no reason for placing these tenants under the Bill at all. They are in an entirely different position from the other tenants dealt with and from those who have hitherto come under the provisions of the Crofters Acts. They have no interest in their holdings save that of occupation, the whole of the improvements, buildings, and other: pings being entirely the property of the landlord. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland gave us

503
his reasons for bringing them under the Bill, largely, I think he said, on the ground of national, social, and agricultural reasons, or some words to that effect. I can quite imagine an enthusiast for small holdings having many reasons of a national and social character, but I do not understand what social and agricultural reasons there can be for bringing them under this Bill. Does the noble Lord think that by turning large farms into a large number of small ones we shall increase the standard of agriculture and see a higher quality of stock kept, or a greater production from the soil? I do not believe that in any one of those particulars there can be any agricultural advantage in bringing these particular statutory tenants under the measure.
The noble Lord also told us that there has been a decrease in small holdings in Scotland. I have no doubt he has figures to show that, otherwise he would not have said so. But it is news to many of us that these small holdings have decreased. They certainly have not decreased in the part of Scotland with which I am acquainted, and there are a very large number there. The noble Lord gave as his reason that they were not paying either the landlord or the tenant. That may be true. But, how does he propose to make them pay? By putting them under Clause 32. The only reason that is given as to why they can be made to pay under that clause is security of tenure. I agree that these tenants should have as much security of tenure as possible. If they have not fixed rents at the present moment they have at all events full security of tenure, so that the only way the holdings can be made to pay is by a reduction of rent. The noble Lord has told us that in his opinion there will not be much difference as to a fair rent between the Land Court and a good landlord. We all claim to be good landlords; but if there is no difference of opinion between them, then the rental will remain the same. Therefore there can be no reason for thinking that because of the matter going before the Land Court these small holdings can be made to pay more than they do at present. I recognise that this part of the scheme is a portion of the framework which we accepted on Second Heading, and although I thoroughly agree with Lord Balfour's reasons for moving his Amendment I regret I am unable to support it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think this discussion has shown that the House is in a rather curious position. Lord Pentland dealt with the economic difficulties of small holders. I admit them. I agree that there are difficulties in their case from economic causes which are too strong for them. But how is this Bill going to help them? This Bill will not change the economic difficulties under which they exist; they will remain exactly the same, except. that I agree with one noble Lord who said that there will be a great deal more hesitation on the part of landlords now to put money into small holdings. I know, as far as I am concerned, that no power on earth would induce me to spend another penny on a small holding if this Bill passes and I am to be at the mercy of the Land Court.
Just look at the precedent we are creating. Lord Camperdown admits that what I suggest is logic, Lord Lovat said that what I suggest is just, and Lord Clinton, I understand, agrees with me, but for some curious reason those noble Lords are not going to support me on a Division. We are departing, in the case of Lowland holdings, from the one principle which has regulated that class of holding both in England and Scotland up to this time, that where the landlord does the improvements and does his duty he has a right to choose his tenants. It is all very well to talk of this being a case of small holdings, of their economic difficulties, and of the importance of small holdings to the nation at large. But you are making a precedent which does not stop at small holdings. The Lord Advocate in the other House gave that part of the case away, because he said there is no magic in the 50 acres, and that the moment it is wanted it would go over the whole of agriculture. The House is making a precedent which in the future will be held up against it as applicable to other holdings in Scotland and England, whether the landlord has done the improvements or not. Make no mistake about that, and do not say that you were not warned. I hope I am a reasonable person, but I am wholly unconvinced by the speeches that have been made. If possible I am strengthened in the view I hold, but I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division on this particular subsection. I will wait until I see what form Clause 32 ultimately takes. But no power on earth will make me a consenting party to the

505
terrible precedent which the House is about to make, and when the Question is put I shall say "Not content."
On Question; Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Constitutionof Scottish Land Court.
3.—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty, on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, at any time after the commencement of this Act, and from time to time as vacancies occur, to appoint not more than five persons, to be designated the Scottish Land Court (in this Act referred to as the Land Court) and to appoint one of such persons to be Chairman of the Court.
(2) The Chairman shall be a person who at the date of his appointment shall be an advocate of the Scottish bar of not less than ten years standing and shall forthwith on his appointment have the same rank as if lie hart been appointed a Judge of the Court of Session.
(3) One of the said persons shall be a person who can speak the Gaelic language.
(4) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland to remove any member of the Land Court for inability or misbehaviour. Every order of removal shall state the reasons for which it is made, and no such order shall come into operation until it has lain before both Houses of Parliament for not less than thirty days, nor if either House passes a resolution objecting to it.
(5) If and when the Chairman is temporarily unable to attend, or his office is vacant, the Secretary for Scotland may appoint to act temporarily in his place any person having the qualification required for holding the office of Chairman and the person so appointed shall during such inability or vacancy have the same powers and perform the same duties as if he were the Chairman.
(6) The Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint a fit person to act as principal clerk to the Land Court.
(7) The Land Court may appoint or employ such assessors, surveyors, law agents, valuers, clerks, messengers, and other persons required for the due performance of their duties, as the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, may sanction.
(8) Any Crofters Commissioner or officer of the Crofters Commission in office at i he commencement of this Act, who may not be appointed a member or an officer of the Land Court, shall receive such compensation as the Treasury may determine.
(9) There ball lie paid to the Chairman of the Land Court a salary not exceeding two thousand pounds a year, and to each of the other members a salary not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year, and such salaries shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof. The Chairman shall have the same right to a retiring annuity proportionate to his salary, subject to the like conditions and incidents as if he had been appointed a judge of the Court of Session, and every such annuity shall be charged and paid as aforesaid.
(10) There shall be paid to each of the other persons appointed or employed under this section such salary or remuneration as the Treasury may sanction; and all such salaries and remuneration and the expenses of the Land Court incurred in the execution of their duties, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(11) The Lind Court shall submit such estimates and keep such accounts of their, receipts and expenditure, and their accounts shall be audited in accordance with such regulations, as the Treasury may direct.
(12) It shall be lawful for the Land Court from time to time to make rules for conducting the business of the Court.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This Amendment deals with a much smaller matter. Subsection (2) of this clause says that the gentleman who is to be the head of the Land Court "shall forthwith on his appointment have the same rank as if he had been appointed a Judge of the Court of Session." Would the noble Lord in charge of the Bill tell us what that is intended to imply?
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord criticised this on Second Reading and asked whether there was any precedent for it. I may tell him that we have taken these words as nearly as possible from the Irish Land Act, 1881, Section 41. The words I do not say give an exact precedent, but it is the nearest precedent we can find. The words in the Irish Land Act are—
" The Judicial Commissioner for the time being shall forthwith on his appointment become an additional Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Ireland, with the same rank, salary, tenure of office, and right to pension."
The noble Lord, I think, knows that later on in this same clause there is a further reference to this Judge with reference to his pension. It is in the latter half of subsection (9). I do not know whether the noble Lord objects to the form in which the matter is introduced, or to the introduction of any such reference at all.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I object to it because it is a farce. You are not giving him the position of a Judge and you are not giving him the salary of a Judge. The clause which the noble Lord read from the Irish Land Act gives the Commissioner in that case the same tenure and salary as a Judge. In this case you are giving this gentleman who is to have what is called the rank of a Judge £2,000 a year. That is not the salary of a Scottish Judge. You are not going to give hint the tenure of a Judge, because he is to be

507
removable in the event either of inability or misbehaviour at the instance of the Secretary for Scotland. I would like to ask the noble Lord, should this gentleman play golf on Sunday, which is not looked upon With favour in certain parts of Scotland, whether that would be misbehaviour within the definition of misbehaviour in the Bill? Then, again, it is said he is to have the same rank as a Judge. Is he to be called Lord So-and-so, and is his wife to be called Lady So-and-so, and what is to happen in that case if by inability or misbehaviour he is removed? You will not give him the ability of a Judge because you give him the rank of a Judge, neither will you give him the experience and the judicial attributes of a Judge because you nominally give him the rank. I myself think it is an absurdity, and I move to omit the words "and shall forthwith on his appointment have the same rank as if lie had been appointed a Judge of the Court of Session."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out from (" standing ") to the end of line 12.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PENTLAND: I am a little at a loss to know what the noble Lord wishes us to do. This official will be the chairman of the Land Court, and the noble Lord knows well that those who occupy positions of judicial eminence in Scotland have certain rank and precedence. For instance, in every county the sheriff has a recognised position and status, and it therefore became necessary for the Government to consider what status should be given to this Judge who will occupy a position certainly not less influential or eminent than any sheriff, and whose salary will be equal at least to that of the highest paid sheriff in Scotland.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Give him the rank of a sheriff then.
LORD PENTLAND: We wish to place this Judge in a higher position than that of a sheriff, and we have therefore made the proposal in the Bill. The noble Lord complains that we are not giving a larger salary. I do not know whether it would make the proposal more agreeable to the noble Lord if we were to make the chairman's salary larger, or add the other attributes and titles which he mentions; but it seems to me that in making a proposal of this kind the Government were bound to give this Judge a certain status,
508
and those are the steps we have taken to do it. I do not quite understand what the noble Lord would wish us to do. lie calls this a farce. I can assure him it is a well-meaning intention to give this Judge a status which in the opinion of the Government his position deserves and requires; but if the noble Lord will make any suggestion the Government will be only too glad to consider it.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Lord has not replied as to the tenure of the Judge.
LORD PENTLAND: I have no objection to considering a proposal as to the tenure of the Judge if the noble Lord will make one.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGIH: My proposal is a simple one, and I will take a Division upon it if necessary. It is to omit the words, "and shall forthwith on his appointment have the same rank as if he had been appointed a Judge of the Court of Session."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN: My Amendment is not a very large one, but I think it is important that we should have some security that a certain number of the five gentlemen who are to be appointed to constitute the Land Court should have some knowledge of agriculture. Under the Bill as it stands at present they may be butchers or bakers or anybody. I think for our own sakes, as well as for those of the tenants, there should be an assurance that some of these gentlemen should be possessed of a practical knowledge of agriculture or have had experience in the management or valuation of agricultural land.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, after ("session") insert ("and three of the said persons shall be possessed of a practical knowledge of agriculture, or have had experience in the management or valuation of agricultural land").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD PENTLAND: The difficulty is not one of principle in this matter. It is the intention of the Government that not only three members of the Land Court, but four, should have qualifications akin to those described by the noble Lord in his suggested Amendment, and I am glad to take this opportunity of placing that on record publicly, but I

509
am advised that these words, which are general words and which, as the noble Lord himself will admit, would cover very varied qualifications, are really better omitted. They would, moreover, leave some doubt as to what qualifications the fourth or the fifth member should have. If the noble Lord will be good enough to be content at this stage with the assurance I have given, it will not deprive him of the power to move an Amendment at a later stage. I can assure him there is no difference of principle between the Government and himself on the matter.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: His Majesty's Government have it in their power to make this matter perfectly clear to noble Lords on this side of the House if they would, before we proceed much further with this Bill, give to the House the names of the persons who are to constitute the Land Court. It does seem to me to be a remarkable thing that, being about to constitute so important a Court as this the chairman of which is to be considered to be in rank equal to that of a judge of the Court of Session, the names of those persons should never have been given to the House of Commons nor to your Lordships' House. Considering that a good deal of the feeling with regard to this Bill does depend upon the view that may be taken of the persons who will administer it, their qualifications and their fairness, would it not be better from the point of view of the Government themselves that the names of the members of the Land Court should be given before we proceed much further with the Bill?
LORD PENTLAND: I should be only too glad to think that the Government were in a position to make such an announcement as that which the noble Viscount invites, but as a matter of fact the uncertainty which has attended the progress of this measure, and which has not, I think, been removed by the course which the discussion to-day has taken, has made it very difficult for the Government to proceed as far as they would wish with the constitution of this Court and so enable them to make public the names for which the noble Viscount asks. I hope at a later stage to be able to announce the name of the proposed chairman of the Land Court, but in regard to the remaining four members of the Court I can do no more than indicate
510
the lines upon which the Government would wish to proceed in making their selection. They would all be men having the qualifications which the noble Lord (Lord Saltoun) mentions in his Amendment. They would all be men knowing agricultural affairs in Scotland, and in their whole number embracing, so far as it is possible, knowledge of the whole of Scotland. There are four of them, and I hope it would be possible for the Government to obtain through them a representation on the Land Court of knowledge of all parts of Scotland. Let me say that political considerations should, of course, be subordinate in the selection of men for such offices as this. The endeavour of the Government will be at any cost to select the best possible men that can be procured to discharge these duties at the salaries which are offered to them in the Bill. I think so far as political opinions may be known no political Party should be at a disadvantage, shall I say, in the selection of these four gentlemen. I do not know if I can give the noble Viscount and the House any further information. I can assure him that it is the desire of the Government to do everything to satisfy any reasonable apprehensions in regard to this Court. Their desire is that public opinion should ratify anything that they may do in regard to it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am very glad that the noble Lord has gone as far as to indicate to the House that very probably before this Bill proceeds much further he will be able to give us the name of the chairman of the Land Court. Before he does that, I only wish to say this, that on the impartiality of the chairman and on his judicial qualities depends, I believe, to a very large extent the success of the operation of this Bill. If a lawyer is appointed who has not associated himself prominently either with one side or the other, who is well known at the Bar, and who is well known to be an impartial person, I believe it would give the greatest satisfaction in Scotland. At all events, I am sure it would give the greatest satisfaction to noble Lords sitting on this side of the use.
LORD SALTOUN: I confess that want of knowledge of the name of the chairman and of the members of the Court was a great factor in my putting down this Amendment; and in the hope that before the end of this stage of the Bill, or at all

