Sitting of 5 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Southampton Harbour Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Chester Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third reading deferred till Friday.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:
Northampton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to appropriate certain lands for the purposes of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to make provision with respect to certain Crown lands forming part of or adjacent to St. James's Park.—[National Gallery and St. James's Park Bill [Lords.]

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing the names, addresses, and occupations or descriptions of the persons appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since the
1108
preparation of the last Return, giving for each county and borough a summary of religions of those so appointed, a summary of religions of all now holding the Commission of the Peace in each county and borough, and the numbers of each religious denomination in the different counties and boroughs according to the last Census (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1910)."— [Mr. Mac Veagh.]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "setting forth the name, age, length of service, and official position of all salaried officials in the various Government Departments in Ireland who have been appointed (a) by nomination without examination; (b) by nomination with limited competition; (c) by nomination with qualifying examination (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 8, of Session 1907)."—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland on the l7th day of July, 1911, showing their names, ages when appointed, former vocation, districts where they now exercise jurisdiction, salaries on appointment and at present, and the dates of appointment (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 149, of Session 1909.)"—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Arrest of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that it was over three months since Miss Malecka was arrested by the Russian authorities, and that she has not up to the present been brought to trial; and if he would bring pressure to bear upon the Russian Government so that her trial may not be further delayed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am aware of the facts alluded to. The hon. Member will have seen from the replies returned to previous questions on the subject that all the steps which His

  1109
  Majesty's Government were entitled to take have been taken to expedite Miss Malecka's trial, and that the Russian Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has promised to do his best to ensure that this shall be done.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the Foreign Office endeavoured to ascertain particulars of the charges against this lady, that is to say, when, with whom and how she is alleged to have conspired?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The British Consul at Warsaw, as has already been stated, has seen the lady.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has my right hon. Friend obtained a report from the British Consul at Warsaw yet on these points?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not on these particular points.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will he endeavour to get that information?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If he is aware of it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How long has this lady been kept in prison without trial?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Three months.

  Persia (Bunder Abbas-Kerman Route).
  Colonel YATEasked what is the present condition of the Bunder Abbas-Kerman trade route in Persia; whether any caravans on the route have been recently robbed; if so, whether compensation has been obtained by the owners from the Persian Government; and what steps have been taken for the safeguarding of the route?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A telegraphic report from His Majesty's Minister at Tehran, dated 28th May, stated that caravans were passing along the Bunder-Abbas-Kerman road, though its safety was doubtful. No later report regarding this road has been received, which indicates that no robberies have occurred on it. The latest robbery reported in which British interests were concerned took place in April. For this compensation has been demanded, but has not yet been paid.

  Argentine (Embargo on British Live Stock).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether representations have been made to the Argentine Government with the object of removing the embargo placed upon the importation of British livestock
  1110
  in consequence of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey in March last, which was immediately stamped out by prompt action on the part of the Board of Agriculture, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The decision of the Argentine Government has not yet been made known.

  Jerusalem (Treasure).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked whether, in consequence of the action of certain British subjects who have been seeking for treasure in Jerusalem, the Sheikh of the Harm and one or more others have been imprisoned, and, if so, with what crime are they charged; whether the British Consul at Jerusalem has made any report upon what has occurred; and, if so, whether it can be presented to Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The last reports which I have received show that a Commission was appointed by the Turkish Government to inquire into the circumstances connected with excavations made by certain British subjects at the Mosque of Omar. The Commission submitted a report to the Turkish Government, in consequence of which the Governor of Jerusalem was recalled, the Commandant of Gendarmerie handed over to the Military Council, and others sent for trial to Beyrout. The matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government can properly intervene, as it is a question of internal administration.

  Morocco.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has addressed a remonstrance to the German Government on their recent action in Morocco?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer the Noble Lord to the answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.

  Protected and Unprotected Cruisers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the official distinction between protected and unprotected cruisers as applied both to British and Foreign ships?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Protected cruisers are those in which a substantial amount of

  1111
  weight is devoted to protective purposes, while in unprotected cruisers there is no protective material other than, perhaps, a small conning tower or some gun shields.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the amount of this protective armament is? Their must be some rule laid down.
  Mr. McKENNA: No. It varies very much.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the same rule apply in classifying the ships to British as to foreign ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. In classifying the ships the same rule applies, but the amount of protective armour varies.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom and Germany each possess twenty-four protected and unprotected cruisers not launched more than twelve years, he will consider the advisability of proposing the immediate construction of further vessels of these classes?
  Mr. McKENNA: All material considerations were taken into account in framing the programme of shipbuilding for the year, and the facts stated by the hon. Member disclose no ground for increasing the programme. He has omitted to take into account the great preponderance of British cruisers launched more than twelve years ago, but still of considerable fighting value.
  Mr. ASHLEY: In view of the fact that our cruisers have infinitely greater duties to perform, ought not we to have more cruisers?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I have stated in my answer that all the considerations present to the mind of the hon. Gentleman were equally present to the mind of the Admiralty Board when drawing up their programme.

  Torpedo-Boat Destroyers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many torpedo-boat destroyers were launched for the British and German fleets, respectively, in the seven years from 1894 to 1900, inclusive, and how many in the seven years from 1904 to 1910, inclusive?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures for the British fleet are:—Launched from 1894 to 1900 inclusive, 106; launched from 1904 to 1910 inclusive, 68. The latter figure does
  1112
  not include the two destroyers, "Parramatta" and "Yarra," launched in 1910, and building for the Australian Commonwealth, nor does it include the thirty-six torpedo-boats of the class which was originally called Coastal destroyers. The number of destroyers launched for the German fleet in the calendar years 1894 to 1900 inclusive, was eleven, and from 1904 to 1910 inclusive, sixty-seven, excluding four which have been sold to Turkey.

  Effective List (Royal Navy).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked what ships it was proposed to remove from the effective list during the current financial year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The names of the ships will be published in due course, but it would be premature to make any statement now.

  Far Eastern Squadron.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether it is intended to augment the armoured strength of the Far Eastern Squadron during the present year, and, if so, what ships it is proposed to send to that station?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to make statements in advance as to intended changes in the disposition of ships.

  Naval Airship No. 1.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty can now name a date when Naval Airship No. 1 is to commence her trials by flight?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not possible to name a date at present, but it is hoped to commence them in the course of this month.

  Destroyers (Designed Speed).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked what are the designed speeds of the destroyers laid down in this country and in Germany under the past three programmes?
  Mr. McKENNA: The designed speeds of the destroyers for the British Navy referred to are as follows:—Programme 1908-9, "Beagle" class, 27 knots; 1909-10, "Acorn" class, 27 knots; 1910-11, new "Acorn" class, Admiralty design, 27 knots; special, "Archer" and "Attack," 28 knots; special, "Acheron" and "Ariel," 29 knots; special, "Badger" and "Beaver," 30 knots; and special "Fire-drake," "Lurcher," and "Oak," 32 knots. With regard to the destroyers laid down in

  1113
  Germany the designed speeds are to be found in "Nauticus" for 1911. We have no official information concerning them.

  Submarine Vessels (E Type).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked when it is expected the first submarine vessels of the E type will be completed for service; whether they will carry guns; and are they to be fitted with a system of wireless telegraphy?
  Mr. McKENNA: The first vessels of the E type will probably be ready about the middle of next year. As to the second and third parts of the question, it is not in the public interest to furnish such information as requested for vessels under construction.

  Osborne Naval College (Swimming Bath).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the construction of a swimming bath for the cadets at Osborne Naval College has as yet been undertaken?
  Mr. McKENNA: Provision is made in Navy Estimates, Vote 10, for the current year, for this work. The designs are in course of preparation, and the work has not yet been commenced.

  Bight of Capture Convention in maritime War, 1909.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the Board of Admiralty were consulted, and whether they approved before ratification, of the Convention on Restriction 6n Right of Capture in Maritime War, ratified at The Hague on the 27th November, 1909, which convention states that official correspondence found on board an enemy ship is inviolable and must be forwarded with the least possible delay?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Armed Foreign Liners.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has any official information showing that the Norddeutscher Lloyd and Hamburg America lines have carried guns and ammunition since 1900 and also trained gunners; that Austria-Hungary has now adopted a like plan; and that Italy has required all large vessels of the principal lines to carry permanently a war armament, consisting of one 4.7-inch gun and six 3-inch 12-pounder guns for each ship; and, if so, whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no official information on the subject.

  Proportion of Cruisers to Battleships.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what, in the opinion of the Admiralty, should be the numerical proportion of cruisers to battleships in a properly constituted fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends on the strength and position of the enemy, and the object of the war.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: The right hon. Gentleman misapprehends my question. I am speaking of battleships, and therefore of battle fleets. In regard to the constitution of battleships, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the great authority Nelson that the proportion should be three cruisers to one battleship, or, as was stated in the House the other day, five cruisers to two battleships?
  Mr. McKENNA: When such great authorities as Lord Nelson and the Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), disagree on the subject, I should prefer not to express an opinion.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: If the right hon. Gentleman has a standard, can he state it?
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me notice of that question.

  Sale of Advowsons.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been called to the case of the two advowsons of St. Mary, Prestwich, and St. Mary, Radcliffe, which eleven years ago were returned as of no value for Death Duties, and are now being sold for £14,000; whether he will consider the propriety of taxing the unearned increment in the value of advowsons; and whether he will propose taxation on these lines in his next Budget?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): As regards the first part of the question, the hon. Member is apparently under a misapprehension. Advowsons are not chargeable with Death Duties unless and until sold, whatever their value may be. Any claims for duty which may have arisen by reason of the present sales will be duly followed. In reply to the second and third parts, I am not prepared to give any undertaking as to future Budget proposals.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the advis-

  1115
  ability at the earliest opportunity of raising the Stamp Duties payable on the transfer by sale of advowsons to such a level as to penalise those engaging in this traffic?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not prepared to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to accept the suggestion as to the available means of raising taxation such as we offer?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not until the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands in need of money. At the present moment he is not, fortunately.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SANATORIA.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the figures in column 5 (Sanatoria) of Table X, page 27, of the Actuaries' Report on the National Insurance Bill include only the 1d. referred to in Clause 15, Subsection (2) (6), of the Bill; and whether two-ninths (men) and one-fourth (women) of the Is. 3d. referred to in Clause 15, Sub-section (2) (a), is included in the figures in the other columns of that table, or whether the whole of the said 1s. 3d. is to be paid out of contributions in respect of insured persons and not as two-ninths (men) and one-fourth (women) out of moneys provided by Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figures in the column headed "Sanatoria" of Table X include only the penny referred to in Clause 15 (2) (b). The annual sum of 1s. 3d. per head provided for Sanatorium benefit includes the usual proportion from the Exchequer under Clause 4, and the sums payable on this account are included in the other columns of Table X.

    RESTRICTIONS OR BENEFITS (CLAUSE 8).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what would be the estimated additional cost if the restrictions or benefits contained in Sub-section (7) of Clause 8 of the National Insurance Bill were respectively removed altogether or removed as regards insured persons who were members on 4th May, 1911, of a society qualified to become an approved society; and, if it is not possible to answer the latter part of the question as on the date mentioned, then as on any convenient date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member's suggestion would not have the effect of increasing the cost, but of increasing the deficiency to be extinguished under Clause 8 (8) by the amount of the reserve values to be credited under Clause 40 in respect of all the persons who could become insured in approved societies in consequence of the withdrawal of the restrictions to which he refers. The period of fifteen and a-half years after which the additional benefits could be given would be thereby very materially lengthened and the younger insured persons would have to bear in the form of a postponement of these additional benefits the cost of insuring the persons who are unable to pay any substantial number of contributions.

    STATE CONTRIBUTION (COST or ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the State's contribution to benefits and the cost, of administration thereof under the National Insurance Bill is equivalent to a contribution of 2d. a week; and, if not, whether its equivalent is as follows: for 1912–13 less than ¾d., for 1917–28 about l½d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The State contribution to the National Health Insurance including the contribution after the increase of benefits which will become possible under Clause 8 (8) on the extinction of the initial deficit, is in the long run the equivalent of 2d., but as the contribution takes the form of a proportion of the benefits the contribution in the early years will always be less than 2d.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in answer to the question what the amount of the equivalent contribution will be in 1912–13 and 1917–28?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member's calculations in the question, are substantially correct in both cases.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what the estimated cost per annum would be of granting to all sailors, marines, and soldiers during their service the following benefits, stating the cost of each separately, and giving the numbers of men in each class for which the estimate is made, namely, sickness benefit equivalent to hospital stoppage, when hospital stoppage is made, and sanatorium and maternity benefits as if they were members of an approved society under the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A report dealing with the position of soldiers and sailors is in preparation, but it will not cover the precise points to which the hon. Member refers. In regard to them, I will remind him of the invitation which I gave yesterday to hon. Members who desire to obtain further actuarial information to confer with me privately on the subject.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give some report as to the actuarial information asked for in this question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is an additional suggestion which the hon. Member is making. It may be found that the reply given by the actuaries actually covers what is asked for.
    Mr. WARINGwas understood to ask whether the information could not be obtained from the actuaries.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The actuaries, I know, were very much pressed this morning in dealing with other questions and suggestions, but I think the information will be ready long before this question is reached.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does not the data already exist, as supplied by the War Office and the Admiralty, and can we not have it now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The data is ready, but not in the form in which the questions ask for it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the information be printed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought it would have been very much better if I could get a number of questions which the House as a whole would like an answer upon. Then I could have published the answers in the form of a supplement to the actuarial report. I really think it would be very much better for the House of Commons itself to get the information in that kind of way rather than get it in a scrappy and sporadic manner like this by question and answer. I can only submit that suggestion. If that were agreed to then I would be able to print a supplementary report.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer be relieved from giving the information asked for?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord is quite mistaken. Certainly I have
    1118
    shown no disposition to be relieved; and I again throw myself upon the House as a whole. I have given every possible information, and not only that, but, as the Noble Lord knows, I have invited questions outside the House as well as inside. I have gone out of my way to meet experts like those connected with friendly societies, who have sat for cross-examination, in regard to these matters for hours.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether it is proposed, under Clause 36 (4) of the National Insurance Bill, that a soldier or sailor whoso health has broken down during service is to receive sick benefit at a lower rate than that given to a man whose health has not suffered?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The sickness benefit under Clause 36 (4) is at a lower rate than for soldiers arid sailors who have good enough health to be able to join societies, or who before discharge were already members of societies. Perhaps I should point out that the Clause will apply to a class of persons for whom disablement benefit is likely to be much, more important than sickness benefit, and that full disablement benefit of 5s. a week is secured to them; moreover, temporary sickness up to the time of discharge is already provided for at the expense of the State.

    MEDICAL AND SANATORIUM TREATMENT (COST).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how the respective sums of 4s. 8d. and 4a. 6d. in Clause 38 have been arrived at; whether the only benefits covered by these amounts are medical aid and sanatorium treatment; and how the amounts in question are to be apportioned in order to provide for the benefits named and the cost of administration thereof?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is estimated that when the contribution under Clause 15 to sanatorium benefit has been paid over, the balance of the contributions under Clause 38 will be sufficient to cover the comparatively trifling expenditure on benefits in respect of contributors under the age of sixteen.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the case that the cost is 3s. per head in the case of persons under sixteen?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I prefer that the hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures as to the 4s. 8d. and the 4s. 6d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; they are as follows:—

    —

    Boys.

    Two-ninths from the State.

    Total.

    Girls.

    One-fourth from the State.

    Total.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Contributions

    4

    8

    1

    4

    6

    0

    4

    6

    1

    6

    6

    0

    Sanatorium

    0

    11⅔

    0

    3⅓

    1

    3

    0

    11¼

    0

    3¾

    1

    3

    Balance

    3

    8⅓

    1

    0⅔

    4

    9

    3

    6¾

    1

    2¼

    4

    9

    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Would it not be a sensible course to "unstar" these questions?

    REDUCTIONS IN BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any experimental calculations have been made by the Government actuaries to show the possible reductions of benefit in various circumstances under Section 1, Sub-section (b), paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5, of Clause 31; and, if so, whether the results of such calculations can be published for the information of the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No such calculations have been made, and I fear that the variety of possible circumstances is such that it would not be very profitable to undertake them.