511
events before the Report stage, the noble Lord will give us the name of the chairman, and, we hope, the names of the other four members, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw my Amendment for the moment, reserving to myself the right of putting it down again on Report.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should like to say a word in support of the proposition of my noble friend behind me. The appointment of the chairman of this Land Court is really a matter of supreme importance, both for the information of your Lordships and for the amicable passage of the Bill through this House. I would therefore earnestly press upon the noble Lord that we shall have the name of the chairman of the Court before we take the Report stage of this Bill. As regards the other members of the Court I would not apply such strong pressure, but we credit the noble Lord with having every desire in the appointment of these gentlemen to translate the principle he has referred to into practice. He said, however, in response to my noble friend, "We may find a certain difficulty in meeting your views with regard to this, because of the attitude which your Lordships have exhibited; your treatment of the measure so far has rendered it doubtful whether we shall be able to pursue our intentions." If the noble Lord was referring to our procedure here, I cannot imagine anything more remote from the facts. Your Lordships have only been engaged on this Bill for about three-quarters of an hour. We had a very serious discussion on my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment, and Lord Balfour ultimately withdrew it, or, at all events, did not carry it to a Division. The only other Amendment we have carried was one of very subordinate importance upon which the noble Lord, Lord Pentland, did not choose to divide the House. Therefore he has really no right to turn round at this stage and say anything derogatory with regard to the procedure of noble Lords on this side of the House with regard to this Bill.
LORD PENTLAND: I think the noble Earl must have been mistaken in thinking that I used too strong words in reference to the conduct of noble Lords on the other side of the House thus afternoon. If he thinks I have done so, I am prepared to modify them. What I had in my mind was the position taken on a previous stage
512
of the Bill and also a remembrance of the Amendments on the Paper. With regard to the confidence the noble Earl invites, I have already said that I hope to be able to give the name of the chairman of the Land Court on the Report stage. I make my acknowledgments to him for what he said with regard to the other four members of the Court. The constitution of this Land Court is really a matter of great difficulty and responsibility, and I wish I had been in a position earlier to take more active steps in regard to the matter. I cannot, therefore, hold out a hope to noble Lords that I shall be able to give them until later the names of the four members to complete the Court.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Lord seems to have assumed that he would meet with difficulties here which he has not in fact met with up to the present moment. He referred us to the case of the Irish Land Bill. I have a perfect recollection, as the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor will have also, that in regard to the Irish Land Bill of 1881 Mr. Gladstone gave the names of the Commissioners to be appointed under that Bill before the Bill ever came to this House, and I am quite certain that the course of that measure in your Lordships' House was one which might have caused Mr. Gladstone every bit as much hesitation as the noble Lord opposite himself can have felt with regard to the course of this Bill. Yet Mr. Gladstone on that occasion judged that it would be altogether unfair to the House of Commons and also to your Lordships' House that we should be asked blindfold to commit all these properties to the jurisdiction of a man whose name we were not allowed to hear. I must say, considering the circumstances under which your Lordships are asked to discuss this Bill and the very short time in which there is to do it, that we ought to have a definite pledge from the noble Lord that we shall know the name before the Report is entered upon.
LORD PENTLAND: You mean the name of the chairman of the Land Court?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Quite so.
LORD PENTLAND: That undertaking I have already given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: My Amendment covers a very small point, and I trust my noble friend will be able to accept it. It is to amend subsection (2) by inserting "while Parliament is sitting" after the words "thirty days" at the end of the subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, after ("days") insert ("while Parliament is sitting").—(The Earl of Galloway.)
LORD PENTLAND: I have no objection to inserting these words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I wish to ask a question with regard to subsection (9), which says, "There shall be paid to the chairman of the Land Court a salary not exceeding two thousand pounds a year." I presume that means that he will give all his time to the office and will receive no other salary.
[No answer was given.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Constitution of Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
4.—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, at any time after the commencement of this Act, and from time to time as vacancies occur, to appoint not more than three persons to be designated the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (in this Act referred to as the Board) and to appoint one of such persons to be Chairman of the Board. Any act or thing required or authorised to be done by the Board may be done by any one or more of the members thereof as the Secretary for Scotland may from time to time direct.
(2) The Board shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland, and shall also exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred on or transferred to them under the provisions of this Act. In the discharge of their duties they shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary for Scotland, and they shall submit an annual report of their proceedings to him, which report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Board may undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries, and may make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information relating thereto as they think advisable.
(4) it shall be the duty of the Board to promote, aid, and develop instruction in agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries.
(5) The Board shall take such steps as they think proper for the promotion and development of agricultural organisation and co-operation.
(6) Without prejudice to the provisions of the immediately preceding subsections such one of the members of the Board as the Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint shall be designated the Commissioner for Small Holdings and shall be specially charged with the duties hereinafter committed to him.
(7) The Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint a fit person to act as secretary to the Board.
(8) The members of the Board shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The Board may subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland appoint or employ such officers, clerks, and other persons as the Treasury may sanction.
(9) The members of the Board and other persons appointed or employed under this section shall respectively receive such salary or remuneration as the Treasury may sanction, and all such salaries or remuneration and the expenses of the Board incurred in the execution of their duties, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(10) The Board shall submit such estimates and keep such accounts of their receipts and expenditure, and their accounts shall be audited in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may direct.
(11) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland from time to time by order under his hand—

(a) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries exercisable in or in relation to Scotland as may with the consent of the Treasury be specified in the order, shall be transferred to the Board, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may with the like consent be prescribed in the order; and

(b) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Art, 1897, as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be specified in the order, shall (not being powers for the purchase of land) be exercised and performed throughout Scotland as well as in congested parishes or districts thereof, or made applicable, with any necessary adaptations, to the purposes of the Landholders Acts.

(12) Before any such order is made, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than, two months, anal if either House, before the expiration of such period of two months, presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft order.
(13) An order under this section may provide for all matters which appear to the Secretary for Scotland necessary or proper for giving full effect to the order, or to a previous order, including, with the consent of the Treasury, matters relating to the adjustment and disposal of any property, debts, and liabilities which may be affected thereby, or to the employment of any officers who may be transferred and the regulation of their duties.
(14) An order duly made under this section shall take effect as if it were enacted in this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to substitute the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Secretary for Scotland at the commencement of the clause. The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I am now about to move I think I may say claims at least equal importance with that of any other Amendment which is down upon the Paper. I regret that two Amendments of my own of such vital importance should come so close together, because nothing is further from my inclination than to monopolise the time of the Committee. But, my Lords, I am of opinion that this separation of agricultural interests into two parts, Scottish and English, is in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of agriculture as a whole upon both sides of the Border. I say primarily and essentially it is contrary to the best interests of Scottish agriculture. English agriculture has a large power and great influence behind it, and can to a certain extent stand by itself, but if you transfer the interests of Scottish agriculture to a mere sub-department of the Scottish Office you will do, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest injuries which it is possible to do to the interests of Scottish agriculture.
Scottish agriculture has but little political power behind it. There is hardly a county in Scotland in which the agricultural voter is in a majority. As a matter of fact there are only two, and I count in that the vote of every landlord, every tenant, and every farm labourer; and yet if you do that, there are only two counties in Scotland in which the agricultural interest pure and simple has anything approaching to a majority of the electorate. That being so, agriculture in Scotland can, I am sorry to say, bring but little influence to bear upon the administration supposed to be conducted in its interests if it is separated from the Board of Agriculture in London. Agriculturists in England have many interests in common. They have an interest in the good cultivation of the soil; they have interests in statistics; they have interests in getting information up to date; and they have interests, contrary to other ratepayers, for which they sorely need an advocate with a seat in the Cabinet. There is nothing especially Scottish in the interests of Scottish agriculture in the Lowlands. I frankly admit that when you go to the Highlands and to the crofting counties there it is a purely Scottish
516
matter and must be dealt with in the future as in the past by the Scottish Office. But if there is one point in the whole round of their interests on which Scottish agriculturists in the Lowlands are unanimous, it is that they will have nothing to do with the Scottish Office in comparison to the Board of Agriculture. They may be right or they may be wrong. In my opinion they are right, for the reasons which I have partly given and for others which I shall proceed to give; but at any rate make no mistake about it, that is their opinion.
Convene a representative body of agriculturists where you like, under what circumstances you please, and I defy you to get a resolution in support of the provisions of this Bill. At Perth there was a resolution passed and an amendment moved. Neither the resolution nor the amendment had any support for the proposals of this Bill. I am not going to quote the resolution again because it was quoted on the Second Reading, but there were two remarkable statements made in the speeches delivered on that occasion. The mover of the resolution, expressing strong disapproval of a Board of Agriculture for Scotland under the Scottish Office, said that in sixteen years there had been many discussions on Scottish agriculture, yet in all these debates covering that long period he had not come across a single speech which definitely acknowledged that the interests of Scottish agriculture would be better administered under the Scottish Office than under the Board of Agriculture. He said that he could not find a single speech by a Scottish agriculturist, and he had searched all the records, advocating that Scottish agriculture should be put under the Scottish Office. Later on I find this statement in the speech of Mr. Douglas, one of the vice-presidents. He said that the Bill as it stood was without a friend in the world—a Bill which it was said had the unanimous verdict of Scotland at two elections, and yet at that large assembly of Scottish farmers not one man had risen to give it whole-hearted support.
I say, after those statements which cannot be controverted, I stand here with a right to speak for Scottish agriculture whatever the instincts of Scottish Home Rulers may be; and if we are put under the Scottish Office the fear of Scottish agriculturists is this, that the interests of crofters and small holders will be thought

517
to be much more important than all the interests of those who cultivate the large farms and the broad acres of Scotland. I do not at this moment touch on the administration of the Contagious Diseases Acts, because there are various Amendments coming afterwards with regard to that matter, some in the name of the Secretary for Scotland himself and some in the names of other noble Lords. Of course as an illustration it would be useful to show how very evil the results of this policy would be, but as I even now hope that that matter will be given up I am not going to argue it at length. I say, however, that the mere danger of the separation of the administration of the Contagious Diseases Acts in England and Scotland into two different authorities has caused an absolute panic amongst agriculturists on both sides of the Border. The noble Lord opposite shakes his head, but I defy him to get a resolution from any body of agriculturists either in England or in Scotland in favour of that proposal. Not one has been produced as yet, and I do not believe he can get one. I do not know where the proposal came from or who started it. I have not seen a single argument in favour of it which is worthy of a moment's consideration.
I pass from that because I am on the general question, and to me it is a matter of the greatest importance for the administration of agricultural interests that those who have to administer it should have a real knowledge of agricultural wants and of agricultural needs, and it would be a distinct disadvantage to the agriculturists of Scotland to be separated in this matter from their English brethren. There are more than the proverbial three courses open to us in regard to this proposal. The first, which I sincerely hope this House will adopt, is to keep the administration of agriculture as it is under the Board in London, with or without special Commissioners. The second course is to nationalise it, as it is called, but to keep it to the Board of Agriculture. That, in my opinion, is a less satisfactory method than the former one, but it is not so unsatisfactory as either of the other two. There is another idea to have a special Minister for Scottish Agriculture with a special Department and a seat in Parliament. I do not think that the interests of Scotland in agriculture are sufficiently large for that course to be taken. It
518
might be satisfactory if they were large enough; but I look with some suspicion upon the multiplication of this class of office, because you could not hope that the Minister's office would be of sufficient importance to give him a seat in the Cabinet, and unless in these days the Minister who is responsible for agriculture has a seat in the Cabinet he is severely handicapped in carrying out his duties.
The fourth proposal is that the transfer should take place as proposed in the Bill. I venture to say that, while some friends may be found in Scotland for any one of the other three courses, you will not find a single individual who has a right to speak for agriculturists to support the proposal in the Bill. Therefore my suggestion is—the Amendments look elaborate, but they will stand or fall together—that there should be, if you choose, certain Commissioners of Agriculture specially appointed under the Board of Agriculture to look after Scottish interests. Of course it requires a certain manipulation of the framework of the Bill, because the Bill has been cast from the beginning with the idea of the transference of the whole of agriculture—crofting, congested districts, and everything else—to the Scottish Office. I do not propose in this Amendment to change the transfer from the Crofter Commission to the Land Court. It is quite right, if you are going to have a Land Court at all, that it should absorb the Crofter Commission—that I think is reasonable. Nor do I propose for a moment that the administration of the Congested Districts Board should be done from London. That is a purely Scottish matter. It has been arranged heretofore entirely under the Scottish Office, and I venture to think if there were more frequent meetings of the Congested Districts Board it would be a much more satisfactory administration than it is at the present time.
The proposal that I make is, while not interfering with the Crofter Commission being transferred to the Land Court, that the Congested Districts Board should remain practically as it is responsible to the Scottish Office, and that the remaining—which, after all, is by far the most important—part of agriculture in Scotland should remain with its responsibility to the Board of Agriculture in London and its interests looked after in common with

519
the other agriculturists of the whole country. I do not know that I need say more upon the subject, because it seems to me that at present we have not had any real reason given us why Scottish agriculture is to be separated from the English side of the question, and I should be constantly afraid, if you once set up a separate Department, that there would be continual efforts to get hold of the administration of things which ought to be administered in common. I am very loath to have taken up so much of the time of the House. I think I have made my point clear, and I shall be guided by the course the debate takes as to whether I shall press the Amendment to a Division or not.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord has brought forward a proposal which, of course, goes to the very root of this Bill, and which I had to say on Second Reading was vital to the Bill. The noble Lord assumes that this scheme has been brought forward, not in the interests of Scottish agriculture, but from some notion as to Home Rule. I can assure the noble Lord that the sole consideration which has animated the Government in making this proposal has been how to get the best possible administration of agricultural business for Scotland. I do not wish to controvert what the noble Lord has said. He knows of his own knowledge with regard to agricultural opinion in Scotland that it is quite undeniable that there has been for many years continuous and constant dissatisfaction with the administration of agricultural business in Scotland. There is evidence of that to be found in the proceedings which are published annually of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, of which, if I mistake not, the noble Lord is honorary president—at least, if he is not now he was until quite recently.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Until last year.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord will find in the records of that body continual dissatisfaction expressed at the administration of agricultural business in Scotland, and, as I said on Second Reading,
520
that is not due—far be it from me to imply it or to say it—to any defect in the work done by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. It is due to remoteness, to want of familiarity with the conditions, which always characterises administration carried on in Scotland from London. The best proof of what I have said is to be found in the proceedings at Perth, to which the noble Lord referred. Everybody sought for a remedy, and while it was not the case that the proposal which is in this Bill was put forward, it is the case that everybody wanted some change; and I submit that if that is the case and the true condition of opinion the proposals of the Government, which have not varied for four or live years in this matter, are at least deserving of some consideration.
As the noble Lord said, the main, if not the sole, reason for the opposition of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture to this change has been the question of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. I shall say what I have to say on that point when my noble friend's Amendment comes before the House, and I shall follow the noble Lord in not dwelling upon that point now. But what I have said as to dissatisfaction applies to the present work carried on in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. What is the remedy? The remedy which the noble Lord proposes is that there should be a strengthening of the stall of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, that there should be a sub-department located in Scotland to deal with the Scottish business. That system would work in exactly the same way as the present system does. The supreme authority would be in London; reference would have to be made to London, and the same predominant interests—English opinion and English interests—would sway the Board. Those interests are more intimate, they are more insistent, they are more proximate, and with every intention to be fair to more remote interests the people at the door are likely to get the best chance. In confirmation of this view I may quote one of the recent Presidents of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Mr. Waiter Long, when President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, was interviewed in Edinburgh on this very subject by Sir Mark Stewart and other prominent proprietors and agriculturists in Scotland. They went to him with a proposal for a

521
branch board—exactly what the noble Lord wishes now. Mr. Walter Long, in refusing it, said—
"Depend upon it you must not make two bites at a cherry. If you are going to alter anything you must alter the whole thing and have a separate and independent Board."
That was really the effect of his criticism. He was against it; he thought it would be disastrous; and he said, "]f you are going to make any change at all change it altogether, and do not make an alteration which will not bring you really any nearer to the supreme authority than you now are by posting a letter from Edinburgh to London." That deals with the present work done by the Board supposing there were no Bill and no small holdings and no machinery provided by this Bill to promote new agricultural work.
But the Bill itself proposes that there shall be a Commissioner for Small Holdings. One member of the Board is to be a Commissioner for Small Holdings; he is to initiate schemes for small holdings. Then, again, the general interests of agriculture and of forestry are to be undertaken by the Board. Let me lay some stress upon forestry as an industry in which in the future from its national characteristics Scotland is bound to play the leading part of either of the three countries in this Kingdom. Then there is horticulture, poultry keeping, market gardening, and so forth. I submit that all this work is purely local in character, and to successfully carry it out you must have familiarity and understanding of local conditions and local circumstances. The Congested Districts Board is carrying out such work in the Highlands now, inadequately, perhaps, but still to some good purpose, and I think increasingly so as it is widening its field. Under the Bill the Congested Districts Board disappears, and you get rid of one of these main authorities of which complaint is so frequently made. Under the noble Lord's proposal, on the other hand, the Congested Districts Board remains, and you do not have the economy and the unity and the simplicity which you have under the system of the Bill. You will have two separate administrations. You will have in one part of Scotland the Congested Districts Board promoting agriculture and forestry and poultry keeping and other small industries of the kind, and in the rest of Scotland you will have this branch Department of the Board of Agriculture
522
doing precisely similar work. You will have the Congested Districts Board, unless you make some alteration, making small holdings in the Highland counties. On the other hand, you will have the Commissioner for Small Holdings under the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries making small holdings throughout Scotland, not only in the Lowlands but also in the Highlands. My Lords, I confess I do not see—and I have tried to think—how the small holdings administration under this Bill can possibly be carried out successfully under the proposal of the noble Lord.
Then let me remind the noble Lord, and your Lordships as well, of this. There is a considerable part of agricultural administration now carried on in Scotland besides the work of the Congested Districts Board. There are three Agricultural Colleges which are carrying on not only training, experiments, and research in their colleges, but in the country districts they are carrying out an increasing amount of extension work among the farmers and the farmers' sons and others in these districts. These three colleges are under the Scottish Education Department; they are doing excellent work. what do you propose to do with them? It would. certainly be much more difficult for them to carry on their work if all the other agricultural development work is handed over to the London Department than it would be if, as proposed by the Bill, this work is committed to a Scottish Department working in Edinburgh.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord talks about its being handed over to the London Department. I would point out to him that it is there now. The Agricultural Colleges are going on under the London Department at the present time, and I have never heard of any difficulty or inconvenience having arisen because of that fact.
LORD PENTLAND: That may be so, but you are handing over work under this Bill which is far more extensive than any work that has ever been done by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. If the noble Lord will turn to the Schedule which shows the Acts that are administered by the Board of Agriculture he will see that there is nothing which can be called development work in Scotland carried on at all by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. It carries on the administration of the

523
Contagious Diseases Act and the other administration under the eight or ten Acts which are mentioned in the Schedule; but no work of a kind that would assist the development of small holdings and would assist agriculturists generally, and no work of a kind that would promote forestry, is done by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. Everything done in these respects has been done either by the colleges working under the Scottish Education Department or by the Congested Districts Board. I must say, in conclusion, that I think this is a most retrograde proposal. It is turning the clock back, and not only wrecking the whole structure of the machinery of this Bill but adding to the expense of administration by preventing what would otherwise prove to be the economy of the abolition of the Congested Districts Board. I can only repeat to your Lordships that I have heard with the deepest regret the noble Lord's proposal, because it is vital to this measure.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in considering the question of the government of Scottish agriculture this House has not only a right to be heard but a right to demand that His Majesty's Government should consider fairly the arguments brought forward on the other side. I think that we can fairly complain of the answer which the Secretary for Scotland gave to Lord Balfour. I do believe that members of your Lordships' House honestly consider that there is the bulk of agricultural opinion behind the Amendment of Lord Balfour. We see that not only in the expressions of public opinion which have been given at various meetings of farmers and of Chambers of Agriculture in Scotland, but exactly the same demand has been put forward in the northern part of England. I am sure there is hardly a Peer here who does not receive from day to day numbers of communications from individuals and societies stating their objections to this Bill. We have a right to be heard, because these are not questions in which one can say that any prejudice such as that concerning landlordism has played a part. It is a question affecting the tenants much more than the landlords. The landlords do not farm any extensive amount of land compared with that which the tenants
524
farm, and the question is one of making the agriculture of Scotland more prosperous than it is now.
I do think that Peers know more about agriculture than some of the Scottish Members in another place. If you look through the list of those gentlemen you will see that a large portion come from this side of the Border, and a considerable portion have no knowledge at all of land, or only what they derive when they visit it, probably at one time in the year. Speaking of the Highland representatives, there is only one man I believe, certainly there are very few, who bear even a Scottish name. The majority of them may have done a summer or two through the Highlands, but as to getting to know the agricultural question—well, you have only to listen to the House of Commons debates to learn how uncommonly little they know of the subject at all. Therefore I do think we have a right to have our arguments considered fairly. The noble Lord, Lord Pentland, argued against the statement of Lord Balfour as if the idea was that the Department of Agriculture should be sitting in London. We propose by this Amendment to have a Department sitting in Edinburgh, composed entirely of Scotsmen, in touch with the people and the agricultural interests there; which is a very great move from what we have now. I remember also that Lord Pentland mentioned that these men would have greater powers of initiation; but the President of the Board of Agriculture sits in London, and so does the Secretary for Scotland. There is no difference, provided you have got your Department of Agriculture in Scotland. You would have all the advantage of not being guided, perhaps, by the Secretary for Scotland, but by a man appointed ad hoc for his knowledge; and though the Secretary for Scotland may be omniscient he is not appointed primarily to look after agriculture. Presumably your President in the past has been a man chosen for his particular knowledge of the subject, and we would sooner have a man chosen for his special knowledge of the subject with which he has to deal.
As to Lord Pentland's argument that this is a wrecking proposal, I would like to take exception to that. It is not so very far differentiated from Lord Pentland's own suggestion. He suggests that this body should be under the Secretary for

525
Scotland. We suggest that it should be under the Board of Agriculture, and that instead of having the Department separate it should be a subordinate branch of the Board. It would carry out exactly the same function. There is no reason why the men should be changed. The gentlemen whom Lord Pentland has his eye on to be there, instead of being responsible to the Scottish Department, will be responsible to the people to whom they ought to be responsible—namely, to the Board of Agriculture. So much for what the Secretary for Scotland has said.
May I be allowed to touch in the briefest way possible on our overwhelming case, as we hold it to be, for a sub-department of the Board of Agriculture? We regard as the most important of all questions in this connection that of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. We consider that all important; the whole of the agricultural interests are concerned with it, and every single owner or farmer of land is interested in it, because without the certainty of overcoming disease you cannot get that fixity of prices by which alone farmers can hope to compete. Agriculture has sufficient variety of disadvantages to fight against without introducing another disadvantage in the shape of disease. We have in Scotland some of the best blood in the various breeds of cattle and of sheep, not only in the British Isles, but in the world. A considerable portion of our stock is not consumed in the country, but goes out to better the breeds in other parts of the world—to the Argentine, Australia, Africa, and so on. By a, double control and the lack of similarity in method and the lack of rapidity in dealing with disease we would risk very considerably the chance of spreading infection.
I would point out again what I consider is a most important matter. The British Isles is the only country in Europe practically clear of foot-and-mouth disease. The whole Continent is seized with it. The returns from America show that it is very prevalent in many parts there. If we have a satisfactory condition of things now, why in the name of fortune should we change it? The question of development, which, may I say, Lord Balfour touched very lightly, also concerns the Board of Agriculture at the present moment. No society has voted in favour of Lord Pentland's measure. At the present moment the farmers farm three-fifths,
526
probably five-sixths, of the whole of Scotland, and we ought to be allowed to consider the opinion of those people.
Then on the question of research, how much better shall we be placed if we are in touch with the authorities? What difference is there in the various lines of inquiry we want to have as between England and Scotland? There are the same breeds of cattle; even our black-faced sheep you get in the south of England now. Where is the difference? Would it not be advisable to make one inquiry rather than have all inquiries duplicated or going over the same ground? It is all important that we should have our Department of Agriculture in touch with and subject to the same control as your Board of Agriculture here. Then there are two other points which Lord Pentland raised. He talked of forestry, and I would like to ask whether it is not the fact that he is going to take forestry out of the control of the Department? Certainly he sent a letter the other day to say he was going to appoint a Board—
LORD PENTLAND: I do not wish to interrupt, but what I said to the Arboricultural Society was really what I said on the Second Reading on this subject—that it was not the intention of the Government to name one of the three members of the Board as a Commissioner for Forestry, but that it was our intention that there should be under this Board of Agriculture, as an integral part of its administrative machinery, a department dealing with forestry; and I am glad to say that I have since received a letter expressing the gratification of the society on that score.
LORD LOVAT: I am sure every one will receive with pleasure the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, and will agree that it will tend very considerably to advance matters. But if you are going to have a department for administering this branch, why should it not form a portion of the sub-department of the Board of Agriculture sitting in Scotland?
Now as to the congested districts areas, I must say that I think there are two points where there may be some difficulty. I see, on the one hand, that under the suggestion made by Lord Balfour the Congested Districts Board would still exist. I think there is something to be said on that. We in the north of Scotland, at all events, shall welcome the £87,000 voted

527
by the Conservative Government which is not to be taken away from the congested area; and that, no doubt, would be so if Lord Balfour's Amendment were carried. We would also be very glad to receive in that very poor part of the country the £35,000 as certain, instead of the further £15,000 problematical. I can quite imagine, from the congested area point of view, this being received very well, but, on the other hand, I do see there is a great deal of force in the argument of the Secretary for Scotland that you do not want to have two bodies administering in Scotland. But may I ask the noble Lord why should not this sub-department of the Board of Agriculture undertake these duties? The duties of the Congested Districts Board as at the present moment carried out are very well set out on page 1 of their last year's Report. I need not go into them in detail, but I say that there is not a single one of these congested district duties which could not be carried out by the Board of Agriculture. There is aiding and developing agriculture, providing suitable seeding, making provision for crofters, the migration of crofters, aiding and developing fishing—exactly the work of the Board of Agriculture. Why should it go to another body? Then these men are not going to be, as Lord Pentland appeared to imply, some alien body out there, but Scotsmen in Scotland who are going to administer Scottish affairs. And why should not they also go in for improving lighthouses, piers, bridges, footpaths, and so on? That is all part of the development referred to. And then there is aiding spinning and weaving, and so forth. That seems to be all part of agricultural and fishery matters. There was only the sum of £764 spent last year in Scotland in that respect, so that it will not make much odds what you do with it; and in the development of industries £63 only was spent. Therefore when the point comes, which I think occurs in Clause 28, as to whether the Congested Districts Board should form part of the Department in Scotland or whether it should be in London, that can best be discussed at that stage. But I submit now that it would be better for the Congested Districts Board to be merged entirely into the Department for Scotland, because the duties are absolutely those which the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries through these Scotsmen placed in Edinburgh could best perform in the interests of Scotland as a whole.
LORD BURGHCLERE*LORD BURGHCLERE had an Amendment later on the Paper to amend subsection 11 (a)—
(11) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland from time to time by order under his hand—

(a) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries exercisable in or in relation to Scotland as may with the consent of the Treasury be specified in the order, shall be transferred to the Board, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may with the like consent be prescribed in the order.