    POSITION OF HELPERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked who is to be considered the employer, for the purposes of the National Insurance Bill, when workmen engage young persons as helpers, as is common in some trades?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the j hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on Monday.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pointer) did not put his question on Monday, and there were many who wanted to hear the answer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that is the case I will read it now:—
    "In such a case, by paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule, the workman's employer could be treated, under appropriate regulations, as the employer of the helper."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1911, col. 934.]

    IRISH CASES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in the case of an Irish occupying tenant or owner of a holding worth more than £20 per annum and who is aided by the labour of
    any child or young person under sixteen to whom no wages are paid, he can state the immediate benefits that such children or young people will obtain in respect of the 7d. or 6d. to be paid by their employer, seeing that they already enjoy a free medical service; and whether, in the case of those subsequently emigrating on reaching adolescence, any sum that stands to their credit will be retained for the benefit of Irish contributors and approved members, or will it be pooled in the national fund to be administered from the central office in London?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Except so far as medical attendance and sanatorium benefit are concerned the Bill does not aim at providing immediate benefits for persons under sixteen. To exempt them from contributions would, of course, give a preference to the employment of child-labour, a preference which public sentiment would certainly not approve. It should be remembered that their contributions, so far as not required for immediate benefits, will be accumulated towards the extinction of the initial deficit; and I may point out that the youngest contributors will ultimately profit most by the increased benefits that can be given when the deficit is extinguished. The disposal of the transfer values paid over on the emigration of a contributor is to be prescribed by regulations, and it would be within the power of the Insurance Commissioners to take either of the courses indicated in the latter portion of the question.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Can we see the regulations before the Bill goes through?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter I am quite willing to consider. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise it at the appropriate moment.

    OFFICIALS.
    Mr. ASTORasked how many officers, inspectors, referees, and servants it is estimated will be required under Clause 41 of the National Insurance Bill during the first year that the Act is put in operation, and what sum it is estimated will be required for their salaries?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the sum required for salaries, I will refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division yesterday. The estimate of £75,000 to £100,000 I then gave is necessarily at the present state very conjectural, and I do not think anything would be gained by making a detailed estimate of numbers.

    POSITION OF WIDOWS.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether, under the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, a woman who, before marriage, was a member of an approved society, will be subject to rejection by the society on the ground of ill-health when, on her husband's death, she again becomes an employed person?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A society would no more reject a woman in that position than any other person who, after being a member for a series of years imposes a liability on the funds of the society for disablement benefit.

    St. Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he has considered the pledge given to the House that the St. Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill shall be so amended that the advowson of St. Mary, Prestwich, shall remain in the hands of a trust on which the lay element shall have a majority; and whether the Bill will now be withdrawn, seeing that any such amendment is precluded by the title of the Bill, which provides for the transfer of the advowson to the See of Manchester?
    Mr. CHARLES N. NICHOLSON: Amendments will be proposed when the Bill comes before the Committee by which provision will be made for vesting the advowson of the Rectory of St. Mary, Prestwich, in a body of trustees answering the description given by the hon. Member, and it will be for the authorities of the House to decided whether the Standing Orders have in any way been violated by such an amendment.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who usually presides at the meetings and who is the chairman of the Estates Committee; what are the names of the Commissioners who receive salaries and what is the amount of each; how many of the Commissioners are Bishops; and in what manner are the laymen elected or appointed?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: The Archbishop of Canterbury is by statute chairman of every general meeting at which he is present and in fact he usually presides. The First Church Estates Commissioner is by statute chairman of the Estates Committee. Sir Lewis Dibdin is First Church Estates Commissioner, salary £1,200 per annum. Mr. Stuart-Wortley is the other paid Church Estates Commissioner, salary £1,000 per annum: the Episcopal Members of the Board number thirty-six; the laymen consist of five Ministers, four Judges, three Church Estates Commissioners (the first and second appointed by the Crown, the other by the Archbishop of Canterbury) and nine other gentlemen, of whom seven are appointed by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are the Ministers referred to Ministers of the Crown, and, if so, do they ever attend these meetings?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: They are attended by some of them. They do not always attend.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do they ever attend?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: Yes.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are they Ministers of the Crown?
    Mr. C. N. NICHOLSON: Some of them are Ministers of the Crown.
    Mr. BOOTHrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to put a further question he should give notice.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether the Mr. Stuart-Wortley to whom the hon. Member has referred as drawing a large salary is the same Mr. Stuart-Wortley who is a Member of this House?
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Yes; that is so.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

    Education (School and Continuation Class Attendance) Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has formed an estimate of the increased accommodation in elementary schools that will be necessary if the Education (School and Continuation Class Attendance) Bill passes into law; whether it will add to the expenditure of education authorities in any special districts, or in any large degree; and whether he has received any representations from local authorities in connection with these matters?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The effect of the Bill as regards the need for increased accommodation will be governed to a great extent by the action taken under it by the local education authorities, which may take various forms. No reliable estimates can be framed until the intentions of the various authorities have been made known. Whatever action the authorities take the financial effect of the Bill will vary in their respective areas in relation to the prevailing educational and industrial conditions. In some areas increased expenditure would certainly be involved. It is not practicable to discuss the matter in detail within the limits of a reply to a question in this House. Four local education authorities have made representations to the Board on the subject of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether those local authorities that have made communications are large and representative ones, or only small ones?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will give me notice of the question I will give him the names, and he can judge for himself.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to be put down for Second Reading?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement as to business, as the hon. Member knows.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether the Bill is to be pressed forward this Session?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give any statement as regards business. As he knows, the business of the Session is very much congested.

    Illegal Trawling (Barra Coast).
    Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Lord Advocate on how many occasions a Fishery Board cruiser has visited the coast of Barra between 1st November, 1910, and 1st April, 1911; and whether, in view of the injury to the line fishing industry on this coast through illegal trawling, he will give instructions for the coast to be carefully watched, especially between the months of October and April, during which period illegal trawling is in almost daily operation.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Fishery cruisers have visited the Barra coast on thirteen occasions within the period referred to by the honourable Baronet. The stretch of coast in question receives its full share of supervision, and any complaints of illegal trawling, of which only one has been received by the Fishery Board since the 1st November last will be duly investigated.

    Scottish Teachers' Superannuation.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the teachers' superannuation scheme has been postponed because of the interposition of another beneficent scheme, not specially applicable to Scotland and excluding teachers from is scope, he will consider the advisability of inserting such a date in Clause 4 of the draft scheme dealing with the date of commencement as would protect Scottish teachers from the effect, that postponement would otherwise entail and secure to them the full advantage that the Act of 1908 entitled them to expect?
    Mr. URE: The matter will be duly considered should occasion for such action, arise.

    New Postage Stamps.
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether the new issue of penny and halfpenny stamps was submitted to any artists of repute before the design was approved; if so, who were the artists who approved this design; and whether he will consult the same or other artists in any further issues of new stamps; and (2) whether he has seen and considered the postage stamps now in use in France and Bavaria, which are in design and quality admitted to be superior to those of most other countries, especially to those now being issued in this country; and whether he will, so soon as may be, substitute for the present issue

    1125
    of penny and halfpenny stamps an issue at once more artistic and worthy of the nation?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Several artists of repute, selected after consultation with high authorities, were asked to submit, in competition, designs for the new issue of postage stamps. None of the designs sent in were, however, considered suitable for the Id. and ½d. stamps. Mr. Bertram Mackennal was then commissioned to produce designs for the frames of the stamps, which, after certain modifications to render them suitable for engraving, were considered satisfactory and were adopted. Dies and plates were produced by the Royal Mint, and were passed by the technical officers of the Board of Inland Revenue. The prints from the plates fell short of the standard anticipated from the proofs of the dies submitted by the Royal Mint. Allowance must be made, as I have suggested in answer to a previous question, for a firm newly taking up work of this kind, especially as they were working at high pressure in order to produce the stamps by Coronation Day. I am in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue, who are by Statute the authority controlling the printing and supply of stamps. Some improvement has already been made in the printing, and I believe that it will be found possible to arrive at a considerable further improvement in the appearance of stamps of the designs already issued, and to avoid similar defects in those yet to be issued, so that the saving of £40,000 a year which has been effected in the cost of printing the stamps shall not be gained at the expense of inferiority in their appearance. I would add that the process of surface printing employed in the production of these stamps is the same as that used in all the great countries of Europe for all postage stamps except in some cases for stamps of high denominations. The alternative process of recess printing, while allowing a better appearance, is not only five or six times as costly, but lends itself to the fraudulent use of cancelled stamps, and was abandoned many years ago in this country for that reason. I do not think any useful analogy can be drawn between the printing of the postage stamps of Bavaria and of those of this country, as the output of Bavarian stamps is, I am informed, comparatively small. Nor can a comparison he usefully made with the French stamps, as they contain no portrait, and I feel sure that the country would strongly dis-
    1126
    approve any proposal to omit from our postage stamps the effigy of the Sovereign.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it intended to go on manufacturing stamps at Somerset House in addition to the manufacture by the contractors?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that Somerset House will manufacture sixpenny stamps, which are largely used for revenue purposes.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that Somerset House have already manufactured penny stamps to the face value of £11,000, and that these have to be withdrawn?
    Mr. HERBERT 'SAMUEL: I do not think that that is the fact.
    Lord BALCARRES: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the designs of the penny and halfpenny stamps were now being revised?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.

    Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing work and importance of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, he would consider the advisability of placing the Board upon a level with other Government Departments of the first importance in respect of salaries?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As at present advised I see no sufficient reason for the change proposed.

    Declaration of London.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether the ratification of the Declaration of London would be delayed until the Naval Prize Bill, without which the convention establishing the international Prize Court could not be carried into effect, had been passed by both Houses of Parliament; and whether it was intended to ratify the Declaration of London even if the Naval Prize Bill did not become law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If and when the contingency referred to in the concluding sentence of the question arises His Majesty's Government will consider what action it will be in the public interest to take.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything further.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at all events that the Government will not ratify the Declaration until the Bill had been read a third time in the House of Commons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the question on the Paper, but undoubtedly that will be the case.

    Great Britain and Ireland (Financial Relations).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister if the Actuarial Committee appointed by the Cabinet to report on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland had been taking the evidence of witnesses from Ireland; and, if so, by whom and on what principle the witnesses had been selected for examination, and would the names of the witnesses and reports of their evidence be communicated to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the evidence of some witnesses from Ireland has already been taken, and it is proposed to take further Irish evidence. So far, the selection of persons to be asked to give evidence has been left to the Committee itself, whose sole object has been the gaining of information from persons most likely to have it in their possession. Anyone who wishes to give evidence can suggest himself to the Secretary. Having regard to the nature of the inquiry, already frequently explained, there seems no reason for publishing the reports of the evidence; but the names of the witnesses, when the list is complete, can be given if asked for.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is this the Committee which the Chief Secretary declared would have to decide whether Home Rule would be a "tight fit" financially?
    The PRIME MINISTER: He said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Then the newspapers have treated him very badly. Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) had publicly declared that he will hold himself free to reject the findings of this Committee, and, under the circumstances, is it reasonable that the financial destinies of the country should be entrusted to a Committee which no section of the Irish
    1128
    representatives acknowledge to be responsible and whose proceedings are being conducted entirely in the dark?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is a great deal of argumentative matter in the question. The hon. Member has completely misconceived the object of the Committee. It is a body formed to procure information for the guidance of the Government, and it has no power to decide-any question at all.

    Mr. Justice Grantham.
    Mr. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been directed to reflections cast by Mr. Justice Grantham in a speech at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 28th ultimo on Ministers of the Crown; and whether the Government proposed to take any, and, if so, what, action in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called, otherwise than by this question, to the speech referred to. I do not propose to take any notice of it.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it not worth notice?

    Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill.
    Viscount WOLMERasked when the Government intended to proceed with the Committee stage of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to fix a date for the Committee stage of this Bill.

    Bexhill Post Office (Status).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increasing importance and growing population of Bexhill and the volume of postal work now passing through the post office of that town, he would consider the advisability of promoting the Bexhill office to the status of a head office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have recently reviewed the question of the status of the Bexhill post office in the light of arguments advanced by a deputation on the subject. In view, however, of the facts that Bexhill possesses exactly the same postal facilities as it would possess if the office were a head office, and that there are serious administrative objections to making it a head office, I have found myself unable to sanction any alteration in the present arrangements.

    Registered Letter (Alleged Wrongful Delivery).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been drawn to the delivery, on 28th March, to a wrong address of a registered letter addressed Messrs. C. Clarke and Company, High Street, Chasetown; whether he was aware that this letter contained a formal notice abandoning a county court action brought against them, and that owing to their not receiving the same Messrs. Clarke attended at the court, and on the non-appearance of plaintiffs, who had sent the letter, were awarded costs amounting to £2 11s. l0d.; and, seeing that the non-receipt of such registered letter was entirely owing to the carelessness of his own officials, whether he would provide for the parties who had been mulcted in damages as a consequence being reimbursed from the public funds?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This letter was duly taken to the right address, but no one's attention could be gained there. It was then handed to a tradesman next door, understood to be a brother of the addressees. It ought to have been taken back to the Chasetown Office, and sent out again at the next delivery, if not called for meanwhile. I am sorry the rule was not adhered to, though it was broken in order to meet what was thought to be the convenience of both senders and addressees. I am unable to accept liability for the costs which were awarded against the senders.
    Mr. NEWMAN: What advantage does an individual get for registering a letter which does not contain money or valuables?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Security in transmission.
    Mr. NEWMAN: But in this case he the not get security in transmission.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The letter was delivered to the correct address, but no one was there to receive it.

    Telephone Transfer Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether there were any, and, if so, how many original members of the pension fund of the National Telephone Company who would not be placed on transfer upon pensionable classes, and what would be their position?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are in the service of the National Telephone Company officers on the pension fund who, if employed in the Civil Service on similar duties, would, under the ordinary regulations, rank as un established officers, and consequently would not be entitled to pensions. I am unable to say exactly what the number is, but it is not large. Members of the pension fund of the company who are not placed upon a pensionable class will receive an addition to their salary of not less than the total annual contribution at the time of the transfer paid by themselves and by the company into the pension fund.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General when he hoped to complete the classification of the National Telephone Company's staff on transfer for the purpose of determining how many of the company's servants would be placed in pensionable classes in the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The inquiries which are being made into the question of the classification of the staff of the National Telephone Company on transfer to the Post Office are being pursued with the least possible delay. The problems to be solved, however, are numerous, and I am unable to make a definite statement as regards the date on which the inquiries will be completed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the inquiries be completed before the Committee stage of the Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am pressing them on as rapidly as possible; I hope the greater part of them will be completed before then.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree not to put the Bill down until the inquiries are completed, so that any necessary Amendments may be made?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know that the matter really affects Amendments to the Bill, or that any legislation will be required, whatever is decided in regard to these particular clerks.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General how many servants of the National Telephone Company were in receipt of salaries of upwards of £700 per annum, and what was their average length of service; and whether he had approached any of them with regard to their taking service with the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are twelve officers employed by the National Telephone Company who are in receipt of salaries of more than £700 a year. I have no information as to the length of their service with the company. As I informed the hon. Member for the Pudsey Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire on 30th June in answer to a question in this House, I shall carefully consider any proposals the officers in question may make to me to enter the Post Office at salaries bearing proper relation to those drawn by senior officers already serving in the Department.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does that reply cancel the letter which the right hon. Gentleman caused to be sent about a week ago?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; they are not inconsistent.

    Great Northern Telegraph Company.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General whether he would state the financial terms under which the Great Northern Telegraph Company were allowed to work the State cable between this country and Norway, and when the formal agreement was likely to be completed and laid before the House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The payment to the Great Northern Telegraph Company for working the Anglo-Norwegian Telegraph service is at the rate of 1¾ centimes a word for every word transmitted, together with a sum of l½d. per telegram in the case of those telegrams which are collected and delivered by the company. The formal agreement on the subject will cover the general relations between the Post Office and the company which are still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to say when it will be completed.
    Mr. POINTER: Is it intended to lay the information before the House when the matter is completed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was asked a question on that subject before, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I then gave.