The noble Lord's Amendment was to insert, after the word "Scotland," the words "except any power or duty exercisable by the Board under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1911, or any Act amending the same."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have an Amendment on the Paper as to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, an Amendment which I believe is warmly supported by English and Scottish agriculturists and would, if accepted, be considered as a satisfactory way of meeting the anticipated danger of the proposed transference. But I am placed in rather a strange position, because, obviously, if Lord Balfour carries his Amendment mine will be shut out, and I shall have no opportunity of putting my case. I would venture to say, with regard to the proposed sub-department, that it may be called, in my humble opinion, a counsel of perfection. My noble friend is not the first person who has thought of setting up such a sub-department. As far back as 1892 some of us had dreams of a department and offices in Edinburgh, with officials in close and continuous and intimate touch with special Scottish interest, but we certainly never dreamed of making that department independent, or of transferring to it the administration of these highly important Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts.
Had the setting up of a sub-department been the original proposition of the Government, I would say with all respect that it would have been a wise and statesmanlike act, and I think it would have received the approval of agriculturists generally. But that was not the course adopted. A more ambitious plan has been before the country for some time past—namely, that of setting up in Scotland an independent

529
Board of Agriculture solely for that country. That proposition has been before Scotland for a good many years. It has been put forward at two General Elections, and it has been mentioned at by-elections. It has been proposed by two Cabinets, and it has been several times before the House of Commons. The Third Reading of this Bill was passed there only the other day without a dissentient voice and therefore, with all my predisposition to favour the noble Lord's Amendment, I think it would be impossible for any Government in such circumstances to accept so drastic an alteration of their measure; moreover, to expect the House of Commons to reverse their verdict would be to expect too much. Therefore although I think that it may be the counsel of perfection, I could not myself under the present circumstances give the Amendment that whole-hearted support which I should have done at an earlier period and under different conditions.
But, on the other hand, my noble friend's Amendment has a bearing on the very important question of the transference of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts to an independent Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and I would ask the indulgence of the House if I go somewhat fully—I hope not too fully—into the reasons why such a proposal seems, I believe almost generally, very dangerous to British farmers and stock breeders. If you transferred these Acts to an independent body in Scotland you would obviously destroy the central authority and you would set up in the island of Great Britain a divided or dual control. In my humble opinion that would be a great and serious mischief. We have only to look back to what has been brought about for agriculture by the central authority, which has been in force now for a good number of years, to see what danger will result if we return to the conditions which existed a great many years ago. Those of us who are unfortunately old enough to remember it, know that prior to the establishment of the central authority to administer these Acts the duty of suppressing cattle diseases rested with local authorities. I have no hesitation in saying that the condition that ensued was chaos, and chaos of a very extensive nature. Luckily since 1877 we have had no outbreak in this country of cattle plague, or what used to
530
be called rinderpest, but some of its can remember when it came into this country and wrought great havoc over Great Britain and entailed an enormous expense on the ratepayers of the country. I have been told of one county in the west of England in which during one outbreak of rinderpest no less than £10,000 a year was entailed upon the ratepayers in that county, and I am not at all sure that they are not paying it at the present moment.
Then a central authority was set up. Originally it was an Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council, under the direction of the Lord President, and then in 1889 the present Board of Agriculture was instituted. I know your Lordships do not like to be troubled with figures, but I must give a few to show what great success followed the establishment of one central supreme authority for Great Britain with regard to the administration of these Acts. Perhaps I had better say, first, that there are two major diseases of animals which afflict farmers—pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease. In 1883 there were 75 counties in Great Britain afflicted with foot-and-month disease; there were 18,752 outbreaks of that disease; 219,289 cattle, 277,492 sheep, and 24,332 pigs were affected by that disease all at the same time. With regard to pleuro-pneumonia, 40 counties were affected—there were 439 outbreaks. That was rather a good year for pleuro-pneumonia, and I could quote easily another year in which 71 counties were affected and in which there were thousands of outbreaks. What is the position at the present moment, after twenty-two years or more of the Board of Agriculture? My Lords, the last statistics are these. In 1910 there were 3 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and 13 cattle affected; there is no pleuro-pneumonia in the country at all, and it has not existed for the last eleven years. Now what I say—and I say it with some knowledge of the matter—is that the main factor in bringing about this most satisfactory result to our farmers is the existence of a central and sole authority for the whole of Great Britain. If that the case I think we are justified in asking why this central authority should be destroyed, and what arguments there are which should induce us to reverse a policy which has been so highly successful. I confess that personally I have heard none.

531
I have read many letters and articles in newspapers in support of the proposition, but I am bound to say that I could not find in any one of them anything of a convincing nature.
There are two arguments, it is true—specious arguments—which might affect those who are not thoroughly acquainted with the subject. But, in the view of those who really know, I venture to think that these two arguments contain the minimum of knowledge and the maximum of misunderstanding. I will now state to your Lordships, if I am not detaining you too long, those two arguments, and tell you the answer to them. In the first place it is said that stock breeders in England and elsewhere in Great Britain are made very nervous by this Bill, because they are afraid that if you set up an independent Department in Scotland there may be some future Minister—it may be under some scheme of Home Rule—who will be foolish enough or ignorant enough to let animals into that country from some infected place on the Continent. That is absolutely a mistake, say these gentlemen. You have got Mr. Walter Long's Act of 1896 which orders that every animal is to be slaughtered at the port and not allowed into the interior of the land, and you are perfectly safe, they say, because Mr. Long's Act can only be reversed by an Act of Parliament, and therefore the admission of animals by some foolish Minister in some part of the country would be quite impossible. My Lords, the people who say that do not know what Mr. Long's Act means. Mr. Long's Act is directed amongst minor diseases against one major disease, that is pleuro-pneumonia, and its success has been enormous, for, as I have already said, we have not had a case of that kind for eleven years. But it is not a safeguard against foot-and-mouth disease, and for this reason—if I am not getting too scientific. Pleuro-pneumonia is one of those diseases that can only be communicated by what is called "immediate infection" —that is to say, the diseased animal must cone into contact with the healthy animal before the latter can contract the malady. But foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague are conveyed by what is called "mediate infection"—that is to say, if the animal has got into the country, even at the ports, and any one has been near it, even an animal, perhaps a bird,
532
infection can be carried all over the country at a moment's notice. Therefore slaughtering at the ports is no remedy against foot and mouth disease. The power of prohibiting animals absolutely from landing in the country, which is the only remedy, still rests with the Minister of Agriculture, and that power would undoubtedly be transferred to an independent Minister in Scotland.
It may be said, that the two Ministers would act in unison, but when you come to a lesser area than the whole, the pressure that is brought to bear upon a Minister is far greater than it is when the Minister represents the whole country. I know a case in which some people in Scotland were very anxious to upset the Minister for Agriculture of the day. Some time ago in the nineties, it was found necessary to prevent the introduction of Canadian cattle from the Dominion on account of the prevalence of pleuro-pneumonia there. Many people in Scotland resented that action, because a great many Scottish feeders were accustomed to get their store cattle from Canada, and they thought they got them cheaper than from Ireland. A great agitation was set up in Scotland, deputations were sent to London and resolutions passed, and Members of Parliament moved in the House on it. My Lords, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that bad there been at that time a purely Scottish Minister invested with this power, he would have found it extremely difficult to have resisted the very powerful influences in Scotland that were then at work against him. All the same, I think that the Board of Agriculture of that day was not mistaken in what it did, because in 1802, in the year that. Canada was scheduled, ten counties in England were affected with pleuro-pnuemonia; there were thirty-five outbreaks, and 3,477 cattle were slaughtered; whereas three years afterwards, in 1895, there was only one county affected, and only one outbreak.
The other argument, which, as I have said, is a specious one, is what I will call the analogy of the Irish Agricultural Board. It is said, "Oh, you have an independent Board in Ireland with full and plenary powers and with a Minister of their own who administers these Contagious Diseases Acts. It has been a great success there;