    Dublin Telegraph Office (Employment of Soldiers).
    Mr. BRADYasked the Postmaster-General if he was aware that a corporal of
    1132
    the Connaught Rangers was at present employed on manipulative duties in the Dublin Telegraph Office; was he further aware that, as a result of a protest by the Dublin staff some months ago, the soldiers then employed on telegraph duties were withdrawn and that Sir Matthew Nathan, London secretary, assured a deputation in October last at Dublin that they would not again be employed on manipulative duties; and, further, could he say by whose authority Sir Matthew Nathan's instructions had been overruled?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In October last certain boys belonging to the Royal Engineers were receiving part of their training in telegraphy on public wires in the Dublin post office, and the Secretary to the Post Office gave instructions for other arrangements to be made for the completion of the training of these boys. The case to which reference is made in the question stands on a different footing. It is that of a soldier skilled in telegraphy, who has been recommended by the War Office for employment as a season substitute, under an arrangement which I explained in this House in answer to a question on 23rd November of last year. I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to refer to that answer.

    Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill.
    Mr. PEELasked the Prime Minister whether he would direct that the conventions referred to in the Preamble to the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill be set out in the Schedule to the said Bill?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): May I reply on behalf of the Foreign Secretary? All the Conventions with which the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill deals were laid before the House in a convenient form in Cd. 1175 (Blue Book No. 6 Miscellaneous of 1908), and there does not seem to be any adequate reason for reprinting them in a Schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. PEEL: Will the hon. Member ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will not follow the precedent of the Naval Prize Bill? In that case the convention in reference to the establishment of an International Court was set out in the Bill. It would be much more convenient for hon. Members to discuss the matter if that were done.
    Mr. GULLAND: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the Foreign Secretary.

    New Posts Created (Return).
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when he will lay upon the Table the Return of New Posts created since 1906 moved for by the hon. Member for Taunton?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Return is in the press, and will be issued as soon as possible.
    Mr. PEEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was three months ago when this return was first asked for? Are the number of new posts referred to so large as to make it impossible to collect the information in the time?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; nothing of the sort.

    Development Act (Treasury and Board of Agriculture).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have received from the Board of Agriculture a Report upon an application made by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee for a grant under the Development Act; whether they have yet forwarded that report to the Development Commissioners; and when its terms will be made known?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, an application when referred by the Treasury to the Government Department concerned is forwarded direct by the Department with their report thereon to the Development Commissioners. I understand that the Development Commissioners have not yet received the report.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the procedure of the Development Commissioners when they receive a report? Will they hear further evidence upon the application, or will they act directly upon the report?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They will, I suppose, follow their usual practice, and I take it, receive any further information that they think desirable. I should not like to lay down their procedure; they will follow the general practice.

    Milk and Dairies Bill.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Local Government Board when the Milk and Dairies Bill will be introduced?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I hope to introduce the Bill in the course of next week.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the right hon. Gentleman made arrangements, as before, for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to promulgate simultaneously the Order relating to tuberculosis?
    Mr. BURNS: We have considered that matter, but we have not definitely decided.

    Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (House Refuse).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to cart house refuse to a refuse-tip in the district of High Brooms, which is a nuisance to the people of the locality, the majority of whom have signed a petition against its continuance; whether he is aware that the Kent medical officer of health and the Southborough medical officer of health have reported unfavourably upon the practice of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council; and whether he proposes to take any action to secure that the nuisance be abated by the construction, of a refuse destructor?
    Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the facts stated in the question, and I have been in communication with the town council. They have now made fresh arrangements with regard to the tip, which it is hoped will do away with any nuisance arising from it, and I do not think it necessary at present to press the provision of a destructor.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the increasing number of exemptions made under the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, and the consequent loss of fees to vaccination officers, the Board will consider the revision of payment of these officers so as to give some remuneration in respect of declarations of exemption?
    Mr. BURNS: The matter has been considered, but it has not been thought desirable to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that mainly in consequence of a practice that many people think desirable, many of these officers are being reduced to poverty?
    Mr. BURNS: These officers are officers of the boards of guardians. I have done my best to persuade the guardians in certain cases to act reasonably, in some to be generous, to these officers. At present I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. BLACK: In view of the number of exemption orders now granted, has not the time arrived when compulsory vaccination should be abolished?
    Mr. BURNS: I do not think that question arises here.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it not the fact that at the present time great numbers of boards of guardians have appointed their relieving officers to do this work, and that they find no difficulty whatever in doing it?
    Mr. BURNS: It is true, as the hon. Member implies, that the large majority of these officers have other duties and appointments beside that of vaccination officer?

    Agriculture and Soils.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the volume on the agriculture and soils of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, recently published by the Board; and whether steps are being taken to publish similar information for the assistance of agriculturists in other parts of the country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): May I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last to a similar question.

    Regulations of Inshore Sea Fisheries.
    Major WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) whether, seeing that provision is made by the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act of 1888 for the adequate policing of the inshore sea fisheries, and that in many districts sufficient protection already exists, he will explain why the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are applying to the Development Commissioners for a loan of £50,000 and an annual grant of £8,000 for the provision of vessels for patrolling those districts which have not taken advantage of
    1136
    the regulations of the Act of 1888, and particularly the first section of the same, which provides for combination of districts for this purpose? (2) Whether detailed information can be afforded as to the reasons which have led the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to apply to the Development Commissioners for a loan of £50,000 and an annual grant of £8,000 for the purpose of putting on vessels to patrol the inshore fisheries; and whether he is aware that the greater part of the inshore fisheries of England and Wales are already adequately patrolled by vessels provided for that purpose by the district fishery committees? and (3) why, in view of the fact that it has already been officially stated that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries were about to report on fishery claims as a whole to the Development Commissioners, the Board have applied to the Commissioners for a large grant to be administered by the Board for purposes for which adequate statutory provision already exists; and why they have delayed reporting on claims sent in to them by the local authorities appointed for the protection of the inshore fisheries, and, in particular, why there has been such a long delay in reporting on the claim sent in by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee to the Development Commisisoners in May, 1910, over thirteen months ago?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Sea Fisheries Committee have for many years past complained of the arrangement embodied in the Act of 1888, by which the whole cost of policing the fisheries is thrown upon the maritime counties, and they have asked that grants should be made from the Exchequer to assist them in defraying the expenditure required for the purpose. It was to meet this demand, and at the same time to promote the development of the fisheries, that the Board made the application to which the hon. Member refers. The money, if granted, will be applied to all districts equally in proportion to the amounts locally contributed, including, of course, the Lancashire and Western Committee, whose efficiency and energy in the discharge of their statutory duties the Board fully appreciate. Two or more Committees would be grouped for the purpose, where necessary, and it is proposed that an additional grant should be made where the steamers are available for scientific research. The delay in reporting upon the individual applications made to the Treasury has arisen from the neces-

    1137
    sity of preparing a general scheme which would provide for equality of treatment as between the various districts.
    Major WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is prepared to state what are the grievances of inshore fishermen which have led the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to apply to the Development Commissioners for funds to appoint a special commission to inquire into such grievances; and whether the need for such a commission is due to the fact that nothing has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Ichthyological Research of 1902 and the Committee on Fishery Investigations of 1908?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: It is not proposed to appoint a special commission of inquiry, but only to increase the staff of the Fishery Department by one or two temporary officers to assist in the preparation of proposals for the promotion of co-operation and other measures for the benefit of inshore fishermen.

    Diseases of Sheep.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in the opinion of the Board's veterinary advisers, the parasitic disease of the stomach and intestines of sheep and lambs which is causing great loss among sheep breeders in Huntingdonshire is identical with that which is becoming increasingly prevalent in Kent and other counties; whether this is caused fey the haemonchus contortus or by any other, and, if so, what, internal worm; to what extent research is being conducted into the origin, means of transmission, and cure of the disease; and whether any remedy is yet known to the Board?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Parasitic diseases in sheep have been very prevalent this year all over the country, and the trouble is not due to any one parasite in particular. No specific remedy for the disease is yet known to the Board. The Board are considering a scheme for the investigation of parasitic diseases.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Which of them?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: All.

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (New Offices).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the
    1138
    offices of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are still scattered over a wide area in a considerable number of different buildings; if so, for what reason work has been discontinued upon the new offices in course of erection for the Board; and whether he will take steps to expedite the completion of these offices?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The foundations and basement of the new offices have been finished; but the plans for the contract for the superstructure have been delayed by the heavy pressure in the Office of Works in connection with the preparations for the Coronation. The urgency is recognised, and the completion of the plans is being expedited.

    Provincial Police (Coronation Medals).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction caused amongst the provincial police by the reported decision not to grant them a medal for their exceptional services during the Coronation; and whether, if it is impracticable to grant a medal to all the provincial police, he will consider the desirability of recommending a decoration for those officers who have served in three reigns?
    Mr. GULLAND: The Home Secretary, who is attending a meeting of the Privy Council, has asked me to answer this question for him. The King has been graciously pleased to command that the police medal issued to commemorate their Majesties' Coronation should be granted to a certain number of the members of every police force in the United Kingdom. As a general rule, the medals will be given to men selected for long and meritorious service, in the proportion of one for every twenty members of a force; but in the case of places which His Majesty has paid or is about to pay official visits in connection with the Coronation, medals will be given to all police officers employed on the occasion whose record shows more than ten years of efficient and meritorious service.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Does that mean one in twenty of the whole force, or one in twenty of those who have had long service?
    Mr. GULLAND: I should think it will be one for every twenty members of the force.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the medal be the same as that granted to the Metropolitan Police, or will a new medal be issued?
    Mr. GULLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put that question on the Paper.

    Labour Exchanges (Pay of Clerks).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations with regard to the pay and conditions of service of the clerks employed in the Labour Exchanges; and, if so, whether he is now in a position to give his reply?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Representations have been made to the Board of Trade with regard to the pay and conditions of service of clerks in the Labour Exchange service, and the points raised are being considered; but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why no official reply has been sent to the communication received?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that no reply has been sent; but it is impossible to send a reply until the actual decision has been come to. I hope that decision will be very soon come to—I cannot exactly say when.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, as a condition of sanctioning the sale of an estate direct to tenants enforce the fulfilment of equitable terms whereby the landlord induced the tenants to sign, if those terms are omitted from the agreement forms prepared by the landlord's solicitor; whether they have enforced the condition of permanent turbary whereby Captain Smyth induced his Coole tenants in Westmeath to sign the purchase agreements prepared by his solicitor; and, if not, in view of the inducement, the prices found by the inspector to be excessive, and the abundance of bog on that estate, whether the agreements will be amended and enforced in accordance with the verbal inducement under which they were signed?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): As regards the first part of the question, sales of estates under the Irish Land Acts, 1903–9,
    1140
    are carried out in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. As regards the estate referred to in the second part of the question, the Estates Commissioners are at present in communication with the solicitors having carriage of the sale relative to the question of turbary.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, providing for the elimination of middlemen and for making sub-tenants purchasers of the holdings of which they are in exclusive occupation, if he will say on what grounds the Estates Commissioners refuse to do this; how many holdings of three acres and upwards, and how many of smaller size, exclusively occupied by sub-tenants, have the Commissioners vested in middlemen; and what arrangement, if any, do they make in such cases to bring the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts within the reach of the sub-tenants?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners exercise their powers under Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, in all cases where they consider it desirable and feasible to do so. The statistics of the Estates Commissioners do not give the information asked for in the second paragraph of the question. The cases of all sub-tenants are inquired into and considered when the estate on which they are situate is being dealt with by the Commissioners.
    Mr. GINNELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that subtenants with considerable farms when a sale is on expect to become purchasers, and they have never been consulted in these proceedings at all?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that discretion is given by Act of Parliament to the Commissioners in such cases.
    Mr. GINNELLasked how it is that twenty of the tenants on Captain Smyth's Coole estate, Westmeath, who have been paying interest as purchasers to the Land Commission, and whose holdings were stated last month to have been vested in them, are now called upon by the agent to resume payment of their old rents unless they pay an addition to the price which the Estates Commissioners find their holdings to be worth; if he will state the percentage of the excess in each of these cases; and, in view of the amount of these prices for which public money is

    1141
    advanced, he will say what action the Government propose to take in this case?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The present question of the hon. Member appears to refer to an estate of Captain Smyth, county Westmeath, which is being sold under the Irish Land Act, 1909. None of the holdings on this estate have yet been vested. In the case of certain of the holdings the Estates Commissioners have informed the owner that they are not prepared to advance the full amounts applied for, but they have not yet heard whether the owner is willing to sell at the Commissioners' estimated prices. The Commissioners are not aware that the owner is asking the tenants to lodge any portion of the difference in cash. The answer given in reply to a question of the hon. Member on 24th May related to another estate of the same owner, which was being sold under the Act of 1903.
    Mr. GINNELL: Pending the arrangements between the vendor and the Commissioners, will not the vendor be restrained from suing these tenants for the old rent—
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: That is not for the Commissioners.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has read a resolution, unanimously passed by the Cork County Council, calling attention to the number of evicted tenants' claims still undisposed of, and requesting that the Evicted Tenants Act be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and whether he has yet come to any decision on the subject?
    Mr. REDDY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask whether he is aware that the Plan of Campaign evicted tenants have been notoriously deserted by the hon. Member who has put the question?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend has read the resolution referred to. The Evicted Tenants Act will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

    Government of Ireland (Offices and Employments).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will give a return of all offices or employments created in Ireland since January, 1885, under the various Land Acts and
    1142
    Land Purchase Acts, under the Local Government Act of 1898, under the Act establishing the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, or in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act and the Budget of 1909, with the Commissioners of National Education, the Intermediate Board, the Local Government Board, the National Universities Act, the Department of Law and Police, or any other Department connected directly or indirectly with the government of Ireland and wholly or partly paid out of moneys provided by the Imperial Exchequer, together with the salaries or other emoluments attached to each office?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The return asked for is a very comprehensive one, and the time and labour involved in its preparation would be out of all proportion to its value. A comparison of the Estimates for the years 1884–5 and 1911–12 would give the hon. Member practically all the information he requires.

    Census Returns (Ireland).
    Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether ho is aware that Sir William J. Thompson, the Irish Registrar-General, in reply to a correspondent seeking information about names from Census Returns, wrote on the 30th May stating that the Census Returns of 1861 and 1871, being confidential documents, had been destroyed by Government authority, and that the latest Census Returns available for public reference were those of 1851; at what date were these Census Returns destroyed; what is the public authority at whose instance they were destroyed; what power is vested in that public authority for the destruction of documents prepared at great expense, presumably in the public interest; under what statutory provisions, if any, has this destruction taken place; why have the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851 been preserved, whereas the Census Returns of later date have been destroyed; on what grounds have the earlier Census Returns escaped destruction, though presumably confidential documents, and is their preservation due to their utilisation in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act as evidence for the withholding old age pensions from persons whose claim to old age pensions would otherwise have been unassailable; and whether, having regard to the effect which the destruction of public documents by Government authority is calculated to produce, an explanation of the circumstances under which this

    1143
    destruction took place and the grounds for the adoption of such a course will be given?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Registrar-General wrote as stated. The circumstances under which the Census Returns of 1861 and 1871 were destroyed have been fully explained in his reply to the question of the late hon. Member for South Belfast on this subject on the 29th September, 1909, to which I would refer the hon. Member. The preservation of the Returns of 1841 and 1851 is not due to their utilisation as evidence of age in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Why are you using the other forms to deprive people of old age pensions to which they are otherwise entitled?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Oh, no, not to deprive people of old age pensions.

    New Magazine Rifle.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked what progress has been made with the experiments preliminary to the adoption of a new magazine rifle; and whether he is yet in a position to give information to the House as to the breech action, bore, or sights of the new rifle?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Preliminary experiments have been made, and the further trials necessary before any definite conclusion can be arrived at are now in progress. I am not yet in a position to give any information on the points raised in the question.

    Defective Ammunition.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Undersecretary whether he is aware that small-arm ammunition returned from the South African War, and repacked in 1902, has been issued to the Territorial Force for use in the present year; how many rounds of this ammunition have been so issued; whether this ammunition has previously been issued to the auxiliary forces, and withdrawn from issue owing to complaints being made in the House of Commons of its inaccuracy; and whether the Secretary of State will at once call in this old and unreliable ammunition and order its destruction, so as to prevent the reissue of cartridges which are unfit for any military purpose. The year "1902" should read "1903."
    Colonel SEELY: I can only answer the question as it appears on the Paper. Orders for the withdrawal of all "re-made" 303 small-arm ammunition were given in 1908, and the War Office have no information as to any being in existence at the present time. If the hon. Member will supply details, enquiries will be made.

    Inspector-General of Cavalry in India.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the officer who has been appointed Inspector-General of Cavalry in India was passed over seventeen times for promotion?
    Colonel SEELY: Eight of this officer's juniors were promoted before he was selected for promotion.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Was he promoted because of his merits?
    Colonel SEELY: Oh, certainly; singular merit is always rewarded.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Then why was he passed over?
    Colonel SEELY: Well, I suppose because there were other people of more singular merit; but in all seriousness, anyone who knows the qualifications of the officer referred to knows he is a most distinguished officer, and has had a most distinguished career.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Why was he passed over then?
    Colonel SEELY: For the reasons I have given.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman study the duties of the office to which he has been appointed so recently?

    Small Arms Factories.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether a contract for a number of Lee-Enfield rifles was recently awarded by the Commonwealth Government to the Birmingham Small Arms Factory; whether private armament firms are at present running full and overtime; and whether, if so, the Royal Small Arms Factory should have had a preference in supplying the rifle that bears its name?
    Colonel SEELY: The Commonwealth Government has recently asked for a number of rifles. The manner in which the requirement shall be met is under consideration.

    Veteran Reserve (Uniform and Pay).
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the provision of uniform and some small pay as a retaining fee to the Veteran Reserve?
    Colonel SEELY: It has been decided not to provide uniform for the Veteran Reserve. As no liability is involved by registration in the Veteran Reserve the question of a retaining fee does not arise.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in time of war a man without uniform is liable to be shot?
    Colonel SEELY: I do mot think that is quite a correct statement of the law.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Franco-Ger man War?
    Colonel SEELY: Well, first of all, things have moved since then; and even so, the parallel is not exact. The question whether a man is or is not entitled to take up arms is not so easily settled as the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether anybody is liable to be shot if not in uniform?
    Colonel SEELY: I should not like to answer offhand all these technical questions, but it is undoubtedly not necessary that a man should be fully equipped with recognised uniform in order to take up arms for his country. Certain distinctive badges and other qualifications are recognised.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can give any information as to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Hounslow?
    Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: Since yesterday the disease has spread amongst the animals on the infected place. Several more pigs are stated to be showing symptoms of the disease, and, in addition, two heifers were found to be showing clinical symptoms of the disease in its earlier stages, and were killed yesterday. The valuation of the stock about to be slaughtered was completed yesterday, and the slaughter and disposal of the animals is commencing to-day. Owing to the fact
    1146
    that the burial of the animals is impossible on this farm on account of the nearness of the water to the surface, it will be necessary to remove the carcases of the slaughtered animals for cremation at an adjoining destructor. This will be done in water-tight carts that have been procured for the purpose. No further reports of foot-and-mouth disease have been received from this or any other district. A house-to-home veterinary examination of the stock in the immediate vicinity of the infected premises will commence to-day.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the Board succeeded in tracing the cause of the outbreak?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Board, in order to trace the origin of the disease, take steps to feed to sound animals oats and straw known to have been imported from an infected country.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has the cause of the disease been found out?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: At present the cause is unknown.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes that the House should sit late to-night, or does he only propose to finish the particular Amendment under discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not intended to sit late, but the Government cannot give a pledge to consider only a particular Amendment.

HOME SECRETARY AND THE JUDGES.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Would you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to put a question to you in reference to the practice and procedure of this House. I desire to know whether the Motion for the censure of the Home Secretary, which has been on the Paper of the House for the whole month is in order, and if it be not in order, whether, in the exercise of your power, as Speaker—there are various precedents—you will direct it to be removed? I submit the Motion is not in order, and that it is incapable of dis-

1147
cussion in the House of Commons for the following reasons: The substance of the Motion is that this House do censure the right hon. Gentleman for words pronounced in this House in reference to the judges in their judicial capacity. The House is alone the judge of words pronounced in it, and it is alone the judge of order in reference to those words. If exception be taken to the use of words, or if words of a disorderly character be used, they may be instantly visited with censure by the intervention of the Chair, or of some Member of the House who calls the attention of the Chair to them. I have looked into the precedents, and such a Motion as this was never at any time placed upon the Notice Paper of the House, and could not be discussed for this simple reason. First, it refers to language spoken in this House but not reprehended at the time, and as such it conveys censure, if any censure was incurred by the Home Secretary, upon the Chairman of Committees or whoever was in the Chair at the time. In the next place, these specific Motions in reference to personal character and conduct must be specifically framed. This is a Motion of a most general nature. If it came up for discussion, it would violate all the orders of this House, because no Speaker could, in a discussion of this kind, prevent a general criticism of the conduct of judges in their collective capacity, which is not allowed. I submit that this is a Motion which should not be on the Paper of the House, that it is irrelevant and vague, and contradicts the primary Motion of the order of debate in this House, and, above all, it interferes with that freedom of speech which we all so much value.
Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion was probably put down by the hon. Member for York in a moment of indignation about some language used here. I shall be very glad to use any influence I may have to persuade the hon. Member to take it off the Paper. I understand that he does not suggest that the Government should afford him a day for the discussion of it, and that being so I think it might disappear. At the same time I must point out that merely because it happens to be a vote of censure upon a distinguished official, that is no reason why it should not appear on the Paper. If the hon. Member will look at the next notice on the Paper he will find that it is a vote of censure upon the Lord Chancellor himself. I have a very distinct recollection that I suffered under this
1148
grievance for the space of about two months in 1902, as one hon. and distinguished Member put a Motion down censuring my conduct, and never took any opportunity of bringing it forward, but I did not complain.

AMENDMENTS (NEW RULE).
Mr. SPEAKER: There is one matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. Hon. Members will recollect that yesterday I referred to the change which had been made in the printing of amendments to the National Insurance Bill, and the new rule which was then instituted has received a somewhat startling development to-day. If hon. Members will look at pages 68, 69, and 70 of the Amendments to the National Insurance Bill, they will observe that no fewer than thirty-one hon. Members have handed in their names as proposing a particular Amendment. I think, if this practice is likely to be followed and extended the object with which we started the limitation of the Amendment paper will be entirely defeated. The object was to have a less bulky paper and save a certain amount of printing. I think it will be necessary to limit the number of names of Members fathering identical amendments by the same rule as that which now applies with regard to the handing in of notices for the rejection of a Bill, namely, six. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Nothing will prevent an hon. Member's name and notice appearing in the blue papers in the ordinary way the day after he has handed his notice in. For the convenience of Members who have to handle all this paper, I think if six names appear that ought to be sufficient bearing in mind that in Committee, if none of those six hon. Members are present, it is open to any hon. Member to get up without notice and move the Amendment on the paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL).
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 146.

Division No. 254.]

AYES.

[5.33 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Goldstone, Frank

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Adamson, William

Greig, Colonel J. W.

O'Doherty, Philip

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

O'Dowd, John

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Hackett, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

O'Shee, James John

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Hancock, John George

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Harmsworth, R. L.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Barnes, George N.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barton, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pointer, Joseph

Beale, W. P.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pollard, Sir George H.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Helme, Norval Watson

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bentham, George Jackson

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Higham, John Sharp

Pringle, William M. R.

Black, Arthur W.

Hinds, John

Radford, George Heynes

Boland, John Plus

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hodge, John

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Reddy, M.

Brace, William

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Burke, E Haviland-

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

Robinson, Sidney

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Joyce, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Keating, Matthew

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roche, John (Calway, E.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

Kelly, Edward

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Chancellor, H. G.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Clough, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Scanlan, Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Leach, Charles

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lewis, John Herbert

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Craig, Herbert J (Tynemouth)

Logan, John William

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Crumley, Patrick

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Maclean, Donald

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Summers, James Woolley

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

Macpherson, James Ian

Sutherland, John E.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sutton, John E.

Dawes, J. A.

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Delany, William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Manfield, Harry

Tennant, Harold John

Devlin, Joseph

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dickinson, W. H.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Toulmin, Sir George

Doris, W.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duffy, William J.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Millar, James Duncan

Verney, Sir Harry

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Walters, John Tudor

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Mooney, John J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Morgan, George Hay

Wardle, George J.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Morrell, Philip

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Essex, Richard Walter

Munro, R.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Webb, H.

Falconer, J.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Needham, Christopher T.

Wiles, Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Neilson, Francis

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Norman, Sir Henry

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Glanville, H. J.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nuttall, Harry

1150

1151

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Goldman, C. S.

Newman, John R. P.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goulding, E. A.

Nield, Herbert

Astor, Waldorf

Grant, James Augustus

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

Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

Greene, Walter Raymond

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

Baird, John Lawrence

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Haddock, George B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridgg)

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

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

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Helmsley, Viscount

Peto, Basil Edward

Barnston, H.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bigland, Alfred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

Bird, Alfred

Hunt, Rowland

Spear, Sir John Ward

Boyton, James

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Stanier, Beville

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Starkey, John Ralph

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Joynson-Hicks, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Campion, W. R.

Kerr Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stewart, Gershom

Carlife, Sir Edward Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Swift, Rigby

Cassel, Felix

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Castlereagh, Viscount

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Cator, John

Lansbury, George

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Lee, Arthur H.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lewisham, Viscount

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Welgall, Capt. A.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. t.-Col. A. H.

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

Clyde, James Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Dairymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Martin, Joseph

Worthington-Evans, L.

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Younger, Sir George

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Courthope.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mount, William Arthur

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  Suggested Division Into Two Parts.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the subject of unemployment insurance and one dealing with sickness and invalidity insurance."
  I wish to take the earliest opportunity of pointing out that the Instruction is not antagonistic to the second or unemployment portion of the scheme. The fact that this Instruction will be seconded from the Labour Benches will, I think, dispose of that interpretation. It will be further observed that in dividing it into two Bills I am asking that the Bill relating to unemployment should be dealt with in the first place. There can be no question in
  1152
  the mind of anybody who has studied this-Bill carefully that there are two totally distinct questions or groups of questions. It was found most difficult. I think hon. Members in every part of the House will agree, on the Second Reading to get a general discussion. One hon. Member would take one section of the Bill and the hon. Member who followed him would take another section, and that criticism with regard to the Second Reading I intend to apply to the Treasury Bench as well as-to the back Benches. That is a clear proof it would be to the convenience of the House, and I believe it would also make for the safety of the measure—at any rate it would make for clarity of discussion—if the Bill were divided into two. There are a large number of questions mentioned in Part 1. I will not enumerate except some of the leading points of controversy. I total them to about fifty.

  1153
  There is the question of the treatment of women, there is the question of the treatment of the doctors, there is the question of the treatment of the great organisations at present in existence, and there are many other problems of that kind which are not in Section 2.
  The suggestion which I put before the Ministers in charge of the Bill in a friendly spirit is that the unemployment part should be put in a separate Bill and sent to a Grand Committee upstairs. It seems to me this is a question requiring the attention of experts, both on the employers' side and on the workmens' side, and I think a Grand Committee upstairs could deal with the unemployment section and with those peculiar problems relating to it. The question of unemployment has been before the country for many years. It has been pressed upon the attention of hon. Members of this House in various ways, and the probable solution of it may be present to many minds. The question of sickness and invalidity insurance is of more modern date. Controversy there is very keen. The various interests concerned are very nervous and restless, and the men concerned are in the same condition with regard to their future. It does seem to me, therefore, it would make for the progress of the Bill and for its successful perusal and close scrutiny in this House if it were divided into two distinct Bills. I would make an appeal to my Leaders that they should take this suggestion from one who has striven to make himself familiar with the opinion of the rank and file in this House. Most gloomy opinions are held throughout the House with regard to it being able to do full justice to this question in the present Session of Parliament, and in my opinion this is the only way—I speak with a certain amount of diffidence on that point as a young Parliamentary hand—that this Bill can be placed upon the Statute Book in this Session. I speak, of course, subject to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a much older Parliamentary hand than I am, may say, but it does seem to me that the way to get the best consideration of the measure in this House in order that it may become a workable Statute is that a Grand Committee should deal with the unemployment section of it upstairs, while we find our way through the sickness and invalidity insurance portion in this House. Up to the present the representations which have been made to us have been almost entirely confined to Part I. of the Bill. If
  1154
  you take the great friendly societies, they are chiefly concerned with Part I. of the Bill. If you speak of the various women's organisations, they chiefly refer to the first part of the Bill in their communications to hon. Members. If you take the great industrial insurance companies, with funds from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000, and a staff of 100,000, for whom it is my duty to speak in this House, they are chiefly concerned with Part I. of the Bill. I put it forward that, if it is wished to pass this as perfect as can be done in this Session, my suggestion is the way to do it.
  My Instruction is framed in accord with the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in this House. I am not quite sure that it is in the same accord with his Birmingham speech, but I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appeal to all parts of the House to cooperate with him in order to get a good measure. It is in that spirit I move my Instruction. If we co-operate in building the structure we can give him most assistance in the way it was most freely invited, but, if the view as expressed at Birmingham is to prevail, that this is a complete structure now, and that in Committee our province is to inspect the building, then I am afraid my Instruction is not quite in accord with that. I should have thought that in the Committee stage we were not merely to inspect the building, but to take care that the permanent officials do not occupy all the best rooms, that the women are not put in the back attic, and that the doctors have not their surgery in the basement. I conceive that in the Committee stage we must do a little more than simply look at the plans. There is, no doubt, a most excellent balcony from which to address the crowd, but I am not quite clear the building as it stands now and as the architect designed it would quite carry out all the wishes of the designer. I was one of the first to criticise this Bill, and to criticise it frankly, if I may say so, with what small amount of modesty I possess. I said, both on the First and Second Reading, that difficulties would arise, and that great controversies would ensue. Some hon. Members thought I was making a rash and wild prophecy, but they take a different view now. If the House is to give that assistance which was invited we must divide the Bill in this way and co-operate rather in the spirit of the original appeal.
  I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he first invited the co-operation of the House there was something in his mind like that which was in

  1155
  the mind of King Solomon when he built the Temple. There was to be no scene of party strife—no metallic ring of tools—the building was, of course, to be in perfect symmetry; and everything was to be in perfect accord. If the co-operation of the House is to be upon party lines, we can best get that if the issue is clarified by the separation of the unemployment portion from the sickness and invalidity insurance portion. It will largely depend upon the answer I get from the Treasury Bench whether I press my Instruction to a Division. I recognise that the Instruction will be in the hands of the House. I have no wish to become an obstructionist or to peevishly annoy the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is trying to carry out a great and good work, and I am not prepared to indulge in pin pricks or to become a little wasp buzzing round his neck. Therefore, in closing, I wish to say that in my opinion, for what it is worth, this is the best way to deal with the Bill before the House and to bring it to a successful issue. I should be very sorry indeed if, by bringing forward this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be led to think I am either antagonistic or obstructively inclined. I hope, indeed I am glad to think, the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that the Amendment is not brought forward from that standpoint at all, and I can only say I am thankful that we have a great statesman showing such a warm heart for the sick and suffering poor.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In seconding the Instruction I wish the House to understand that I am speaking personally, and not as representing the party with which I am associated. The Instruction I wish to move is, I am told, out of order. I should have preferred if the Bill could have been divided into three parts in the manner suggested in my proposal, but not being able, by the ruling of the Chairman, to lay that before the House, I will second the Instruction to divide it into two parts only. When the Bill was introduced everyone was struck with the chorus of praise showered upon it, and everyone must now be struck with the fact that it is subjected to so much criticism. Speaking as a new Member of this House, it appears to me that a Bill of this size, dealing with vital issues affecting the lives of the poor people, is one which should have the fullest possible consideration, and I do not think
  1156
  the mere fact that certain vested interests have made their peace, if I may say so, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is any reason why other views should not be adequately discussed. There is a higher interest than any other interest in the country, and that is the interest of the ordinary man and woman, and it is for that purpose I want the Bill divided. For instance, I think the Post Office contributors are dealt with most unfairly.
  When the Bill is put forward as a National Insurance scheme, I would remind the House that the great bulk of women are left out and that the great mass of children are also ignored. Any Bill to be national and preventive in character ought to deal with children in their very earliest days, and it should provide safeguards against the semi-starvation and destitution from which so many women and children suffer at the present time. To my mind it is rather extraordinary that a Bill of this character should be called national and preventive. Every one of us must know perfectly well the great masses of the poor and destitute will practically be left outside its scope, and, although men and women will have deducted from their wretched earnings a certain amount every week while they are at work, there are other points in connection with the Health Bill which demand a great deal more consideration than appears likely to be given them. There are some of us who are violently opposed to the sort of tyranny which the medical profession can and does set up on occasion, and we view with a very great deal of alarm the handing over of vast masses of the people to their control. There is the question of the sanatoria. I feel at least we ought at this time of the day to consider seriously whether we should build huge sanatoria and employ expensive doctors to deal with disease when it has arisen. Ought we not rather to take steps for the prevention of the disease. Everyone knows that no experiment in the cure of consumption and tubercular disease generally is not the scientific method of dealing with the question of prevention.
  Then also, in the health portion of this Bill there is another vested interest which arises, that of the insurance collectors, and many look upon its provisions in that regard with a very great deal of alarm. I think we ought to have time to consider their position and see whether, if we are going in for national insurance, we cannot make that portion of the Bill such that we can take over not merely insurance against