533
why should you not have that also in Scotland? "The reason, I think, is very obvious. Between Great Britain and Ireland there is a great stretch of sea, between Scotland and England there is nothing but a land frontier. If under any possible conditions an Irish Minister were to let in any diseased animals from foreign countries, which he might do under the powers which I pointed out just now, and he allowed them to land at the ports for slaughter, then of course the British Board of Agriculture if it did its duty would absolutely prohibit the landing of Irish cattle in this country, and it would undoubtedly do so under those circumstances whether there was disease in Ireland or not. As long as they let animals from a country in which there is disease enter Ireland, one may look upon Ireland as merely a funnel by which disease might come from foreign countries into this country. But supposing the same thing happened in Scotland, how could you possibly hold the frontier of Scotland against disease? It would be almost impossible to stop stray cattle or sheep crossing the Border. There would be much the same difficulty as the Canadians feel with regard to their long land frontier. If there is disease in America itself the introduction of it into Canada may occasionally take place whatever precautions may be taken.
Now, my Lords, this transference of the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts to a purely Scottish Minister not only destroys the sole central authority in Great Britain, but, I venture to think, also weakens and endangers certain important qualifications in the Minister which are absolutely necessary for the successful administration of these particular Acts. One thing that is necessary is what I may call firmness of administration—not only with your officials but against all pressure, whether it be your own Party pressure or Parliamentary pressure. I could not give a better example than by referring to the way in which Mr. Long cleared this country of hydrophobia. Everybody knows the opposition there was to that measure. Almost everybody who had a dog objected to having it muzzled. There was a strong agitation in the country. It was made, I am almost ashamed to say, one of the subjects at by-elections, and yet Mr. Long stood firm, and we are at this day one of the very few countries whose inhabitants
534
need not dread that most terrible disease. If Mr. Long had been the Minister of only a portion of the country, however important that portion might be, and if the agitation had been especially strong in that portion of the country, he would have found it extremely difficult, courageous as he might be, to maintain his position in this matter. Mr. Long spoke as the Minister for Great Britain, and therefore he spoke with authority, and naturally he carried his point.
There is only one other subject to which I wish to refer with regard to the transference of these powers. It carried out it may very reasonably and possibly interfere with another important point of administration—promptitude of action. There is nothing so essential to carrying out these Acts successfully as acting promptly and at once. I remember a good many years ago an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, in London of all places. It was late in the Autumn. It was not so very far off the Cattle Show, from which you will see what great danger would have come about had it spread amongst the prize animals gathered together in the metropolis. That outbreak, as soon as announced almost, was scheduled, officials were sent immediately, the infected area was surrounded, and in, I think, not more than a few weeks the disease was suppressed, and so effectively that very few people in London knew it had occurred. Well, such an outbreak as that might also easily happen on the borders between Scotland and England, and if you had two Ministers it is quite possible that those Ministers might differ as to what their action ought to be. I know that all members of all Governments live together in brotherly love; but Departments very often differ on subjects which are of interest to both Departments and differ sometimes very strongly. These two Departments might very well differ in such a case; it is quite probable they would. The veterinary officer on one side might take a view of the diagnosis different from that of the other officer. And what would result? Delay might result whilst the two Departments were coming together, and that delay would be fatal to the administration of these Acts, because a delay of hours. to say nothing of days, would be a source of infinite danger in the case of highly infectious diseases, not only to the locality affected, but practically throughout the whole of Great Britain.
Then, again, when outbreaks take place it is necessary to send down at once a sufficient number of veterinary and other inspectors. At the present moment the British Board of Agriculture has 112 inspectors, veterinary and other, at its disposal. Those inspectors are not confined to England; they are British and go also to Scotland. But in Scotland, allocated to Scotland for special Scottish purposes, there are only five inspectors and one veterinary officer. Therefore it is easy to see what would happen if you set up an independent Board for Scotland to-morrow and cut it off from the British Board and made the British Board into an English Board. The latter would still require a large number of inspectors; but the whole of those inspectors now are at the service naturally of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Carrington knows very well that in 1908 there were outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland. What did he do? He sent down a proper number of these inspectors to Scotland, and the disease was promptly suppressed. Therefore you must only have, as now allocated, five inspectors for Scotland, or you must set up in that country a great number of what I should call unnecessary inspectors, and at a very high expense.
What expert opinion is there behind the proposition of my noble friend in this Bill? Expert opinion I say advisedly, because you would not stop a man in the street and ask his opinion casually as to whether a microbe was of a particular nature, or how you ought to set about the culture of a particular bacillus. You go at once to an expert. These Acts are based upon science and are carried out in a scientific manner. Now what is the opinion of agricultural experts in Great Britain on this subject? I think I am right in saying that all the great agricultural societies of England with their expert knowledge are against the proposition in the Bill. And in Scotland the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which represents all the associations of Scotland and which has, I understand, amongst its members 16,000 farmers, voted against a Scottish Board of Agriculture and put forward as a main reason the danger of the transference of the administration of these particular Contagious Diseases Acts in Scotland to a Board independent of the central authority.
Then, my Lords, what is the opinion of
536
those on whose shoulders the burden of administering these Acts has fallen during the last twenty years? Mr. Chaplin is against the proposal in the Bill, and he was the first President of the Board of Agriculture. Mr. Walter Long is against it. So also is Sir Ailwyn Fellowes. As to Mr. Hanbury, unfortunately he is no more with us and therefore I cannot state his opinion definitely, but nobody who followed his strenuous career could for a moment doubt what that opinion would be. Another Minister of Agriculture, lately passed away, Lord Onslow, so much respected by all agriculturists, was against it. I can speak with confidence of his opinion, because I often discussed the matter with him, and I know that in putting down my Amendment I am not merely carrying out his wishes but his ardent desires.
There is only one other point of general interest upon which I wish to touch. It is said that the establishment of this proposed new Board of Agriculture is much desired by those who are in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. They think that the establishment of a separate Department, with full powers in a Scottish Minister of their own, is a principal stepping stone, an important stepping stone, towards the fulfillment of their wishes. All I can say about that is that the transference of the administration of these special Acts to a Scottish Department is going beyond any Home Rule that ever entered into the minds of the wildest Home Ruler, and I will show the House why. What is the definition, the authoritative, accepted definition of Home Rule for Ireland? It is control over purely local, purely Irish affairs. Now I suppose for Scotland it would be the same—control over purely local and purely Scottish affairs. But cattle disease as long as Scotland remains an integral part of Great Britain is not a purely local affair, nor a purely Scottish affair; it is a British affair. If that is the kind of Home Rule that Home Rulers desire there, we might as well give them the Post Office, and I venture to think that, when the people understand what it means, this proposition will not further the cause of Home Rule amongst the intelligent electorate of Great Britain.
I have gone fully—I hope at not too great length—into this subject, and I did so because it is one that is little discussed

537
and little understood. It is very technical, not suitable for platforms, and very dull, as I have no doubt your Lordships have discovered for yourselves during the progress of my speech. But at the same time it is a question of the highest importance to agriculture. It is, moreover, the most important, as it is the most successful, duty the Board of Agriculture has to perform. It is a question that affects most vitally the interests of breeders and feeders in the United Kingdom, and during the lust twenty-two years hundreds of thousands, nay possibly millions, of pounds have been saved to the country and to agricultural interests through the proper administration of these Acts. Therefore if I had an opportunity of moving my Amendment—and I am afraid I shall not—I should have hoped that it would have received favourable consideration, not only from this House but from the Government, because I believe that in opposing this proposed transference of the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts to an independent Scottish Minister I have at my back the almost unanimous support of the expert agriculturists of Great Britain.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat clown has addressed the House with the knowledge and experience of a past-President of the Board of Agriculture, and all he has said mast surely command the sympathy and approval of the great majority of your Lordships. for myself, at any rate, I may say this, that I think he has dealt with what I may call the crux of the question, but at the same time the subject of the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts is not, perhaps, directly raised by the Amendment now before the House. However, it is indirectly raised, and therefore the noble Lord was quite within his right in making the speech he did, because no doubt if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour is carried, though it might not be practically impassible, it would be technically difficult for Lord Burghclere to move his Amendment. The Amendment of Lord Balfour proposes that this body which is to have power with regard to agricultural affairs in Scotland should be a merely subordinate department of the Board of Agriculture, and clearly, that being so, there would not technically be a divided administration
538
of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in the two Kingdoms.
I sympathise most thoroughly with all that my noble friend Lord Balfour has said with regard to the mistake, as it seems to me it is, of the proposal to divide the Board of Agriculture in Great Britain. I should like to see the Board of Agriculture in Great Britain maintained precisely as it is, with power over the whole Kingdom, administered from Whitehall. That is what we have at present, and I believe it is the best thing. But now we have to choose between the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour, who would set up a Committee of the Board of Agriculture at Edinburgh subordinate—so he thinks—to the Board of Agriculture in London, and the proposal of His Majesty's Government for a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland. Now if I could believe that a separate Committee of the Board of Agriculture once set up at Edinburgh would continue subordinate to the Board of Agriculture in London I might be more favourably disposed towards my noble friend's proposal. But I have had some experience of public administration, and I am quite sure of this, that if you were to set up a Department of the kind, from the very moment that it was set up, it would endeavour to attract to itself more and more authority over Scottish agriculture, as compared with the authority of its nominal superior, the Board of Agriculture in London.
Now let us see how it would be set up. The Secretary for Scotland is a member of the Board of Agriculture ex officio. We may be quite sure—it would be his duty—that the Secretary for Scotland would take care that the Committee set up under my noble friend's proposal was a purely Scottish Committee, that it was representative of what he believed to be simply and solely Scottish opinion, and that it would do what it had to do in administration or in recommendation to the Head Office in London in accordance with Scottish opinion. It would be, in fact, a separate tribunal front the Head Office in London. I believe it would be perfectly certain that that tribunal would become practically independent of the Board of Agriculture in London. And why? What is the reason for setting it up at all? It is because you want some kind of separate

539
administration in Scotland of matters connected with agriculture. That is the principle on which it is to be set up. That, I think, would result from my noble friend's proposal. It would, to my mind, be very much like taking two bites at a cherry, and I think the opinion which Lord Pentland quoted from Mr. Long upon this subject was a wise opinion, and it is one with which I cordially agree.
On the other hand, what is the proposal of the Government? It is to set up a Board of Agriculture with power to administer for Scotland all the Acts relating to agriculture, as a separate authority from the Board of Agriculture in London. Well, my Lords, I dislike that proposal, but I dislike it mainly on account of the very matter which Lord Burghclere dwelt upon with such force—namely, the question of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. If you were to retain the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts in the Board of Agriculture in London and make almost all otherpower over to a Board of Agriculture in Edinburgh, I do not believe you would be doing very much harm. At any rate you would not do the infinite mischief that would be done by a divided administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts by two authorities in the United Kingdom. I must say that of all proposals that could be made by His Majesty's Government I believe nothing could be more hateful to every fanner in England than that, and from what has been said to-night I believe it to be objectionable to the farmers in Scotland. Then why is it to be made? Simply, as far as I know, because it is supposed to have the support of the Scottish Members in the other House. I have never been able to understand, why Scottish agriculturists have not the same influence over the Members for Scottish counties as agriculturists in England have over their Members. I do not profess to have a knowledge of Scottish affairs, but that does appear to be the case. I am quite sure that, whatever his political opinions, you would not find an English county Member representing anything that could be called an agricultural district who would not vote against the proposal of His Majesty's Government upon this matter.
Now is it not possible for His Majesty's Government to yield to what has been said with such force and power by one of
540
their own supporters, Lord Burghclere? Is it not possible for them to exempt the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts from the powers of the Scottish Board of Agriculture? I do not say that it is a good thing to set up a separate Scottish Board of Agriculture at all, but I do feel that the matter has now gone so far that it is extremely difficult for your Lordships to resist it. It has been supported, no doubt, by the great body of Scottish opinion in another place. It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government for years past; they have practically nailed their flag to the mast upon the subject, and there could be no reasonable doubt in the minds of any of us that if this proposal is struck out of this Bill the Bill would be dropped for the session, and would not at any rate for some time become law. Do any of your Lordships desire that, because of the difference, which in my belief would not be a permanent difference, between the proposal of my noble friend Lord Balfour and the proposal of His Majesty's Government upon this subject, the Bill should be lost for this session? In my belief the point we ought to insist upon, and as to which I believe we shall be backed up by the great body of agricultural opinion in the whole of Great Britain, is the exclusion of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts from the power of the new Scottish Board of Agriculture. Let us insist at whatever cost, even the loss of the Bill if necessary, that there shall not be in this island a divided authority upon that most important subject, and I believe we shall have with us the support of everybody interested in agriculture both in Scotland and in England.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I rise to ask my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland to accept Lord Burghclere's Amendment. I think His Majesty's Government would be well advised to give satisfaction in this respect. It is the absolute and general demand of nearly all experts on the subject north arid south of the Tweed. With regard to the proposed Board of Agriculture, I think that we in Scotland ought to have a Board of Agriculture within easy access of all those who have any agricultural interest to put before it. I need only point out that the Bill which we are at present discussing has not been introduced by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries but by the Scottish Office. It

541
strikes me that it would be very abnormal in the case of a Bill introduced by one Department to give the administration of it to another Department. I am fully aware of the excellent work achieved in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the great experience which during recent years it has gathered. But, on the other hand, when we see how admirably agricultural education has been developed in Scotland by the Scottish Education Department, I do not see that there is any reason to doubt that if we obtain a separate Board of Agriculture, that Board will, under the guidance of the Scottish Office, be of immense use for the development of agriculture and forestry, and that, at all events, there will be plenty of work for it to do. I need only point out what has been done for agriculture in Ireland by the Irish Board of Agriculture, and the same results will I think accrue in Scotland if the choice of the members who will constitute the Board in Scotland is made with great care and discrimination, for obviously the members of that Board will have great influence in the exercise of the powers which they will have to give effect to the provisions of this Bill. I agree with what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, that if the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh were accepted the situation thereby created would inevitably develop in destroying the control of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries over the department which would then become independent. There is another proposal which has been put forward—namely, that the Scottish Board of Agriculture should be represented in another place by one of its members. Sooner or later that result may follow, but for the present I do not think it would be desirable to create this appointment. I shall vote against the proposal of Lord Balfour, but I shall feel bound to vote for the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Burghclere.
LORD PENTLAND: Perhaps it might be convenient if I stated the opinion of His Majesty's Government on this question of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts which is raised by the Amendment and speech of my noble friend Lord Burghclere. I should like to say that I recognise the spirit in which the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, has advised the House in this matter. There are two points of view from which this matter is considered:
542
one the point of view of English farmers and English agricultural opinion generally, and the other—as to which I do not express any opinion at this moment—the point of view of Scottish opinion and of Scottish farmers. Various noble Lords have severely criticised the Government for so directly flying in the face of what is deemed to be the unanimous Scottish agricultural opinion adverse to the proposal in the Bill. I would fain be as little controversial as possible and therefore shall be brief, but your Lordships will perhaps allow me to draw attention to a passage from a letter which appeared in the Morning Post on the day of the Second Reading of this Bill. It was written by a member of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. He is not known to me, and he describes himself as a Unionist in politics. These are his words—
"So far as the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture is concerned, the majority present at the different meetings where this subject was discussed (lid vote against the separation, but there was always a very respectable minority, and, as a member of that minority and later a director of that body, I have always maintained that the Chamber on this question did not represent the true views of the great mass of agriculturists "—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But the minority never put forward the Government's plan.
LORD PENTLAND: So be it. The writer proceeds—
"So far as the first meeting was concerned, one has only to know how the meeting was got up and to remember the names of those present to realise that it was in no way a representative gathering,"
and so forth.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does he sign his name?
LORD PENTLAND: Yes. I will give it to the noble Lord afterwards.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What is his name?
LORD PENTLAND: Mr. James Elder. Instead of giving my own opinion, I quote that opinion which is easily accessible. I can assure noble Lords that from members of local authorities concerned in the control of these diseases, from practical agriculturists, from owners of stock, and from those engaged in the selling of stock, I have opinions' heartily supporting the proposals of the Government. I say this simply to assure the House that this proposal has not been inserted in the Bill