  1157
  sickness but also insurance against that other disease which comes to all of us, and endeavour to ensure the poor in a decent manner against that. I speak in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Pontefract. I do not want to detain the House at great length. There are many other points on the health side of the Bill but my main objection is that here again you are leaving out large masses of the very poorest part of the population and it is our duty surely to devise means of bringing them in. I fear we have not time to do that if the Government adhere to their present plan of dealing with this Bill.
  I should like also to say a few words on the question of unemployment. I think we ought to make our experiments on that subject on a better plan. We know perfectly well that by the time we get to the unemployed portion of this Bill—during the months of July and August—we shall be getting so tired, especially if we are to repeat the operation of this afternoon and suspend the 11 o'clock rule every night— that we shall not be in a condition to give adequate discussion to this portion of the Bill. What I want to emphasise is that the unemployed question has never in this country been tackled in a really scientific manner. If we are to have insurance against unemployment I think the lines along which this Bill has been laid are perhaps the best, but it would be much more important to turn the Bill round and deal with unemployment first, mainly, because we have absolutely no experience to guide us on this question. I would venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Germany can give him no help in this matter, because nowhere on the Continent, or anywhere else, have they attempted to insure against unemployment amongst unskilled labourers. For that reason I should like to see this House devote more of its time in this Session, or even in an autumn Session, to the question of unemployment.
  I join with the whole House in welcoming any steps that may be taken for dealing thoroughly and effectively with destitution arising from unemployment and sickness. We are witnessing just now a very great upheaval amongst working men up and down the country, and it is mainly owing to the fact that the progressive legislation which this House has passed has left the working classes worse off than before. Working men and women up and down the country are awakening to a fact which they are not very likely to forget, that while they have been getting poorer
  1158
  the Income Tax payer has been getting richer. They will take their own measure for redressing that. I want to point out that this House has no right to impose a poll tax, amounting in some cases to 6½d. per head per week, on some of the very poorest men and women in the land, without any of them having a chance of saying whether they want it or not. It is of no use saying that this Bill was before the country at the last election. I have heard a great deal about the people giving a mandate. We have no mandate to redress social wrongs by inflicting a poll tax of this kind, and, therefore, I want to see the Bill turned right round, and I want the House to have ample time to deal with the unemployment portion as well as with the health portion.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government appreciate fully the tone and spirit in which the hon. Member for Pontefract has moved this Amendment. He told us he had an objection to some parts of the Bill, while other parts had his hearty support, and he therefore did not desire to indulge in any policy calculated to injure it. I am sure the House will fully appreciate the attitude he has taken up. With regard to my hon. Friend, the seconder of the Amendment, he went into the merits of certain portions of the Bill which are not yet before the House. We are not discussing the merits of the Bill at the present moment; the point is whether the proposal to divide the Bill into two parts shall be accepted by the Government. The suggestion of my hon. Friend is that in order to leave the House full opportunity to deal with Part I., Part II. should be sent to a Grand Committee. That is a suggestion which I do not think we ought to accept.
  At the same time I will put this point to the House. There are a certain number of Clauses which are in the nature of contentious Clauses, and they can at any time be sent to a Grand Committee. The Government will not shut the door altogether against a proposal of that kind, as it might be advantageous to send certain portions of the Bill to a Grand Committee. But that is not the proposal before us now. The suggestion is that the whole of Part II. should be sent to a Grand Committee. I am not sure that if his proposal was accepted it would not be necessary to introduce it as a fresh Bill and send it to a Grand Committee. I do not

  1159
  think that would save much time to the House as a whole. It is essential, in our opinion, that the Bill should pass in the present Session. We gave our reasons for that on the Second Reading. The chief reason is that if you are going to deal with the question of unemployment at all, it is very essential to begin it if possible in time of prosperity, when unemployment is very low. Every year we can gain of good employment is an advantage in putting the scheme on a sound financial basis. My hon. Friend says his suggestion will lead to that result. I do not think it would lead to the two things which he desires, namely, that Part II. should go through and should receive adequate discussion and consideration at the hands of hon. Members. In the first place I do not think, in a Bill of this sort, in which to a large extent the two parts are interdependable, it would be at all expedient to divide it into two parts, and I do not see that actual time would be saved by sending it to a Grand Committee. On the contrary, I think the amount of time devoted to the Bill by the House as a whole would be much greater if it were sent to Grand Committee than if it remained in Committee of the Whole House.
  But quite apart from the question of merits or principle I suggest that this is not a workable proposal. The Grand Committee sits from eleven o'clock or half-past eleven till three or four. Practically speaking Members on both sides who are interested in Part II. are also interested in Part I., and I do not think hon. Members will be prepared day after day to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock or later at night, and if the Grand Committee does not sit on the same days as the House is to consider the matter in Committee it will only leave one day a week for its consideration. Another practical consideration is that I believe the Grand Committees are at present very full of work. But the real difficulty in the way of the proposal is that I believe Members on both sides of the House desire to have an opportunity of considering the various proposals put before them by the Government on Part II. as well as on Part I. After all, the Grand Committee consists not of 670 Members, but of seventy, and I cannot help thinking that a very large number of Members who are specially interested in the question would necessarily be excluded from being Members of the Grand Committee, and would therefore consider themselves under
  1160
  a very serious disadvantage if they had not a full opportunity of discussing Part II. Further, there is this objection, which is really fatal to the proposal. I suppose every Member of the House has had some experience of Grand Committees. I have had the advantage of the hon. Member's (Mr. Lansbury's) occasional support on the Copyright Bill. At all events, all Members who have attended meetings of Grand Committees know that they very often take a very different view from that which the House as a whole takes. Here you have two Bills which in general lines and on general principles are drawn in the same direction—compulsory contributions, contributions from employers, from the workmen, from the State, and so on. You have many details of machinery and other matters of that sort which are very similar, so that if the two Bills are to be passed and are to work they must be substantially on the same lines. They are interdependable in those respects.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is at all events the view of the Government. I cannot help feeling that if you have one part of the Bill kept in the House and the other part referred to a Grand Committee the upshot of it might be that you would have the two Bills instead of being, as we desire, entirely on the same lines, on different lines and founded on different principles. At all events, the views which I have placed before the House are the views which the Government hold in reference to the proposal of my hon. Friend. We do not think it is a practicable proposal; we do not quite believe it is one which hon. Members interested in the matter would desire. The House has already decided to keep the whole Bill in the House, and, subject to what I have said with reference to the possibility of sending certain portions of the Bill to a Grand Committee, we must oppose the proposal. As regards the other point as to how far an opportunity will be given in this House for the discussion of Part II., my hon. Friend takes an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the likelihood of the proceedings with reference to this Bill. The House generally has agreed to the principle, and I believe it is generally desired as far as possible that the details to be discussed shall be details of moment and of interest. That being so, I doubt if the time given to the Bill will be-so excessive as some hon. Members think. At all events, with regard to Part II., that is shorter and simpler; it has been substan-

  1161
  tially before the country for two years in its general principles, and we have discussed the matter with all the interests affected. We know their views fully. We have met them already by the proposals an the Bill, and we are prepared to meet them in many respects by Amendments, and I doubt if Part II. need really occupy a very large portion of time. On these grounds I trust my hon. Friend, in the interests of Part II., as well as of Part I., will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If I intervene it is because it seems to me that the proposal made by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite is one which really touches very closely the interests of the House of Commons as a legislative body. What are the Government now proposing to do? They are proposing to begin on 5th July the discussion of two measures which appear under one cover, which embody principles on which there may be broad general agreement but which notoriously have excited, wholly irrespective of party, a most unusual and almost unprecedented amount of difficulty and controversy in the country. The Government do not imagine, I expect, that when there is all this strong feeling in the country it should not find reflection in the House of Commons; in fact the House of Commons would not be doing its duty unless there was some reflection of this great external feeling. The Government themselves are conscious of the enormous task they are imposing on the House of Commons, considering the time of year, because they formally announced they were going to move closure by compartments, which would bring the whole of the proceedings of these two measures embodied in one Bill in twenty-five days. I suppose for Parliamentary reasons of great cogency they have abandoned that proposal. I only refer to it now because it is a practical proof that the Government are themselves conscious of the magnitude of the burden they are throwing upon this overworked House. The hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury), though not an old Member of the House, was absolutely right, and every old Member of the House will agree that after the prolonged labours which the House of Commons has gone through this year, last year, the preceding year, and the, year preceding that, and the whole succession of years in which we have been working for anything between nine and eleven months in the year, it is quite impossible to suppose that we shall be fit in the middle of August to deal with the details
  1162
  of a measure on which so much of the social welfare of the labouring classes in future is to depend. Would it not be wise of the Government in these circumstances somewhat to lighten the immense burden they are avowedly and plainly throwing upon us by confining their attention during the Session to one of the two proposals which they are asking us to deal with?
  The right hon. Gentleman said, "We really cannot support these measures, because they are interdependent." What on earth does he mean by saying they are interdependent? When pressed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) to say what he meant, all he could say was that they went upon the same principle, that there was compulsion in both and general contributions in both. Are the Government going to lay down the principle that whenever, in the pursuit of liberty and equality, they introduce compulsion into a Bill, all these Bills are to be embodied under one cover? The right hon. Gentleman must himself perceive how utterly inconclusive was the reason he laid before us for treating these Bills as one measure. The Second Reading Debate was a Debate on Part I. of the Bill, with two incursions from the Treasury Bench into Part II., one by the Home Secretary and the other by the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the second of these two measures. The whole attention and interest of the House was concentrated on the first, and it was practically impossible to ask the House really to consider upon one Debate on the Second Reading measures so widely differing in their character and their object, and the House never did. We have had no Second Reading Debate worthy of the name upon the second part of the Bill at all. They are prepared by different Ministers, worked out in different offices, and they carry out widely different objects. They were explained by two different Ministers, and were compressed technically into one Bill only at the last moment. We are asked when we are nearly approaching the end of a normal Session to begin the tremendous task of dealing contemporaneously with two great and separate measures. I would earnestly press upon the Government that that is not treating the House of Commons in the right way. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the first to admit that, in view of the feeling aroused in certain sections, rightly or wrongly, by this measure, the treatment he has received at the hands of the House

  1163
  of Commons has been a kindly one. It has been genuinely sympathetic. Surely under these circumstances the least the Government can do is not to throw upon us the work of carrying on a discussion which we really cannot usefully carry on upon a Bill which embodies two measures. While I quite agree that it would be wholly absurd to send one measure upstairs to a Grand Committee, and to have that Grand Committee sitting de die in diem when we are discussing the Clauses of the other Bill downstairs, I would point out that that does not cut at the root of the Instruction moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite to divide the Bill into two. The Bill is improperly described in the terms of the Instruction. It is not a case of dividing a Bill into two. It is a case of calling two Bills one Bill. Two Bills they are, and two Bills they must remain, whatever be the technical procedure of the House.
  All I ask is that the Government should adopt a business-like attitude and not ask this House to deal with the immensely complicated provisions of this immensely complicated subject with the knowledge that while they are working at one subject there is another subject wholly different waiting for their consideration, and that they will not require us, after we have laboured in no party spirit on the Clauses which are to be defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to tackle the unexhausted Clauses which are to be defended by the President of the Board of Trade. That is an entirely novel procedure. At any rate, my memory does not carry me back to any measure prepared by different Departments and defended by different Ministers which has been called one Bill. I say that is either wholly unexampled or the examples must be extremely rare and unimportant. I would appeal to the Government in the interest of their own legislation and in the interest of this House as a legislative machine, to turn a somewhat kinder ear to the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. That proposal is in no sense inimical to the proposal they are themselves laying before the House of Commons and the country, but on the contrary it is calculated above all to give us that elbow room and that power of dealing adequately with matters in which the country is so profoundly interested. If the Government insist on the two tremendous proposals in the Bill being regarded as one proposal, I shall certainly support the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Instruction.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly and very temperately put before the House the view of the Opposition in regard to the proposed division of the Bill. I will say at once, that I accept the statement which he made that the reception accorded to the Bill by the Opposition in the House of Commons entitles them not merely to fair consideration, but to sympathetic and favourable consideration at the hands of the Government in any appeal they make, and therefore I approach the Question now before the House from the point of view that we are desirous to meet any suggestions that come from the Opposition with the view of facilitating the passing of this Bill as a measure in the most perfect form in which the House of Commons can possibly fashion it. With regard to the suggestion about dividing the Bill, I cannot quite accept the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman that the two parts are not interwoven. I say so not merely because, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), the principle of compulsion is embodied in both parts. Most of the Bills, not merely in our time, but while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in office as well, embody that principle. But a Finance Bill is much more important than the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit. Supposing that one part of the Bill is sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, most of the Amendments to be moved with regard to the extension of the Bill and the readjustment of the finances affect the finances of the whole Bill. After all, the Government must take into account the money it has at its disposal in dealing with the whole of the proposals, and naturally we reckoned that before we assented to any part of the Bill. You could not have one part of the Bill dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and Amendments introduced which would require the Government to find an increased subsidy without having regard to the commitments on the other part of the Bill as well. The same thing applies to the contributions of the employers and the workmen. When the 2½d. was fixed as the limit for the workman and for the employer in the second part of the Bill we had to take into account the amount charged in respect of the first part of the Bill. Well, after all, the House of Commons can alter these figures if it chooses. The responsibility is entirely with the House of Commons, and we ought to be in a posi-

  1165
  tion to know what are the commitments of the employer and the workman, and also what are the commitments of the State on the first part of the Bill before we come to consider the second part of the Bill. It is obvious that you cannot consider the one apart from the other.
  I am putting this not merely by way of reply to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of Debate, but rather for his consideration, because I still adhere to the position I took originally. The suggestion was made by my hon. Friend that I departed from that position in the course of the speech I made at Birmingham. I am not conscious that I did so, but if I did. I revert to the original statement which I made, and I am still of opinion that it is a Bill which ought to be fashioned by the whole of the House. The only exception I would make to that statement applies to Amendments which might make a difference in the commitments of the Exchequer. As to these, I say at once that I shall be inclined to be rigid and I shall make a very stiff fight, but still the responsibility of the House is there too. Subject to that limitation, I would really appeal to all sections of the House to support the Bill. Subject to that, I should not regard any change which the House would think lit to make in the Bill either as a defeat of the Government or as a defeat inflicted on myself. I have simply done the best I can with the aid I have got to put the best scheme I can before the House. The House is not bound to accept that. I never suggested that. If there are any suggestions from any part of the House which commend themselves to the House as a whole as better than the suggestions of the Government, by all means it is the duty of the House to carry those suggestions through. It is in that spirit I enter upon the Committee stage. I still adhere to every particular of the appeal I made on the First Reading, and I mean to stand by them right throughout. In that spirit I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is desirable at this stage to cut the Bill in twain, because you really cannot consider one part apart from the other. I ask whether it is desirable that we should proceed with the Bill in the way proposed by the Government or in the way suggested by the Instruction. I was under the impression that there was a rule in the Standing Orders which enables the House at any stage, if they thought fit, to send any part of a Bill upstairs. I
  1166
  understand that the Chair has been consulted on the matter, and that that view is correct. Standing Order 46, Sub-section (2), says:—
  "Provided that the House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions, and that if such a Motion is opposed, the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks lit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further debate put the question thereon."
  Lord HUGH CECIL Lord HUGH CECIL made a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It appears from that Standing Order that it is in the power of the House at any stage to send a Bill upstairs. It is quite competent at any stage, if it is thought proper, to make a Motion of that kind, but I submit that for the time being we should proceed in the way proposed, and I say that if we do so we shall be able to pass a measure which will not be a Government Bill but a Bill of the Whole House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that there had been a good deal of criticism of this Bill outside. That is perfectly true, but may I point out that a good deal of progress was made in the last two months in reconciling the various interests? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) talked of those interests as if they were vested interests. I would point out that they are not merely the interests of doctors. There are the interests also of friendly societies and of trade unions. These represent some 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people. Then there are the collecting societies, which represent something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of workmen.
  Mr. LANSBURY: What about the Post Office contributors?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am pointing out the great progress that has been made with respect to the criticisms which have been given in advance, and after all the criticism which has most body, as far as one can judge from what has appeared in the Press, is that of the doctors. The criticism of the doctors has had far more attention given to it in the Press than any other criticism which has been directed to the Bill. Substantially I think the hon. Member will find that they are reconciled to the proposal the Government has made. As to the collecting societies, their criticism has been reconciled. The criticism of the friendly societies has been met in the main; they wanted to be masters altogether. They made proposals which