543
and has not remained in the Bill without substantial support being behind it. Much of the criticism which has been levelled at this proposal proceeds on the assumption that we in Scotland do not recognise the importance of keeping that country as well as England free from contagious diseases. On the contrary, it is entirely from a desire and belief that we can in Scotland make the administration of these Acts more efficient, and therefore a better protection for Scotland and for England, that we make this proposal.
In the first place there is the question of delay. Can it be maintained for a moment that more prompt administrative action cannot be taken by a Board located in Edinburgh than when everything has to be referred for decision to a Board in London? I could cite cases where disease has existed in a locality for eight or twelve days before it has been publicly announced, and in our belief all these delays might have been greatly reduced if an authority more accessible to farmers was absolutely on the spot. Then let me mention another point in which this presses very hardly upon Scottish farmers. This year there has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England. There has been no foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland, yet the export of pedigree stock from Scotland has been prohibited because of the existence of the disease in England. A number of Ayrshire cattle were bought early this year for export, but their export has been forbidden because of the foot-and-mouth disease in England.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Quite right, too.
LORD PENTLAND: But surely it is possible to imagine an efficient Board in England and an efficient Board in Scotland under circumstances which would not inflict a disability on one country when it was free from diseased? This brings me to the question of the Board, and I confess I cannot follow my noble friend in comparing the Scottish Border of eighty miles, fifty or sixty of which is river and mountain, every acre of which is closely farmed and confined by fences on either side—I cannot follow Lord Burghclere when he compares the difficulty of preventing disease crossing that Border with the Canadian Border of 2,200 miles, where, as he knows, there cannot be the same control. Moreover, with the exception of
544
a few sheep, the great mass of stock go by rail. The great export from Scotland is fat cattle, and they go by rail, and hundreds and thousands of sheep travel in the same way from Scotland to England.
But I did not rise to dwell upon this point, but rather to endeavour, so far as I am able, to meet the suggestion of the noble Viscount. In saying what I have said on this point, I have merely touched the fringe of the subject in order to assure your Lordships that the Government and those who have advised them in this matter have proceeded on what, in their opinion, is wholly substantial ground. Scottish farmers do not see why their country should not be as free from disease as England or freer than England. From its proximity to the Continent, from the large number of ports through which there is a traffic from the Continent, from its very much larger area, England is much more prone to disease than Scotland, and it is solely owing to a recognition of the importance of freeing the country from disease, and from the belief that a Scottish authority would be at least competent to keep Scotland free from disease and so aid in the protection of English flocks and herds as well as their own, that the Government have made this proposal. But I recognise that the opinion of this House is overwhelmingly against what the Government propose in this respect, and it was not my intention, had the Amendment of Lord Burghclere been reached—or if it be reached it is not my intention—to advise my noble friends to divide against the Amendment, and I shall represent to my colleagues the strong views which are held by this House on this subject. I differentiate this point from the general question of the establishment of a Board of Agriculture for Scotland. That is a vital and integral part of our proposal, and from that, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot budge.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in moving his Amendment, stated very clearly the objections which Scottish agriculturists have to the proposals under this Bill for a separate Board of Agriculture in Scotland. I had intended to add many objections which have come to me from a large number of agriculturists in England, but the admirable remarks we heard from Lord Burghclere make it, I think, unnecessary for me to deal with that particular matter, and

545
I should like to say how gratified we are at his admirable contribution to this particular part of the debate. We do recognise, from his own personal knowledge and the authority which he has obtained as a President of the Board of Agriculture, that he brings weight to bear in this particular debate which none or very few of us are able to do. I agree very largely with a good deal of what the noble Lord has told us. He described the present Amendment of Lord Balfour as "a counsel of perfection." I gather he would like to have supported it, but he has been unable to do so because he considers the last two General Elections in Scotland have settled the question. Is not that attaching too great importance to the General Elections that have taken place? I admit it would have been reasonable if the Secretary for Scotland had said that in consequence of those elections they could say that Scotland had supported the Small Holdings Bill. But in going to one detail of this, and the Board of Agriculture is only a detail—to say, because at the General Elections in Scotland the electors returned a larger number of Liberals as compared with Unionists, that therefore the whole of Scotland was in favour of this separation, and to use that as an argument against the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is, I think, going a great deal too far.
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Burghclere, spoke in the highest terms of the absolute necessity for a central and supreme authority for the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts. In that the noble Lord agrees with letters which I have received from a large number of Chambers of Agriculture in England pointing out the grave danger of any decentralisation of the management of these Acts. Lord Burghclere also paid a very high tribute —one which we will all gladly acknowledge—to the management of these diseases by the Board in recent years. I know agriculturists themselves acknowledge the debt of gratitude which they owe to the Board and its very efficient staff for keeping down the spread of these diseases. But the noble Lord told us that his Amendment, which he fears he may not be able to propose, would be a satisfactory settlement of the question. I understand the noble Viscount, speaking for the Front Opposition Bench, agrees with that.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It is all we shall get.
LORD CLINTON: The noble Viscount says it is all we shall get. But is it the best solution of the question? The Secretary for Scotland, on behalf of the Government, has, f understand, offered not to oppose it. I admit at once that if you can prevent the separation of the administration of these Acts you are doing a very great thing. Yon are doing that which English agriculturalists ask for, at all events, and which they would be satisfied with, but I would like the noble Lord to consider this. Supposing you do carry, even with the consent of the Government, this keeping of the administration of these Acts under the English Board and at the same time set up a separate Board for Scotland, how long will the separate Board for Scotland allow this English and therefore alien Board to exercise any control over their field of agriculture? I do not believe it possible that the noble Lord himself could withstand the pressure which would be brought to get an alteration of that arrangement. Consider what happens now in an ordinary outbreak of disease. A certain area has to be scheduled. It is very difficult indeed for any one to describe or define that area. You will get the very gravest objection from anybody who happens to be, unfortunately, within that area, and if the slightest thing went wrong with the administration in Scotland I do not think the Secretary for Scotland could prevent bringing forward a measure to bring the management of these diseases entirely under his own Board. That is my objection to this proposal. I do not think English agriculturists should be put off with the idea that it will be in any sense a permanent arrangement. If the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is carried, there would be no difficulty about the matter. It would remain under the management of the British Board, not the English Board but the Board responsible for the agricultural management of the whole of the kingdom, and I have no doubt whatever that it would be a lasting arrangement.
The proposal to set up this separate Board for Scotland, as has been shown, has received very strong opposition in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Pentland, has read a communication from, I presume, an eminent agriculturist doubting whether

547
it is the fact that there is such an opposition. I understood from the letter that he was doubting whether the people of Scotland generally were opposed to the separation of the two countries in this matter. There may be a large number of people in Scotland who would like to have a separate Board entirely for agricultural work, but I do not believe there is any body of agriculturists, indeed no agriculturist as far as I know, willing to have the management of agriculture put into the hands of the Scottish Office. That is the main objection which Scottish agriculturists have always taken to the measure, and I do find it difficult to understand why the Government themselves should be so bent upon forcing this proposal against the large body of Scottish agricultural opinion.
I would go further and say I find it difficult to understand why a proposal for the alteration of the Board of Agriculture should come into this measure at all, for, after all, this is a measure for the creation of small holdings. The question of the Board of Agriculture really does not arise. We can have the small holdings, if we require them, entirely apart from the Board. The only excuse for bringing it into the Bill would be that by your proposed separation you bring some benefit to agriculture, but there has been no suggestion whatever of any benefit to agriculture. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give any idea of how the actual separation is going to be of any advantage. It is difficult to find any advantage at all, but there are certain disadvantages which are obvious to any one who considers the question. At present agriculture in Scotland is managed by a Department fully equipped for the purpose. True from time to time there has been dissatisfaction about the management of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, but so there has been in England. We are all agreed that we ought to have more money to carry out agricultural improvements; but I understand that the reason Scottish ideals have never been carried out is that, so far, Scotland has not been anything like unanimous as to what its desires are. But now they are more unanimous than they have ever been. They do not want the Scottish Office to control their agriculture, and by a large majority, at all events in the Central Chamber and the highland Society, they are anxious to have a Department
548
as proposed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. To take the control from a body which is thoroughly equipped for the purpose and put it in the hands of the Scottish Office, which has not the knowledge or experience possessed by the Board of Agriculture, appears to us to be very bad business indeed.
The position really seems to be this. The Government are proposing a Department of Agriculture under the Scottish Office, and the other proposal is for a Scottish Department of Agriculture under the Board of Agriculture. It is essential that whatever body we are to have in Scotland should be controlled and managed by those who are competent to carry out the matter from experience. I feel certain that the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal (Earl Carrington) would agree that the work of managing an Agricultural Department is quite sufficient to occupy the attention of one man as a principal. The noble Earl, whose too early retirement from the Board of Agriculture has caused regret to agriculturists because we have the pleasantest possible recollections of his work and the energy and ardour he threw into it, would, I am certain, readily recognise that agriculture must Le managed by a President and by a Department who are there for the purpose of managing it; and it would be a misfortune to agriculture generally if it was put in the hands of another Department, where it would really become one among the many other details to which that Department has to attend.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, we have listened to three or four very able speeches since dinner but I must remark with regard to two of them that they appear very clearly to some of us to be speeches of Englishmen delivered on a Scottish subject. Let me take the remarks of Lord Burghclere first. He referred to Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment as "a counsel of perfection," and said he would have been willing to support it but could not support it at this stage. But I was very much surprised to find that right to the end of his speech he went on and on giving nothing but support to Lord Balfour's Amendment. The reason was perfectly plain. The part of this question in which Lord Burghclere is interested is the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. Exactly the same thing applies to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. He feels very strongly

549
on the administration of those Acts. But what neither of those noble Lords feels upon this is the question which most agitates us; they are Englishmen and do not enter into it. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn went so far as to say that he did not understand why Scottish agriculturists had not more influence upon Scottish Members. If the noble Viscount had lived in Scotland he would know that the agricultural portion of Scottish constituencies is, comparatively speaking, very small in almost all the constituencies.
The question which really agitates us is this: We do not want a Department under the Secretary for Scotland. That is what Scottish agricultural opinion has declared against. As was pointed out, at not one of the meetings was there any one who would propose the Government plan of a Department under the Secretary for Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland is a member of a number of Boards already. He is very much overworked. If there is a more overworked man, I should say it is the Permanent Under-Secretary for Scotland. Both are members of several Boards. I see sometimes that Lord Pentland, as Chairman of the Congested District Board reports to Lord Pentland as Secretary for Scotland, and I have no doubt you will find the same thing with regard to other Boards. The truth is the Secretary for Scotland has a great deal more work than he can do, and has no time to give to any of these things. Yet he says to-night, "Give the Secretary for Scotland this Department, and it will be attended to." The noble Lord did not add "for the first time"; but that was hinted by the remark that the President of the Board of Agriculture resides in London and we were left to suppose that the Secretary for Scotland lives in Scotland. But he is just as much in London as the President of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore that really does not touch the question.
I am quite free to say that the difficulty I see in Lord Balfour's proposal, as he laid it before us, is with regard to the Congested Districts Board. I have been speaking and thinking of it a good deal since he mentioned it to us, and I cannot myself see why the Congested Districts Board cannot be part of the Scottish Department of the Board of Agriculture. Take this Commissioner for Agriculture. Why cannot he be a part or one of the Board, one of the Scottish branch of the Board? And with
550
regard to rent and questions of that sort, of course they will be dealt with by the Land Court all over Scotland. It seems to me, making that slight change in Lord Balfour's proposal, that it might be acceptable. At all events, Lord Burghclere says it is "a counsel of perfection." I rather agree with him. I believe it is the best way in which you can manage this business.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the House will not grudge me a few moments in reply, because a great many criticisms have been passed upon the arguments which I used earlier in the evening. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Scotland says it is undeniable that dissatisfaction exists in Scotland with the present state of matters. I do not think the dissatisfaction is as great as is sometimes represented. But let us, for a moment, say that dissatisfaction does exist. Because there is dissatisfaction with the present state of matters, that is no reasons why you should give a particular change which nobody wants. This gentleman of the name of Elder can be produced as a witness. I am not thoroughly acquainted with the whole of the circumstances, and I am not quite sure I can pass Mr. Elder's Unionist qualifications. I have no doubt he can use as good an argument whatever side of politics he represents. But let us suppose he is in favour of this proposal. Why is Mr. Elder's view to obtain to the disadvantage of the whole of the other agriculturists in Scotland? I am not converted even by hearing that Mr. Elder holds the opinion attributed to him.
The point with me is this. I want efficient agricultural administration. I would rather have agricultural administration from a good agricultural Englishman, than I would from the best Scotsman who does not know much about agriculture. It is a disadvantage, no doubt, from my point of view, that he should be an Englishman, but at any rate it is a much greater disadvantage from the point of view of the Scottish agriculturist to have a Scotsman who is not an agriculturist. I hold strongly that the lasting interests of agriculture in Scotland are bound up with keeping the administration solid for the whole of Great Britain. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn seemed to think it extraordinary that there was no agricultural influence brought to bear at elections in Scotland. I have no doubt

551
he was not in the House when I stated earlier in the evening that there are only two counties in Scotland in which the agricultural vote is predominant. In every other constituency the agricultural vote is swamped by other interests. I do not, of course, count the crofting counties as in this sense agricultural. The noble Viscount went on to say that this was a separation from the present Department of Agriculture, that it would not rest there if you had this amount of separation and you might just as well go, as I understood the argument, further at once. My point of view is this, and I want to emphasise it. The separation which would take effect if my Amendment is carried, is, at any rate, only a separation of the Department as between England and Scotland. The separation proposed in the Bill is a complete cutting adrift and having nothing to do with England, except in the matter of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, because I understand that is practically, though not absolutely, conceded by the Secretary for Scotland in his last speech.
I put to your Lordships that if you make a completely separate agricultural authority under the Secretary for Scotland it would be much less likely to be content in the future without the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts and much more harm would accrue, than if you have merely a separation and the two Departments remain under allegiance to the President of the Board of Agriculture. As far as I am concerned, I agree with my noble friend Lord Clinton. I cannot understand why this matter is introduced into the Bill at all, and if I had my way I would cut it out altogether. But after looking through the Bill I find it impossible to draft Amendments. If I propose to take out Clause 4 there are other duties connected with the Board of Agriculture which are provided for. No one will contradict this, that if one attempted to leave agricultural matters as they are now, it would be a much more drastic proposal to change the Bill than the one I have proposed. I am afraid I must persevere with my Amendment. Suppose I withdraw it I never can again move it. But suppose I adhere to it and am fortunate to get a majority, some other proposal may come up in some other form, such as that adumbrated by the Secretary for Scotland, and we can judge it on its merits. But the Amendments
552
in the name of the Secretary for Scotland are worse than the Bill itself, because they propose to transfer the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts by a simple Order in Council. Under the Bill the authority of Parliament is allowed, but under this proposal which was put down a day or two ago for the first time we are actually to be transferred by Order in Council without the slightest authority of Parliament at all. In these circumstances I am bound to persevere in my Amendment.
LORD PENTLAND: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one word in reference to the last remark of the noble Lord. I think he is rather hard to please, or at least I have not succeeded in meeting his objections. These Amendments were put down to meet some of the proposals made by the noble Lord on Second Reading. The House will recollect what I said in regard to the position of the Government in respect to the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, and we may put that out of the present discussion for a moment. If we put that out, the noble Lord is not correct in saying that it leaves the transfer of other powers to be done by His Majesty in Council without any further reference, because the machinery which has been put clown transfers all the powers of the Board of Agriculture to the new Scottish Board according to the schedule which is stated in the Bill, and the clause to which the noble Lord refers is simply a clause providing for any later adjustment which may not have been foreseen at this moment, any comparatively unimportant consequential adjustment to be carried out by means of an Order by His Majesty in Council. If the noble Lord wishes to put any other safeguard upon that proceeding, there is really no difficulty about it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry to interrupt, but Lord Burghclere has apparently shared my mistake because he proposes an Amendment to avoid the difficulty.
LORD PENTLAND: May I say that there is a mistake really as to where Lord Burghclere's Amendment should be moved. I have pointed it out to him, and he agrees to move it in the place which I have indicated. If it were moved in the place where it is on the Paper, it would not have the desired effect.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Would it not be more convenient to wait until we bet to the Amendment?
LORD PENTLAND: I only wish to remove the difficulty which is in the mind of Lord Balfour. The place to move the excision, or rather the refusal to transfer the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, is after the words "Nothing in this section shall transfer or authorise the transfer of any powers or ditties under the Survey Act, 1870." We propose to leave the geological survey with the Board of Agriculture, and it is there that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts should be placed. My noble friend Lord Burghclere understands that, and therefore I do not think Lord Balfour need dwell upon the point. But may I say that I am profoundly disappointed that the House should be inclined, if it is so inclined, to take the view put forward by Lord Balfour. I have already stated the decision of His Majesty's Government on this point, and I should like to point out further that my noble friend has not put upon the Paper the many consequential Amendments which must necessarily follow the carrying of his Amendment. It will be necessary for me to ask the House to defer proceeding with the Bill to-morrow. We cannot possibly get the Bill into shape because it makes such a radical change throughout the whole construction of the Bill. It would be quite impossible to proceed with the Bill to-morrow if the noble Lord persists in his Amendment.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am inclined to think that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is justified in the appeal which he made to the House in his concluding remarks. I speak, of course, with the utmost apprehension, both as an Englishman and as a non-agriculturist, but after all one does not require to be either a Scotsman or an agriculturist to follow the main points of this debate. The impression left on my mind by the discussion to-night is, broadly speaking, this. The debate has ranged over two fields, one large and the other small. The larger one was opened by Lord Balfour and traversed with great ability by my noble friend Lord Clinton. The narrower ground was taken up by Lord Burghclere and endorsed by Lord Reay. What has been the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to these two
554
scenes of operations? Following upon the powerful speech of Lord Burghclere—and I rarely remember a speech in this House delivered with greater fulness of knowledge or greater success of demonstration—and the appeal by another noble Lord below the Gangway, the Secretary for Scotland at once indicated a willingness to consider the suggestions put before him. He says that when the Amendment comes on he will not divide against it; he will represent what has happened to his colleagues, and consider whether or not the Bill can be modified to meet the views of the noble Lord.
But he metes out different treatment to noble Lords on this side of the House, I listened most attentively to his speech. On many of the aspects of the case I am wholly incompetent to submit an opinion, but on two aspects I am. Lord Balfour of Burleigh repeated over and over again with insistence the proposition that Scottish agricultural opinion is almost unanimously against this Bill. I have heard no answer whatever to that. Lord Pentland did not attempt to contravene it. All he did —I wish to be quite just to him—was to quote a letter in the Morning Post by a single gentleman, and to say there is some dissatisfaction in Scotland with the existing administration. of agricultural affairs. That is quite a different thing from saying that Scottish opinion favours his proposal; and he did not say anything in his speech to indicate that he has behind him any-weight of agricultural opinion in Scotland in favour of this Bill.
The second point which it seems to me Lord Balfour established in his case was this. He argued most powerfully, in the interests of agriculture in Scotland, in favour of administration by a body the head of which should be a Minister at Whitehall instead of a body practically under the orders of the Secretary for Scotland. That was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. I have heard no reply to that. Is it not fair to ask His Majesty's Government, who are, as we know, about to consider the proposition of Lord Burghclere, to consider also the arguments put forward by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, by Lord Clintion, and by the Earl of Camperdown? In my opinion, my noble friend is entirely justified in asking the House to accept his Amendment. I think we understand perfectly well the attitude of the

555
noble Lord opposite and the form in which the Bill is likely to come back to us. Yet we are not without hope that in the interval the Government may give some consideration to the arguments urged by Lord Balfour.
LORD PENTLAND: I hope the noble Earl will be under no misapprehension on this matter. I should like to speak
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH then moved the consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("Board") and insert ("the Scottish Department")
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President")
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 4, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President")
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
perfectly clearly. The two fields, as he has described them, are in different categories, if I may say so. On one point we are prepared to consider; on the other not.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-contents, 51.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

Pentland, L.

Carrington, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Reay, L.

Blyth, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Shaw, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmott, L.

Southwark, L.

Craven, E.

Haversham, L.

Willingdon, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Churchill, V.

Hylton, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Wellington, D.

Halifax, V.

Lamington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lovat, L.

Bath, M.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Zetland, M.

Barnard, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Camperdown, E.

Blythswood, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

St. Levan, L.

Devon, E.

Saltoun, L.

Eldon, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Sandys, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sempill, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sinclair, L.

Lovelace, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Mansfield, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Northbrook, E.

Clinton, L. [Teller.]

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Northesk, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Powis, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wynford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Hindlip, L.

Page 5, line 4, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President")
Page 5, line 16, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President")
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President")
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("Board") and inert ("Department")
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BURGHCLERE LORD BURGHCLERE intimated that he would not move the Amendment standing in his name—
Page 5, line 38, after ("Scotland") insert ("Except any power or duty exerciseable by the Board under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1911, or any Act amending the same").
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to amend subsection (12) by inserting, after "before the expiration of such period of two months," the words "while Parliament is sitting."
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("months") insert ("While Parliament is sitting"). —(Lord Lamington.)
LORD PENTLAND: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved a further consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Moneys placed at disposal of Board of Agriculture 59 & 60 Vict. c. 37.
5. The following moneys shall be placed at the disposal of the Board for the purposes hereinafter specified:—

(a) The annual sum of fifteen thousand pounds available under subsection two of section four of the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, during the continuance of that Act; and

(b) Any sums not exceeding one hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds annually voted by Parliament for the said purposes.

The said moneys shall in the financial year commencing on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, and in any subsequent financial year, be paid into one fund hereby constituted under the name of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.
Any sum standing to the credit of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund at the commencement of this Act, and any sums required by the provisions of any Act to be carried to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund, shall at and after the commencement of this Act be carried to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to substitute "Department" for "Board" at the beginning of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Application of moneys.
6. The Agriculture (Scotland) Fund shall be applied for the following purposes, that is to say, for the purpose of facilitating the constitution of new landholders' holdings, the enlargement of landholders' holdings, and the improvement and rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings of landholders and cotters in terms of the Landholders Acts or the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, and for the purpose of exercising the other powers and duties conferred on or transferred to the Board under the provisions of this Act, in accordance with schemes to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move, after the words "the enlargement of landholders' holdings," to insert "the acquisition of holdings by the occupiers thereof." This Amendment must be taken in connection with another Amendment which follows in my name on the next page, to insert a new clause. I may as well allude to it now; it will save time, because it is consequential. The new clause which I propose reads—
"The Department out of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund may, if satisfied with the security, advance to any tenant for the purpose of purchasing his holding the whole or any less part of the price of such holding on such terms and conditions as the Department may with the sanction of the Treasury prescribe."
The object is that the Department may advance money to tenants for the purchase of their holdings. It places no obligation on the Department; if the Department has not got enough money it will say so. The Amendment merely says that it shall not be impossible for the tenant to purchase his holding. This matter has been discussed more than once, and therefore I can deal with it very shortly. The noble Lord says that the occupiers have no desire to buy. How does he know that? If there was even one occupier who desired to buy, why should he not understand that he may at all events apply to get money? The Aberdeenshire Members in the House of Commons say that there is a desire on the part of the tenants to buy. I may also say that the Committee of the late Lord

559
Onslow recommended that there should be this power of purchase; that at all events it should not be impossible for the tenants to purchase. Why have the Government such a rooted objection to insert the possible power of purchase? It has paid extremely well and has been very much used in Ireland. How do the Government know it will not be used also in Scotland?
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, after ("holdings") insert ("the acquisition of holdings by the occupiers thereof"). —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND: This is the first of a scheme of Amendments establishing a system of purchase—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: A possible system.
LORD PENTLAND: A system of possible purchase.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes, that is it.
LORD PENTLAND: But this is a tenancy Bill. It is founded upon the principle of tenancy, and in the view of the Government it is really impracticable to graft purchase upon this Bill. The noble Earl's proposals would require considerable extension before they would effect his purpose, and I can only say on behalf of the Government that we cannot accept the Amendment. Our view is that there is a purchase Act already in Scotland—the Small Holdings Act—and it is there that any developments of the existing law should be proposes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but what Lord Pentland has said leaves me still quite unaware why the Government should obstinately oppose anything in the nature of purchase. I know a very large number of their supporters object to any one holding land, but so far as any reasonable argument is concerned I submit that none has been adduced.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, alluded to the statement of a Member for Aberdeenshire that there is a great desire for the purchase of small holdings. To my certain knowledge there is this demand for purchase in that county. I will not go further with it than that, but I would like to inform Lord Pentland that that is the case.
LORD SEMPILL: I may go further and say that I am in treaty with tenants for the purchase of their holdings.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Powers to facilitate the constitution of new holdings.
7. (1) It shall be lawful for the landlord of any land and any other person to agree that in respect of such land such person may apply to the Land Court to be registered as a new holder under this Act, and such person may thereupon apply accordingly, and subject to the provisions of this Act may be so registered.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner for Smallholdings to report from time to time to the Board after due inquiry what demand for small holdings exists in any district, and after consultation (where practicable) with the landlord or landlords what land (if any) is available to meet that demand, without causing undue displacement of farm servants presently employed on or about such land, under what conditions such land is cultivated, and what employment it affords.
(3) Where the Commissioner for Small Holdings is satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings and that suitable land exists it shall be his duty to negotiate with the landlords of such land with a view to the adjustment of a scheme for the registration by agreement of any one or more new holders in respect of such land.
(4) Failing agreement, such land may, otherwise than by agreement, be made available for the registration of new holders in the manner and subject to the conditions hereinafter prescribed.
(5) In proceeding under this section the Board shall take steps to ascertain what land is falling or is about to fall out of lease where the present tenant is not an offerer, and shall preferably select such land (if otherwise suitable) for the constitution of new holdings otherwise than by agreement.
(6) Where a new holder is registered under this section by agreement, the rent agreed between the landlord and the new holder shall not, if the same shall have been agreed upon for a specified period, be altered by the Land Court during such period, and shall not in any ease be altered, by the Land Court for a period of seven years from the term at which it first becomes payable.
(7) Where, with a view to, or as incidental to the registration of a new holder or holders in respect of any land, whether by agreement or otherwise, the Board are of opinion, upon consideration of a report by the Commissioner for Small Holdings that assistance should be provided for the purpose of dividing, fencing, or otherwise preparing or adapting the land, making occupation roads, or