  1167
  we could not possibly assent to. We are prepared to meet all the criticism directed to the Bill by municipalities. That narrows it down to one point. The hon. Gentleman says that the criticisms have not been met; I believe he is mistaken there. Up to the present I have had no criticism from him, the other Members have made suggestions.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have put down a number of Amendments which I suppose should be regarded as suggestions. It is quite unfair to say that I have made no criticism.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman says so, I accept his statement at once.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They are on the Paper.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certain Members have come to me with suggestions, and I think they will find that they have been accommodated. That really meets most of the criticisms on the Bill. That narrows down the issue, and I should think that the whole of the financial provisions, together with the points that remain, can be got through in a month's discussion. The financial issue is one which I think it is quite possible for the House to decide in one or two nights' Debate. The point I want to put finally before the right hon. Gentleman is that we have endeavoured to meet all these criticisms, and that they are in a fair way of being accommodated. I would not for the moment suggest that the latter provisions of the Bill should now be sent to another Committee, because that can be done at any time. I would urge upon him not to press that view.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is rather going on the presumption that I wanted one part of the Bill sent to a Grand Committee. I do not think that would be practicable now. It might be practicable afterwards.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood that the Leader of the Opposition desired to support the whole of the proposition. I am very much obliged for that interruption. It disposes entirely of what I was saying in answer to him, but, at any rate, I think it is premature to consider that point. I do hope it will be possible to carry through both sections of the Bill this Session, and may I suggest one reason,
  1168
  which is a very important reason from the point of view of the trade and the business of the country. You cannot this year put a burden of 3d. upon an industry or upon the men engaged in it, and say to them that at a future moment you contemplate putting on 2½d. or any other figure which the House of Commons will decide. It is far better for the trade of the country to know definitely what they have got to meet, and I still think it is very much better that you should do this at a moment when trade is improving, and when trade is booming, and when it is very desirable that funds should be accumulated in time for the depression which, after all, is inevitable in the course of trade in this country. From that point of view I think it is far better that both sections should go through this year.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I only want to say a word or two on the point of view of procedure. The proposal the hon. Member makes is that this Bill should be divided, and it is suggested that it would be open to the House, when the House has passed the first Bill, or when it has passed through Committee, to pass on to the next Bill. I think we should be aware of the precise division that is to take place. One effect might be that the second part of the Bill would go upstairs, while the first part would be in Committee of the whole House. It appears it is equally open to the House to discharge the second stage of the Committee of a Bill and send it upstairs at any point. As a matter of procedure, I did not think that was so—convenient as it appears—but if it can be done under the Standing Orders it can only be done on the Motion of the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Bill. It is not very likely to happen in this case, because it is contrary to the general principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with the Bill. Secondly, I am not quite sure how far Members of the House would be able to take part in a Committee upstairs, as well as doing their work in this House, if you interrupt the Committee when you get Part I. The Instruction is a well-recognised process, and its object is that the Bill should be divided into two parts. Of course, if you merely cut the Bill into two with a pair of scissors you would deal with all the parts up to a certain part in one way and after a certain point in another way. I should have thought it was better on the right hon. Gentleman's own principle to accept this Motion now. It commits him to nothing but to the principle of dividing the Bill,

  1169
  and will cost nothing in. the way of Parliamentary time, excepting two Debates on the Third Reading instead of one. If you divide the Bill I think there was great force in the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he said that if you go straight through with it and try to press all those things through, whatever may be the circumstances, the second part will not be discussed at all perhaps. After Members have been engaged for three weeks in hot weather discussing the earlier stage of the Bill they will be jaded and tired, and they will not give much attention to the later stages.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the second part is sent upstairs what is the object of the Motion?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My point is that you do not commit yourselves by accepting it. If you are going to get the whole Bill through this Session, I should send the second part upstairs, but not at a time when this Bill is before a Committee of the whole House, but at a time when the House is doing other business which it is clearing away for the Prorogation. I quite agree that to discuss one part of the Bill upstairs in Committee in the morning, and to discuss the rest of the Bill in the House in the afternoon would be quite impossible, and would throw an intolerable burden upon Members.
  I suggest that you could avoid this by sending the other part of the Bill upstairs at a time when you are dealing with other matters in this House before the Prorogation. I should have thought that that was what the Motion meant. I think the First Lord suggested another procedure, which was to discharge the Committee on the Bill and send the remainder to a new Committee; that was the procedure that I meant when I spoke of cutting the Bill In two with a pair of scissors. I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very conciliatory observations with great pleasure, and most of all I was glad to hear him say that he proposes to defend the Exchequer. I welcome that declaration very much indeed, and I earnestly hope he will be very firm, and that he will not allow too great raids upon the Exchequer from whatever part of the House they are attempted. The right hon. Gentleman, except where armaments are concerned and the invader threatens us, is rather, in general, an expensive custodian of national expenditure. However, he is a reformed character. Far from me be it to cast up to him his early
  1170
  sins. Let us lead him to the penitents' form, and let us hope he will not be tempted to fall again by the numerous persons who want to attack his economic virtue, and who surround him like those who tempted St. Antony. I am very interested to hear that he means to allow the House of Commons a much freer hand than is usual; that is an interesting and quite a new thing, and I will be interested to see how the right hon. Gentleman, with his great dexterity, is able to manage the House of Commons in these unusual circumstances.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us what the President of the Board of Trade failed to make clear as to the Government view of the dependence of the second part of the Bill upon the first. No doubt the Government have only a certain amount of money to spend, and they cannot afford to have one part of their scheme financially settled without any regard to the finances of the other. That, no doubt, is true, but it is true of every Bill which involves a charge upon the Exchequer, and if that is a good reason for confining the whole of the Bill within the limits of one cover then we might confine any Bill which provided for a public charge within the limit of one cover. We shall have nearly a month to spend upon the Insurance Bill, but it must be remembered after all that we are dealing with millions in each part of the Bill, and when a Bill is of that character the objections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer raises to a division of the Bill do not hold good. Is that a reason for treating the two Bills as one?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The House, of course, must settle one part before it proceeds to deal with the oilier, and when the second part comes on it will be limited in its beneficent action by the liabilities already undertaken in the earlier discussions. It is a perfectly reasonable point, that you must take one Bill after the other, and that if you greatly exceed the present Estimate on the first part, you will not have enough money to pay for what you propose to do on the second part. You must take one Bill after the other, and that is the only force there is in the Chancellor's observation that the finances of the two Bills depend one upon another. I quite agree it will be difficult, and indeed impossible, for the Government to shovel off the financial responsibility which lies

  1171
  upon them by sending either part of this Bill to a Grand Committee. They have the power of pressing Bills through which they can exert in this House, and they may relax that, but they cannot devolve upon anybody the guardianship of the public purse which they hold, and allow anyone to take up the duty of deciding that more money should be spent in a fit of virtue or benevolent intention.
  Still we might deal with one part of the Bill, which I think is a distinct subject by itself, and have ample time to carry out this Instruction and to adopt the further procedure contemplated by the hon. Member. The objections which have been urged are no part of the Motion he has made, and are quite distinct from it, and the discussion we are now engaged in deals only with the proposal to have this Bill divided into two Bills, which are really two Bills included in one cover. I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what he is asking the House and the Committee to do. He is placing upon it quite an unusual burden: I do not say it by way of criticism and still less by way of complaint, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking upon himself a much less burden and responsibility than is commonly taken by Ministers who introduce Bills when he does not take the full responsibility and he puts a share upon others. This share will fall upon individual Members of the Committee and individual Members of Parliament. He has announced that on all parts of the Bill, except his guardianship of finance, ho is prepared to submit his views to the House and to abide by the wishes of the House without any exercise of any of the usual forms of Government pressure by which a Government majority carry their own particular view. I do not quite understand what was the exact meaning and worth of the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that Members on that side of the House might vote against him on any question which was not a financial question, and that he would not consider a defeat on the Bill as a defeat of the Government. Does not that mean that he will not exercise the pressure which the Government habitually exercise on their own side of the House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think if the right hon. Gentleman will reflect, for a moment, he. will see that there is this difference. There are certain Bills in which the Amendment, even of the Clauses, is
  1172
  vital, and where a defeat would be likely to be fatal to the Bill itself; but I do not consider that the Insurance Bill is a Bill of that character. Still, I would regard a very considerable alteration as, of course, fatal to the Government scheme. There have been Bills under consideration lately where any alteration would have been fatal; but I do not regard this Bill as a Bill of that kind.
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, at any rate, for the purposes of the proposal. I think he will see, though I do not limit him to his expressed reservations, that he is putting upon Members of this House a much greater individual responsibility than they ordinarily enjoy. When members of a party are confronted on what is comparatively a matter of detail with a statement from the Government that the Government would regard a defeat on that subject as fatal to themselves or, even with the ordinary pressure that is brought to bear by a Government with its usual majority, they, in view of the larger issues involved, having pledged their faith to the party, vote for it and justify themselves to their constituents on that ground for the vote which they have given. But when the Chancellor invites the co-operation of every Member of the House to make this Bill in some sense the work of the whole House, and not the work of the Government slightly modified by the House, that is an entirely new responsibility put upon it. Much greater attention is required from the Members on the Back Benches. They must have much greater latitude in discussion than they usually have, and if the Chancellor's hopes are to be realised a very great deal of time must be devoted to the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed a belief that so much progress has been made outside the House that our discussions here will be singularly short.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, considerably shortened.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Very well, considerably shortened. As an illustration of what he meant, he actually said that the great question whether women are having fair and proper treatment under this Bill would be disposed of by the Committee in. a day. It is an amazing statement.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I confined the question, which was whether Post

  1173
  Office contributors should be dealt with on insurance principles or Post Office principles, and I said that that could be disposed of in a night or two.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought what the right hon. Gentleman said was not in a night or two but in a day. I still think that in his answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, who specifically raised another question of the Post Office contributors and also this question, that before the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the question of the Post Office contributors he said we should be able to dispose of the great question whether women were fairly treated under this Bill in a day. However, I only meant to say that I thought he was much too sanguine, and to observe further that though a great deal of progress may have been made outside none of us know what that progress is, and not one of us has any means of knowing what are the decisions at which the Government have arrived. Here they are actually asking us to proceed by unusual means, by the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule on this very first day of the Committee stage, and they actually contemplated a guillotine resolution, before they have put on the Paper a single one of the Amendments not only which they have promised since the Second Heading, but which they announced on the Second Reading. Take the question of women's treatment. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Second Reading Debate said it was the plan of the Government that women's contributions should be allotted to women, and men's contributions to men. They were to be kept entirely distinct. He was asked where it was to be found in the Bill, and in an off-hand manner he said it was not in the Bill. That is the plan of the Government. It is not in the Bill.
  We are entitled to have the plan of the Bill before the Government presses on discussion with such extreme haste, and we are entitled to say at the very earliest opportunity that we ought to have had before to-day the Amendments as to which the Government are already agreed. The right hon. Gentleman has done his best and very properly, to conciliate, without injuring the Bill, all the various parties who are discontented. It is the task of a Minister, and no one is more adapted for it than he. But what is the result? That you separate in an obvious way different and sometimes conflicting interests. Different promises are made, sometimes, I
  1174
  think, conflicting promises. At any rate, hopes which cannot be reconciled are held out, and somebody later on will find themselves disappointed. When the right hon. Gentleman says that his previous conferences have cleared away half our difficulty that demands a great deal of consideration; but I have not observed from my correspondence that they are much cleared away to the ordinary member at present. We do not know what it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do. If he carries out all the statements which he has made his Bill will have to be profoundly recast. If he means to put the friendly societies into the position he announced they would occupy at Birmingham he has got enormously to increase the liability of the State. Instead of giving us the detailed proposal by which he hopes to stand he treats us to a great deal of vague declaration which raise hopes often, I think, doomed to be disappointed, and he does not help Members of this House in the work which they have to do. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman, before he proceeds further, to put on the Table the main Amendments of the Government. I do not say the other Amendments which will have to be brought forward no doubt as the Bill goes along, but the main Amendments which the Government has already decided, and which have been promised to meetings of individuals orally.
  Surely the House of Commons is entitled to have this upon the Notice Paper before it proceeds to discuss the Bill. Until we have it, I do not think we shall be able to say with confidence how much our Debates may have been shortened by the discussions which have taken place outside. I think it is quite possible, when the actual proposals of the Chancellor are put upon the Paper they may give rise to fresh difficulties of which we in this House shall have to take notice. But what I am really concerned about is that the Bill, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer invites the whole House to join with him in making it the Bill of the whole House and not the Bill of the Government, shall be a credit to the whole House; and it cannot be that unless we have ample time. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that on the introduction of the Bill Part II. was not explained at all, and on the Second Reading Debate the only speeches which dealt with Part II. were interjected into the midst of the discussion on Part I. by the two Members who have

  1175
  been or are at the Board of Trade, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who dealt with Part I., was not in the position, within the limits of his speech, or within the limits of the capacity of a Minister, to deal properly with what is really another distinct and heavy Bill. If we divide the Bill into two, I do not care which part the Government chooses to take first. I am quite ready to discuss Part II. in front of Part I., or to discuss Part I. in front of Part II., but I do Urge that whichever we take first we shall have a free hand to give to it as much time as the subject is found to require, and that we shall make a good job of that before we begin on a second, and that we shall not put ourselves into a difficult position by trying to do more than the House can do at this time of the year and turning out two bad Bills instead of one good Bill.
  One great difference is this. If you separate the two Bills, when you conic to the end of the Committee stage, if you have any doubt about the capacity of the House to deal fairly with both subjects, you can proceed with the Report stage of the one portion of the Bill and make it a perfect work, instead of being forced to go through, and weary the House with, a second and a new subject before they have finished the first part, and so render hon. Members so tired at a very late season of the year that when the Report work has to be done—and Report work on Bills like these must be very heavy—they are so fatigued, and time is so late, that it is impossible for the House to do properly the necessary heavy work. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned two reasons against delaying Part. II. of the Bill. As I have said, I do not mind whether you takes Part II. first or Part I. first. That is for the Government or the House to decide, but I think that only one of the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave has any weight at all. He, following the President of the Board of Trade, said quite truly, that if you are to start on employment insurance it is of the highest importance that you should start at the most favourable time and accumulate a reserve before times are bad and the drain comes. As times are comparatively favourable, he thought that that was a good argument for proceeding with that part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was another argument, namely, the effect produced upon the trade and industry by holding a certain liability over
  1176
  them. He only showed that his Bill is Part I. and not Part II., and that he really has not in his mind this unemployment part. That deals only with a very limited part of the trade of the country. It deals with it experimentally, with the avowed intention on the part of the Government that at a later time it can be extended to other trades. Therefore, all the uncertainty which the right hon. Gentleman says will be so dangerous is created by the avowed and expressed intention of the Government at the present time.
  Let me say that, as far as trade and industry are concerned, I think that the argument is all the other way. You are going to put a very heavy burden on trade and industry by this insurance. Further, I think that the burden will obviously be sensibly aggravated, where unemployed insurance falls also by the provisions of that part of the Bill. To have both these burdens suddenly placed upon the trade of this country at a time when the margin of profit is not great, when competition, even with either of these burdens, is very severe, seems to mo to deal a dangerous blow at trade; and if you regard the interests of the trade alone it is much better to proceed more gradually and allow the burdens to be assimilated and distributed more slowly than would be done by passing both these measures together. The main point is, I say, that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invite the co-operation of the House in this way and to refuse them the necessary time is, indeed, to make a mockery of the matter, and for my part I do not believe that it is possible for the House to deal adequately with both these great subjects within any tolerable limits of the Session. It may be said that the House will sit long beyond tolerable limits. I say that we may have to do that, but that it will not make good work. Everybody knows that in these circumstances this House is not at its best, that the work it turns out is much less likely to bo revised properly, and is much more dependent on the absolute fiat of the Government; and that that kind of work is singularly out of place at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confronted with the enormous difficulty of devising anything like a perfect scheme, invites the help of all of us to improve his Bill and render it more effective.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot reply to the hon. Gentleman except by leave of the House, but perhaps I may be allowed to answer him in regard to the questions

  1177
  he put. With regard to the Amendments of which the Government have given notice, they had to be discussed in the form of drafts with the various interests concerned, and they will be ready to be put upon the Table of the House at the beginning of next week. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these Amendments refer to Clause 8 and onwards, and I do not see any reasonable prospect of our coming to Clause 8 before the next few days.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Cannot the question as to women be raised on Clause 1?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I think not, though of course that question might be raised as to whether or not women are to be in the scheme at all. The Amendments which we propose must necessarily come later than Clause 1 in the Bill; therefore if they are produced at the beginning of next week they will be in ample time for the discussion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the question of women is directly raised on Clause 1, and unless we know what the Government propose to do about them, this House will be committed to the inclusion of women in the Bill without knowing in the least what that involves. I myself intend, if the Government Amendments are not on the Paper, to move to amend Clause 1 in order that women may be treated separately, and not included in the general scope of the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether it will be in order to discuss that on Clause 1. The proposals of the Government with regard to women go throughout the Bill, and I should have thought that, strictly, it would be out of order to take such a discussion on Clause 1, except by consent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in proposing the exclusion of women on Clause 1, in order that there should be laid before the House the Government Amendments to Clauses 8 and 13. For myself, I think that would be out of order, except with the consent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman wants the actual Amendments for consideration, but that is not possible at present, and I can only say with regard to them that they will be ready by the beginning of next week.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for
  1178
  Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to Clause 1, line 8—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord cannot. discuss the Amendments. At present the House is discussing whether or not the Bill should be divided.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One other point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was in reference to the finance of the scheme, and he suggested that it was a question of abrogation of responsibility. We shall certainly accept responsibility for our own scheme. I do not regard this Bill in the same way as I do the Veto Bill, and any alteration in the Clause would not necessarily be fatal to the whole scheme as far as we are concerned. Many of the Amendments to be placed on the Paper are in accordance with suggestions put before us in the course of the last few weeks.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Whilst I have been listening to the Debate I have tried to gather what particular arguments have any bearing whatever on the question before the House. Whether the Bill is to be divided or not is a matter which is hardly to be settled, I think, in what time remains to us to consider the Bill. We could drop Part II. of the Bill if necessary, and as soon as we see what is going to happen. We do not know how long a time is going to be taken up in discussing the question whether or not women are to be included in the Bill, and we must, surely go on clause by clause making what amendments we desire, besides making the most of our time and not wasting time in vague generalities about matters which might have been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not simply going to vote against this Instruction because I want to support my right hon. Friend, and if the guillotine had been proposed I would have voted against him in the Division Lobby. If it can be shown that the two sections of the Bill are quite separate, or, at any rate, have very little bearing upon each other, then I think there might be a good case made out for the separation. But whoever knows the operation of these two problems, sickness and unemployment in every-day life, knows perfectly well that they are interlaced together at every point. It may well be found convenient to drop the second part, as I have said, but it is a matter of convenience and not a matter of principle. There is not the least doubt that if we cart get these two parts, which compose the

  1179
  whole of the Bill, through the House within a reasonable time, it will be far better to get them both than to get them through separately. But I am not going to help to get them through together if it means that either section is going to be inadequately dealt with, or that the work which we put into either is going to be bad work. I do not know about that; I am a sceptic about it, a little bit of an agnostic. I must wait and see. It all depends on what we are going to do now, and how we are going to do it. This discussion is altogether premature, particularly for those who want to get on with the Bill and see what happens.
  If hon. Members look at Part I. of the Bill they will find, as I think at any rate, that one of the most important provisions of Part I. is that where an insured person is unemployed, and is coming under benefits given him by Part II. That is a very important point. If Part II. is going to be dropped that particular advantage in Part I. must also have to be dropped. Obviously no Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is as reckless as the Noble Lord opposite seems to suggest, or whether he is as careful as the Noble Lord would be, if he were himself Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give an unemployed person certain benefits in Part I. unless they were defined, and defined pretty rigidly and pretty reasonably, and I, for one, would help anyone in that direction, so that Part I. might be applied definitely without laying the Chancellor of the Exchequer open to the charge of extravagance or unnecessary waste. Therefore I am going to vote against the Instruction, not because I want slipshod work done, but because I would like to see what work can be done within the time at our disposal. We have a good many substantial Amendments, and if I find that Part I. is not going to be adequately discussed, I am not going to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out bad work. But until that time comes, the Government should have facilities to go ahead with the Bill.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: With reference to the provisions of the Bill, I should like to point out one practical consideration which has a bearing upon Parliamentary procedure. If this division of the Bill is not carried out, what is our position with reference to one very important part of the Bill. Closely connected with the first part of the Bill is the first Schedule,
  1180
  which really contains the gist of the measure. If we proceed with the two parts together, if we first consider the insurance part, and then go on to the question of unemployment, we would have to return to the Schedule in regard to Part I., and then go to the schedule in regard to unemployment, which would be a very difficult course to pursue in the interests of proper discussion. You cannot unless you divide the Bill and discuss one part at a time be sure that the Schedules follow the Clauses, and, therefore, it does seem to me that the business-like way of considering this measure is to accept the separation, and say that each part shall be considered with the Schedules affecting it; otherwise considerable difficulties will arise. The Government have failed to show us any real and close connection between the two parts. Although the last speaker endeavoured to show that in the first part of the Bill there was a provision dependent upon the second part, yet I do think it would be far more business-like if we dealt with each part and its Schedules separately. It is with all due deference that I put this point before the Government, and I hope they will give it consideration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Leicester, as I gather, is going to vote against this Instruction, but it certainly seems to me that his arguments were in favour of it. because the Instruction to divide the Bill into two enables us to take Part II. of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester knows perfectly well that Part II. is supported universally throughout the country. The hon. Member for Leicester seemed to think that Part II. might be dropped if it took too long to discuss Part I. I think everybody here would far sooner see Part II. on the Statute Book than Part I., and therefore one ought not to be tempted to vote against the Instruction in order to facilitate the dropping of Part II. of the Bill. The hon. Member showed clearly that one provision of Part I. was clearly dependent on the passing of Part. II. The question of whether a man is to be allowed to suspend his contributions during unemployment depends altogether on whether a man is unemployed. That is another argument in favour of passing Part II. first, and putting it on the Statute Book—a result which really depends on our being allowed to divide the Bill into two parts. I think the matter is of infinite importance. I can see no possible hope of passing the whole of this

  1181
  Bill into law this Session, or if it is passed into law it will be, at any rate, without adequate discussion, especially if the two parts are to be taken together. If that is the ease surely we are justified in doing all we can right here and now to see that the Part we do like shall be taken first. We have seen during the last month in the country a vast group of feeling against Part I. of the Bill, while we have seen nothing against Part II. of the Bill, or very little. All this makes it surely in the interest of the House and the Government that they should take first that part of the Bill which is wanted by the people and which is understood by the people themselves as being in their own interest.
  I am one of those to whom the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) referred and my chief Amendments to Part I. are to secure additional contributions from the Exchequer with a view to making the taxation created by this Bill a little less unequal and invidious in character. At present eleven millions is going to be raised on wages, and I and a good many others do not like that way of raising taxes. We prefer to see it raised by ordinary taxation rather than by deduction from wages. A good deal of the criticism on Part I. must inevitably consist in the desire to give additional benefit for the contributions, and to levy those contributions in a more equitable sense. I quite appreciate the attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in doing all they can to prevent any raids upon the Exchequer, but really they need not be very nervous about it. The Government have put a financial Resolution on the Paper, and that, I understand, is to be taken. As soon as that is passed half the Amendments at least on the Paper will become out of order, and all this nervousness about raids on the Exchequer ceases automatically with the passage of that Resolution. I notice that some hon. Members opposite have put down Amendments to exempt the agricultural labourer from the Bill. Even that Amendment, I imagine, will be ruled out of order as soon as we pass the financial Clause, because it is well known that the agricultural labourer is less liable to sickness or does not go sick so often as the town worker, and therefore the exemption of the agricultural labourer from the Bill would increase the actuarial risk among the average people, and would make the actuarial basis of the whole Bill unsound.
  1182
  Thus even that Amendment will be ruled out of order as soon as we pass the Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point can be raised on the Amendment. We are not discussing the matter now.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was endeavouring to explain to the Noble Lord and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a question that need not unduly delay the Committee over Part I. of the Bill, and that this Amendment will be ruled out as soon as the financial Resolution is passed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am very doubtful about that, and that is why I suggested to the hon. Member that he should wait until the Chairman of Ways and Means rules the point.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will pass from that point. I do urge upon the Government that the rushing through of Part I. of this Bill is not a matter of great importance at the present time. Part II. is far more popular and far more wanted than Part I., and it will be to the advantage of the House that we should be allowed to deal with these Bills as separate Bills, either one upstairs and one in the House, or one this year and one next year, in order to give them adequate discussion and consideration and in order to put good Acts on the Statute Book. We have secured today one great piece of assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has told us that wherever it is not a question of finance going to the root of the Bill, and wherever it is an ordinary Amendment, he would not put on the pressure of the Whips to force Members to vote in the Government Lobbies. This is an Amendment now brought forward by a Member of the Liberal party and seconded by a Member of the Labour party, and supported very largely by Members on this side of the House. I do hope that we shall not have the Government Whips put on in this case, and that we shall be able to vote on this Amendment as freely as though it were an Amendment moved by an influential Member on this side, or by a Member of the Opposition. This is a case that does not go to the root of the Bill, but merely divides it into two parts. You can still pass both this year, and you can send one upstairs. It does not go to the root of the insurance question. I do hope we shall not have any pressure put upon us, or put upon the people who are amenable to the party Whip, to vote in the Government Lobby on this Amendment.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I think it is quite clear that both on the other side of the House and on this side there is really a very general feeling that it will be quite impossible to pass this Bill into law provided we end our discussions at a reasonable hour of the day. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I think, evidently felt that during the course of his speech. His objection was why could not this be brought in when we had gone on with the discussion of Part I.? To my mind the whole object of dividing the Bill now is to make it quite clear that we can get through one part of the Bill straight away. I do not mind whether we begin with insurance or employment, but I do feel that it will be much more in the interests of good work if we could get through one of those parts first, that is to say, get through the Committee stage and Report stage and Third Reading of the insurance part, and then go on, if there is time, to the Committee stage and Report stage and Third Reading of the unemployment part. I do feel that it will be better not to spend weeks and nights over the insurance part, then go on to the unemployment part, and come back again to the insurance part. I was very glad to hear both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiating the suggestion that one part of this Bill should be sent upstairs. They have very rightly recognised that it would be really unfair, especially to those who are interested in both parts, to ask them to attend a Committee upstairs sitting from eleven o'clock to four, and then ask them to come down at four o'clock and go on to another part of the Bill until probably the same hour the next morning. They agreed that that is quite impossible, but at the same time they ask Members to go and sit on other Committees from eleven o'clock to four o'clock, and then, when they come down here, suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. I think that is extremely unfair, not only as to big Bills like this, but as to other Bills, which ought to receive very careful and very serious consideration upstairs.
  I was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest that though he will not send one part of the Bill upstairs, yet the Government are contemplating when we get through a few Clauses of the Bill to frame a Resolution that will send up particular Clauses out of both parts of the Bill to the Committee upstairs. Surely they must recognise that it is unfair to ask Members to sit on a
  1184
  Committee upstairs and discuss certain Clauses of the Bill, and then come down and discuss the whole of the rest of the Bill down here. That is equally unfair to them, and it is equally impossible, from the Government point of view, to reconcile the two parts of the Bill together in that way. The Government may be defeated upstairs on Amendments which may vitally affect other parts of the Bill, yet with their regular majority down here they may be carrying the Bill through on original lines. I cannot see what possible advantage can accrue from sending certain Clauses of this Bill to a Committee upstairs. I do sincerely hope that we have-heard the last of that suggestion, and I do wish that even at this hour the Government will alter their view and consent to divide this Bill into two parts. The only reason they really give for pressing on with the unemployment parts this year is that it happens to be the beginning of a fairly good time of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier in the Session that we were in for a good boom in trade. I am sorry to find that the opinion of the Chancellor has altered, for if not why would it not be possible to put off to next year, or the latter part of this year, the consideration of the unemployment part of the Bill. Though the Government say that a good many conflicting interests are reconciled, surely they must not forget that there are several other points which are not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which at present are stirring up very considerable feeling throughout the country. I may refer to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), namely, the position of the agricultural community. People who live in the rural districts may not have such active brains as gentlemen who live-in the towns, and it has taken them sometime to realise that really they are going to pay for the benefits of the town people under this Bill, though they are paying the same premium and receiving the same benefits.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is anticipating the discussion, and has nothing to do with this Motion.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I only wanted to point out that there are matters like that which were not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which will deserve and require very full and adequate discussion. That was

  1185
  one of my reasons for again urging the Government to divide this Bill into two parts. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members would much prefer that really adequate consideration should be given to the various points of one part of the Bill rather than that the Bill should be hurried through the House without any discussion.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I listened with great interest to all the speeches made in reply to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I regret I have found no adequate answer from the Front Bench to the arguments he put forward. The refusal of the Government to divide the Bill into two parts has been justified on two grounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that nearly every point of the important interests involved has been met by deputations, and in the second place the President of the Board of Trade said that the second part of the Bill is of such overwhelming importance that it must be proceeded with this year. In regard to the first contention, that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I feel that it is not convincing. He has, indeed, met a great many deputations, representing nearly all the vested interests concerned under the provisions of the first part of the Bill, but I doubt if his statement that he has met all their points really represents the situation. I fear he has not met the demands of the doctors, for only this morning I have received a letter asking me to meet a deputation from them. That surely does not represent that their case has been met. That, however, is not the most important point. It is easy for organised interests to go and meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to put their case before him. There are others who are not organised, and whose case cannot be presented in that way, and who can only have their views put forward on the floor of this House. It is on behalf of some of these that I desire to make this appeal to the Government to divide the Bill. I may give, as an example, the farm servants of Scotland, who are in a very peculiar and distinct position. There was indeed a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on behalf of these men, but it was a farmers deputation, concerned only with the interests of the farmers, and not with the interests of the agricultural labourers. The Scottish agricultural labourers are absolutely unorganised, and have no
  1186
  means of putting their case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their only chance of doing so is through their representatives in this House. It is extremely strange that a Government who owe so much to the agricultural labourers of Scotland should have introduced a Bill which ignores and neglects their interests altogether. The Prime Minister would not be here if it were not for the agricultural labourers of East Fife. I question whether the Patronage Secretary would be here, and I do not know how many other Members of the Government might be looking in other parts of the kingdom for seats, were it not for the agricultural labourers of Scotland. In this Bill they are absolutely ignored. They do not need to make any insurance whatever, because, as a term of their employment, they obtain full wages during six weeks.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to deal with that question now. When we reach the Amendments the Committee will doubtless be very glad to listen to him.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not intend to go any further into the merits of the case, but surely I am at liberty to argue that the fact that the interests of these men have been ignored is a reason for dividing the Bill into two parts, and for the further contention that, having ignored such an important interest, we should deal with the second part of the Bill before the first part.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no proposal to deal with the second part first. That is not contained in the Motion before the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I understood that the question whether one part should not be sent upstairs had been argued by preceding speakers, and I thought I was in order in making an alternative suggestion. But I support the Instruction without any reference to any particular procedure. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade as to the overwhelming importance and the extreme urgency of the unemployment part is the strongest argument for dividing the Bill. We are in a period of good trade in relation to those very particular industries which are most liable to fluctuation. Surely this part of the Bill should be taken separately from the other, and an opportunity be given to accumulate a reserve for dealing with the period of unemployment when it arises. I speak with special interest on this matter, be-

  1187
  cause I represent a part of the country where these fluctuations are very severe indeed. In no part of the country are the fluctuations of trade more severely felt than in the West of Scotland, which is so largely dependent on the great shipping industry. Another more general consideration which seems to me of almost equal importance is that the health provisions of the Bill affect the daily life of every man, woman and child in the country. Only a very small minority of them have any appreciation of how these provisions will affect them. Surely it is important that these two parts, so different in character and in urgency, should be dealt with separately? For these reasons I have been driven to the conclusion that I must support the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. PETO: I am strongly in favour of dividing the Bill into two parts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating that that course would be very undesirable, said that it was necessary to go ahead with the unemployment part in order that the employers, who would be asked for a contribution of 3d. per week, should know exactly where they stand. It seems to mo that there is extremely little, if anything at all, in that argument, because the unemployment part of the Bill refers to one or two selected trades only. Therefore the employers in all the other trades in the country, after we have passed Part II., will still be waiting to know whether they will have to make a further contribution of 2½d. or any other sum that may be decided upon. There is no reason why the Bill
  should not be divided, so that the House might address itself to the comparatively simple, though long and arduous, problem of Part I.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether the intimation which ha3 been given empowers the Minister in charge of the Bill to send certain Clauses to a Grand Committee upstairs at any time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The position stands thus. The Standing Order provides that the Member in charge of a Bill may, immediately the Bill has been read a second time, ask the House to keep part of the Bill here and to send a part upstairs. My own impression is that that must be done immediately after the Second Reading. But it is always open to the Government, as they have control of the time of the House, to put down a Motion to send part of a Bill upstairs. They are not precluded by the existence of the Standing Orders from so doing. But the hon. Member will observe that an unofficial Member is precluded from doing that, because he has no time at his disposal.
  Mr. BOOTH: In view of your ruling, and of the undertaking of the Government that they will consider my suggestion, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 254.