561
executing other works, such as works for the provision of drainage or water supply, or erecting or adapting a dwelling-house or dwelling-houses or other buildings, or for any similar purpose, the Board may provide such assistance by way of loan or (except as regards dwelling-houses or other buildings) by way of gift, and subject to such conditions as they may prescribe. Conditions so prescribed and the provisions for their enforcement or for the ease of their violation shall be as effectual as if they were contained in this Act.
(8) Where the Board are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, they shall pay compensation as may be agreed between the Board and such tenant.
(9) Where the Commissioner for Small Holdings reports that the landlord refuses to negotiate, or where, after submitting to the landlord a scheme for the constitution of one or more new holdings on the land, he reports that no agreement can be reached, it shall be lawful for the Board, after due notice and after hearing any party who desires to be heard, to intimate to the landlord and to other parties concerned that it is in the public interest that one or more new holdings should be constituted on the land in accordance with the said scheme, and that they propose to apply to the Land Court to make an order or orders for the constitution of one or more new holdings on the land in accordance with such scheme, to be occupied by new holders, at a fair rent and upon such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the Landholders Acts as the Land Court consider just; and thereafter to apply accordingly.
(10) Before making such an order the Land Court shall give all parties having a right or interest in the land an opportunity of being heard.
(11) The Land Court shall thereafter determine with due regard to the provisions of the Landholders Acts, and by order or orders declare—

(a) In respect of what land, if any, specified in the scheme, one or more holdings for new holders may respectively be constituted, and up to what date the power to constitute them otherwise than by agreement may be exercised;

(b) What is the fair rent for each new holding;

(c) What land, if any, specified in the scheme is to be excluded therefrom; and

(d) Whatever else may be necessary for the purpose of making the scheme effective and of adjusting the rights of all parties interested in or affected by the proceedings:

Provided that where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders, or of any farm of which such land forms part, or to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy, or to any landlord either in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, they shall require the Board, in the event of the scheme being proceeded with, to pay compensation to such amount as the Land Court determine after giving parties an opportunity of being heard and, if they so desire, of leading evidence in the matter.
(12) In or after making such an order the Land Court (without prejudice to their other powers) may do, provide, or decide anything incidental to or consequential on such an order as if it were an order under section twelve of the Act of 1886, and may, if they think fit, provide for the incorporation with the order, subject to the necessary adaptations, of any provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts which appear to them requisite for carrying the order into effect.
(13) Upon such an order providing for the constitution of one or more new holdings on any land being issued the Board may proceed to make it effective by entering on the land, carrying out works, and otherwise as may be required (due compensation to such amount as may be agreed or as, in case of dispute, may be determined by the Land Court being made for surface damage), and may negotiate with one or more duly qualified applicants with a view to their registration as new holders in respect of the land.
(14) A new holder shall not be duly qualified for registration otherwise than by agreement who does not satisfy the Board as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent on him.
(15) The Board shall give reasonable consideration to objections stated by a landlord to any applicant for a new holding, and ceteris paribus shall give a preference to applicants preferred by the landlord.
(16) Except by agreement a new holder shall not be registered—

(a) in respect of any land being or forming put of a farm not exceeding one hundred and fifty acres occupied by a person who has no personal interest in any other farm: Provided that nothing herein contained shall operate to prevent the registration otherwise than by agreement of two or more new holders in respect of the whole of such farm, where no other land is available in the neighbourhood of any existing village or township; or

(b) in respect of any land being or forming part of a farm occupied subject to a lease which was in force at Whitsunday nineteen hundred and six, so long as the lease remains in force.

(17) All parties being possessed of lands or any right or interest therein who under the Lands Clauses Acts have power on behalf of themselves or of others to convey and dispose of such lands, or of such rights therein for the purposes mentioned in those Acts, shall have the like power to enter into any agreement or give any consent for the purposes of this section.
(18) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, the expression "landlord" in this section includes the Board in respect of any land purchased under that Act and transferred to the Board under the provisions of this Act.
(19) Any member of the Land Court, or the Board, or any person authorised in writing by the Land Court or by the Board, may for the purposes of the Landholders Acts enter upon and inspect any lands or buildings at all reasonable hours on any lawful day.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendments standing in my name to this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 8, line 20, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").
Page 8, line 34, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")
Page 9, line 31, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The purpose of my Amendment to Clause 7 is to give an appeal against the decision of the Land Court with regard to questions of compensation where the amount in dispute exceeds £400. This question of there being some appeal seems to me absolutely vital. Just consider what powers are being placed in the hands of the Land Court. It is said that private individuals cannot be safely trusted with the administration of small holdings under £50; yet the Government propose to place the sole management of practically all the small holdings in Scotland under the Land Court, and that without any appeal of any sort or kind.
I must ask your Lordships to look at subsection (11) of this clause. First the Land Court are to make an order in regard to the land. Then by this subsection they are thereafter to determine and by order declare, first, in respect of what land, if any, specified in the scheme, one or more holdings for new holders may respectively be constituted, and up to what date the power to constitute them otherwise than by agreement may be exercised; secondly, what is the fair rent for each new holding; thirdly, what land, if any, specified in the scheme is to be excluded therefrom; and, fourthly, whatever else may be necessary for the purpose of making the scheme effective and of adjusting the rights of all parties interested in or affected by the proceedings. Now those are powers such as have never been given, so far as I know, to any Land Court in the world. But the clause proceeds—and this is what I wish to call attention to—
"Provided that where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders, or of any farm of which
564
such land forms part, or to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy or to any landlord either in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, they shall require the Board, in the event of the scheme being proceeded with, to pay compensation to such amount as the Land Court determine after giving parties an opportunity of being heard and, if they so desire, of leading evidence in the matter."
Take the words "where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done." Suppose they say, "We do not think any damage or injury is done." There is no question then of any compensation to any of these persons, however much they may consider that damage or injury has been done; there is no appeal of any kind or sort against the Land Court. Then we come to the words which deal with compensation. "They shall require the Board, in the event of the scheme being proceeded with, to pay compensation to such amount as the Land Court determine."
First, the Land Court are to determine whether any damage or injury has been done, and, secondly, the amount of the compensation. Just think of the cases of damage which may arise out of this. Take the case of an application to take over sheep stock at a valuation which may run into thousands of pounds. Take the case of their establishing some crofters in an important part of a deer forest. That might depreciate the value of the estate of which the land forms a part, and yet if they do not choose to give compensation no compensation whatever is to be given. I do not think any one will maintain that it can be right to give five men, of whom, so we are told, one only is to be a lawyer, this enormous power without any appeal of any kind whatsoever.
I think it was stated in the other House that this would be a very important Court and sure to be fair. It will depend very much upon who are the persons placed on this Court. But, even if they were the most perfect men in the world, surely in cases where considerable damage is alleged to be done it cannot be right that there should be no appeal. I venture to hope that an appeal of some sort will be given by Parliament; for if an appeal is refused then no Bill that you could produce hereafter could possibly be more unjust than this Bill.

565
In my Amendment I have suggested an appeal to the Court of Session. In another place it was suggested that it should be to the Judges of the Valuation Appeal Court; but that was objected to on the ground that the appeal would then be from a higher Court to a Court of less authority, to a lower Court consisting of three Valuation Judges. I should have formed exactly the reverse opinion; but, that, after all, is only my view. It may be said that some delay may occur in settling these questions. I hope that very little will occur, but, even if some delay did occur, in matters of large pecuniary importance a little delay is preferable to manifest injustice. It is for that reason that I venture to place this Amendment before your Lordships. You will see that under the Bill as it is the Land Court is both judge and jury. There is no appeal of any kind, and I cannot imagine any more despotic authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, after ("matter") insert ("Provided always that it shall be competent for any person aggrieved by the determination of the Land Court, if the amount in dispute exceeds four hundred pounds, to require the Land Court to state and sign the case upon which the question arose, setting forth the evidence, together with the determination thereon, and to transmit such case for the decision of either division of the Court of Session, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt, and such decision shall be final"). —(The Earl of camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND: In moving this Amendment, though I quite understand his meaning, the noble Earl goes rather further than I think the facts justify when he says there is no appeal of any kind provided in the Bill. I would like to draw attention to Clause 25, subsection (5), where there is a provision in the first place for the rehearing by the full Court—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The same people.
LORD PENTLAND: Allow me to continue. I only wish to put the case fully before the House. It is a hearing by the full Court. It is quite a common procedure that there should be a rehearing, so that any additional evidence, or whatever it is, may be put before the Court, and points of view may, if necessary, be corrected. Again, in the second subsection you will see provision for an appeal on questions of law—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: On law.
LORD PENTLAND: To the Court of Session. Really what the noble Earl wishes is to go further, and to give an appeal on questions of fact.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
LORD PENTLAND: The Land Court has duties in connection with two sets of subjects. It has duties, which are laid down in Clause 7, as to the creation of new holdings, and duties under subsection (17) in regard to compensation—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And subsection (11).
LORD PENTLAND: That is so. How are such points decided as to compensation, points which are commonly remitted to an arbiter? Almost invariably by the arbiter, whose judgment is final. So inasmuch as we are substituting a Court of Arbitration, it is not fairly to be described as a new departure when we place the decisions of this Court in the same position as the decisions of an arbiter—namely, that they are final. The noble Earl suggests an appeal from the Land Court on the familiar ground that they are judge and jury in their own case. I do submit that that shows a complete misapprehension of the true position of the Land Court in this scheme. It has no power whatever in the Bill to initiate proposals for the creation of small holdings. It has no responsibility whatever for the success or the failure of any proposal or any scheme for the constitution of small holdings. That power of initiation and that responsibility lie, not with the Land Court, but with the Board or with the Department of Agriculture, as Lord Balfour's Amendment has now changed it. The functions of the Land Court are judicial. After hearing the parties it is their duty to decide between the parties. They have no concern in the cost of the scheme, or whether it shall be economical or extravagant. They have no more interest than the Court of Session itself whether a large or small amount of money is spent on these schemes, but from their special constitution they ought to be more competent than any other Court to give right awards in these transactions.

567
There are four obvious disadvantages in the proposal of the noble Earl. In the first place there is delay. The procedure under Clause 7 for the creation of small holdings is most careful and deliberate. Stage after stage is to take place. There is the official ascertainment, of the demand for land, and tenants willing to take up holdings to promote the scheme are to be submitted to the Board, and the Board is to decide what compensation they can offer. They then have to ask the landlord whether he is willing that such a scheme shall be inaugurated. If he is, it goes on to the Land Court to fix the rent; if he is not willing the whole scheme is to be reheard and both parties appear at the public inquiry, and only then does the Land Court come in. Necessarily, weeks and months must elapse at the very least before such schemes can be carefully promoted and finally completed, and on the top of all this you are going to impose the inevitable delay of an appeal.
Then there is the expense. I would ask your Lordships to consider what it means. In the first place all the evidence will have to be recorded at length and in full. It will have to be printed on the productions, as they are called in Scottish Courts, printed and prepared for the Appeal Court. Over all the procedure of the Land Court itself will be present this possibility of an appeal. All its arrangements will be much more elaborate, much more costly, much more formal. But the delay and the expense are the least part of the mischief which this change in the Bill would do. The change—and this is my third objection to it—will inevitably alter the whole character of the procedure before the Land Court. Except in the consideration of evidence the Land Court would not be able to rely upon these very expert members whom you are anxious shall form this Court. They will have to decide on the recorded evidence, because the Appeal Court can only decide on the recorded evidence. The first result of that will be that both parties to a case before the Land Court will have to produce expert witnesses, a form of evidence which is not, perhaps, the most satisfactory—certainly it is the most expensive. Your Land Court would be utterly changed in character, and, as I say, the judgment of your own expert members of that Court would not be fully utilised.
568
Then, fourthly, let me put this to your Lordships. The noble Earl objected to a phrase which was used that such a proposal as his would be an appeal from a higher Court to a lower Court. In one sense that is absolutely true, because it would be from a more competent Court to a less competent Court. Your Land Court is to be composed of skilled agriculturists, valuers, people acquainted with such subjects as what a fair rent should be and what compensation there should be for taking this or that bit of land. If these points go to the Court of Session they must be decided on the recorded evidence, because we must take it that Judges do not have ordinarily the experience of trained agriculturists or trained land valuers. So that in that sense it is perfectly true that this appeal will be from an expert Court to an inexpert Court. That is the substance of my fourth objection to this proposal. I would earnestly beg your Lordships to consider what the very serious effect of this proposal will be on the whole character of the procedure before the Court which is set up by the Bill—not only delay, not only expense, but the fact that you will not be utilising to the full the very Court which we are all anxious to set up to carry out the provisions of the Bill.
LORD CLINTON: I think this point will take a considerable time to discuss, and if it suits your Lordships' convenience I would suggest that the House do now resume.
LORD PENTLAND: I see no objection.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I suppose I am right in assuming that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will continue the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow.
LORD PENTLAND: I assume that will be for the convenience of the House.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.