  Division No. 255.]

  AYES.

  [6.10 p.m.

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Doughty, Sir George

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Boyton, James

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Butcher, J. G.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Baird, J. L.

  Cator, John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cave, George

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chamberlin, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Goulding, E. A.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grant, J. A.

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Barnston, H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Bathurst, Hon A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks-

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bigland, Alfred

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bird, A.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Martin, Joseph

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Starkcy, John Ralph

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Moore, William

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Swift, Rigby

  Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hunt, Rowland

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Nield, Herbert

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

  Younger, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Wedgwood

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crooks, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Herbert, Sir Ivor

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hodge, John

  Anderson, A. M.

  Delany, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Doris, W.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, W.

  Barnes, George N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barton, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Beale, W. P.

  Ellbank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Joyce, Michael

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Keating, M.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)

  Keily, Edward

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Essex, Richard Walter

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Falconer, J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Boland, John Plus

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leach, Charles

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Field, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Logan, John William

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Lundon, T.

  Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk, N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cameron, Robert

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Hackett, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clough, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Manfield, Harry

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harwood, George

  Meagher, Michael

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  1190

  1191

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Sutton, John E.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor John W. (Durham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Munro, R.

  Reddy, Michael

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Dowd, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Webb, H.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Shee, James John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Pointer, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow Mr. MacCallum Scott) proposes to give powers "to insert provisions for the extension of medical and sanatorium benefits to married women whose husbands are insured under the Bill." If a charge would be created by this Instruction it would not be permissible. If it does not create a charge, the object can be carried out by Amendment to the Bill. The next proposal, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is also out of order. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) proposes that the Bill should "be divided into two parts, one relating to the insurance of men and the other relating to the insurance of women, and that the Committee should have power to proceed first with the insurance of women." I do not know whether that means two Bills. If it means two parts, it cannot be done by Instruction. If it means two Bills, the division is an unnatural one. The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset (Sir Randolf Baker), "that it be an Instruction to the Committee to divide the portion of the Bill relating to invalidity into two parts, one dealing with all persons employed in agricultural or horticultural
  1192
  occupations, and the other with all persons engaged with other trades," can be done by Amendment. The same applies to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rye Division of Sussex (Mr. Courthope).
  With regard to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Horner) that the Committee be empowered "to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with Great Britain and the one dealing with Ireland," the Bill does not naturally fall into that division. The hon. Member proposes to omit Ireland from the Bill altogether. He can do so by moving to omit Clause 59, and inserting a new Clause to say that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland. That can be done in Committee, and does not require any Instruction. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Mr. Sandys) "that the Committee should have power to order an inquiry by Royal Commission into the subject of State Insurance against invalidity and unemployment before the Third Reading of the Bill," is quite beyond a Committee of the Whole House. The last Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir Henry Craik), "that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to

  1193
  postpone the provisions for medical benefits so that they may be made the subject of a separate Bill," can be done by amendment. There being no other Instructions, I propose to leave the Chair.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

Part I.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Insured Persons.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons who are employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be, and any persons who are not so employed but who possess the qualifications hereinafter mentioned may be, insured in manner provided in this Part of this Act, and all persons so insured (in this Act called "insured persons") shall be entitled in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in this Act to the benefits in respect of health insurance and prevention of sickness conferred by this Part of this Act.
    (2) The persons employed within the meaning of this part of this Act (in this Act referred to as "employed contributors") shall include all persons of either sex, whether British subjects or not, who are engaged in any of the employments specified in Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act, not being employments specified in Part II. of that Schedule:
    Provided that the Insurance Commissioners herein-after constituted may, with the approval of the Treasury, by regulations, provide for including amongst the persons employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the said schedule.
    (3) The persons not employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act who are entitled to become insured persons include all persons who either—
    (a) are engaged in some regular occupation, and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation; or
    (b) have been employed contributors for a period of five years or upwards;
    and the persons possessing such qualifications who become insured persons are in this Act referred to as voluntary contributors:
    Provided that where a person who has been a voluntary contributor for five years or upwards ceases to possess such qualifications as aforesaid he shall not by reason thereof be disentitled to continue to be insured under this Part of this Act.
    (4) Nothing in this section shall require or authorise a person over the age of sixty five years not previously insured under this Part of this Act to become so insured.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) to postpone Part I. is out of order. You cannot move to postpone part of a Bill. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow), in Sub-section (1)— after the word "Act" ["Subject to the provisions of this Act"], to insert the words "and save as provided in Part II. of the First Schedule of this Act"—is, I think—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask on what ground you rule that you cannot postpone part of a Bill? I do not see any reason. May I inquire, Mr. Emmott, on what grounds your ruling is based?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move to postpone part of a Bill. He can move to postpone a Clause if he gives a proper reason for making the Motion; but he cannot move to postpone part of a Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it will be convenient for you to give some guidance to hon. Members who have put down Amendments? The Speaker was good enough to suggest that I should raise this question when you first took the Chair. We would like to know what is the view of the Chair in. regard to all that series of Amendments which will increase the benefits to be distributed. Will you hold that they increase the charge upon the Exchequer, and are, therefore, out of order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot possibly answer a general question of that kind, because we have not yet passed the necessary financial Resolutions for this Bill. When those are passed I shall be in a better position to say what is in order and what is not in order.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will it not then be too late to deal with all these Amendments which increase benefits? Directly

    1195
    the financial Resolutions have passed the House it may be quite impossible to alter any of the benefits proposed, because it will lead to actuarial unsoundness in the scheme. If these Amendments are to be ruled out of order as soon as the financial Resolutions are passed it is as well for the House to know before they sanction these Resolutions what they are committing themselves to.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to hon. Members that if they have any questions upon this point I should deal with them when we come to discuss the financial Resolutions. We cannot enter into a discussion on Clause 3 until these financial Resolutions are passed. When these financial Resolutions are before the Committee, if I can give any guidance with regard to these matters I shall be very glad to do so. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford, I gather from conversation that I had with him, really refers to exemptions that he desires to make. In that case it will not be in order here. The next Amendment is in order.
    Mr. HILLS: My Amendment is, in Subsection (1), after the word "all" ["all persons who are employed"], to insert the word "male." This Amendment raises the whole position of women in this Bill, but I see that all the specific points that I meant to raise are included in other Amendments. As I do not want to waste the time of the House with a Second Reading discussion, I propose not to move my Amendment subject to this: that I have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by so doing I shall not be precluded from dealing with these specific points as they arise.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: By the leave of the House I will answer that question. This belongs to a class of Amendments of which I am cognizant, and raises all the difficulties presented to me in respect to the case of women. It can be raised subsequently.
    Amendment was not moved.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that he will let us have the actuarial calculations which we were promised on the Second Reading, and which it was said we should have at the same time as the Amendments? It is really impossible for us to consider what Amendments we
    1196
    should put on the Paper whilst the actuarial information which the right hon. Gentleman promised so long ago is not before us; which I believe myself he had in his possession then, and is withholding from us.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My own recollection is that I did promise certain actuarial calculations with reference to the men of the Army and the Navy—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And women.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that I did, of course I accept his statement, but I have no recollection of it. At any rate, it is the intention of the Government to publish information in respect of the actuarial position of women and of the soldiers and sailors, and that certainly will be done long before we reach the specific Amendments.
    Sir F. BAN BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the actuarial information upon which the whole Bill has been founded?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Baronet will find that all that is in the Paper which is to be published.
    The CHAIRMAN: The proposed Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) contains an exemption which I think can come up on Clause 2.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. This Amendment hangs on another one in which are certain enacting words. If I were to wait for the Schedule I should be out of order, because I understand you cannot move enacting words in the Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: By taking the hon. Gentleman's two Amendments together I see that they make exemptions, and exemptions can be moved in the form of a new Sub-section to Clause 2. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley, in Sub-section (1), after the word "persons" ["All persons who"], to insert "including for the purposes of the benefit conferred by this Act, or such of them as are hereinafter specified, the children under sixteen years of age of such persons," can come under Clause 8.
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act," to insert the words ["Part of this Act shall

    1197
    be"] "and their wives." The Amendment will make the Clause read as follows: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons who are employed within the meaning of this Part of the Act 'and their wives' shall be" and so on. This raises the whole question of the position of women under the Bill in a very concrete form.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going to move to include the wives in all the benefits. Surely that will cause an increased charge upon the Exchequer, as I presume the hon. Gentleman will require that the Exchequer should contribute in respect of the wives in the same way as the men. Does not that increase the charge upon the Exchequer, and therefore is it not out of order?
    The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with a Clause now which states who is to be insured and who is not to be insured. The financial arrangements in regard to persons follow, and therefore the point raised by the hon. Baronet does not arise now.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Does not the word "persons" include women already?
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it will be better if the hon. Gentleman who is moving this Amendment should make it "and the wives, 'if any,' of such persons."
    Mr. HARDIE: I am not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, how your suggested words might be construed "and the wives, 'if any'"—
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, can you include women at this point, and not children? My Amendment was to include children for the benefits, and I understand that you have ruled me out of order, seeing that they must come into the Schedule benefits. As I understand the proposal now it is to bring in the wives. Then why not the children?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as I understand it, would include the children within the scope of the benefits provided under this Bill. That should wait for Clause 8. I take it that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil proposes that the wives of any of those men whom he desires to include within the category of compulsory insurance shall pay a contribution and come under the compul-
    1198
    sory insurance part of the scheme. If that is the case I do not see any other place where it can be raised except here.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Your interpretation, Mr. Emmott, of my intention is quite accurate. My object of moving this Amendment on behalf of the Labour party is to bring the women within the scope of this Clause as insured persons. Under the Bill as it stands, the married woman occupies a very anomalous position. If the married woman had been an industrial worker before marrying, what becomes of her when she marries? She loses for the time being all the benefits and remains in a state of suspended animation until she may chance to become a widow. But the woman who has never been industrially employed and is married is left out altogether from the provisions of this Bill. I heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say, and I read his reasons for excluding married women from the scope of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated the difficulties in the way; he is himself quite sympathetic with the proposal if it could be done, but first of all he points out the enormous cost, because he says it is admitted that sickness amongst women is much more frequent than sickness amongst men. His second point was the difficulty of checking sickness amongst women who are not industrially employed, and his third point was the difficulty of getting the doctors to agree. I do not know whether the Chancellor meant to say, when speaking about the difficulty of checking sickness amongst women, that the working women in this country are given to malingering. Those who live like myself among the working classes, and know the conditions of working-class life and character and of the wives and mothers of the working classes know that the fault is not that they are given to malingering and pretending sickness, but, on the contrary, that they frequently over-work themselves when their physical condition is not equal to it.
    With regard to the financial objection, it is purely a matter of justice. There are several ways as to how the married woman's contribution might be made, either of which could be brought into operation if the married woman was brought within the scope of the Bill. The married woman's contribution, for example, could be deducted along with the husband's in the office of the employer. The contribution of the worker is to be deducted from his wages week by week, and there could

    1199
    be no insuperable difficulty in the way of making a deduction for the wife's contribution as well as for the husband's. If that is not desirable a second course would be open, namely, that the married woman could pay her contribution through an approved society, and therefore there need not be any technical difficulties raised as to the matter of contribution. As for the medical men, I presume their hesitation about seeing women brought into the scheme is purely financial. They know as well and better than any section of the community the great need there is for married women receiving more and better medical attention than they possibly can under existing circumstances. The 30s. alternative benefit is good so far as it goes, but it goes a very little way, and what we desire to see is that the medical benefit, and especially the medical benefit, shall be extended to women, with a certain sickness allowance the same as in the case of industrial women.
    The House of Commons, I am sure, will approach this subject in a sympathetic frame of mind. The relief that is proposed to be given to the breadwinnner under this Bill will, to a certain extent, relieve the pressure which inevitably follows a period of sickness. But that pressure is not felt alone in the time when the breadwinner himself is disabled. When the wife is sick, it is nearly always necessary to pay for outside help which has to be brought in. The married woman requires nursing, the housework requires to be done, young children require to be looked after, and it entails extra expenditure, which the wages of the husband makes it impossible for him to adequately meet. As a result the poor woman suffers, the children suffer, and a great deal of discomfort is added to the life of the husband which might easily be obviated, and therefore by the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill, and by setting the experts to work, to find out what cost it would entail, and having the necessary amendments provided to have married women brought in, you would carry a measure of hope and comfort into the homes of tens of thousands of people all over the land, and in the belief that the House is prepared to approach the subject in a sympathetic frame of mind, I beg leave to move my Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a proposal of a very sweeping and far-reaching character. I am sure the Committee has
    1200
    already gathered its full import. It means not that women should be included, but that women should be compulsorily included; that the wives of all the employed people of the country which comes to something like ten or twelve millions should be compulsorily included in the purview of this Bill. What does that mean? The hon. Member with his usual courage ha3 faced it, and is prepared to carry it through. Somebody has got to pay that contribution. His proposal is that the workman should pay, not 4d. as proposed under the Bill, but that he should pay 8d., that the employer instead of paying 3d. should pay 6d.; that is what it means, unless the State comes to the rescue and finds a few more millions. Every penny of contribution produces £3,000,000; that is the first figure I want to get into the minds of hon. Members of the Committee. This Amendment means you have got to find 6d. for the married woman in addition to the 2d. from the State; that means 8d. altogether, which represents another £24,000,000 of money. If the hon. Gentleman says 6d. is to be divided between the employer and the workman and the other 2d. is to be paid by the State, that means an additional liability to the State of about £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of money.
    Let us take the workman. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that 11,000,000 of workmen in this country—I do not know what proportion are married, if you like make it 9,000,000—is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that that 9,000,000 of working men would be prepared to find 3d. in addition to the 4d. levied upon them? I agree that even then they would be finding less than the workmen in Germany. Then you come to the employer; he would have to find 6d. if married women were included instead of 3d. as the Bill now stands. I also believe that even then the vast number of employers would be only paying about the same amount as in Germany, but I could not accept the responsibility on the part of the State for finding another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 and imposing an additional charge upon the employer of £9,000,000 and upon the workman of another £9,000,000. I think that is much too serious and sweeping a proposition. Some time later on, it may be desired to include the whole of the married women within the purview of the scheme, but there is not the same urgency, for the simple reason that we are making provision now for the workman when ill, and for a time when no money at all is coming into his house. That is not the case when

    1201
    the married woman is ill; I do not say there is not a greater burden upon the household when she is ill. She may have to find a substitute. I am not challenging these propositions, but there is not the same hardship as when the breadwinner is ill, and it is far better that we should see how the provisions which we contemplate under this Bill would work before we embark upon a gigantic scheme such as that outlined by the hon. Member.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Every Member of the Committee who has heard this discussion will feel that the objections to this particular Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised are insuperable. You cannot ask the State at this moment to find an additional £6,000,000, and you cannot ask the employers of married men to double his contribution because the workman has a wife. Just consider the proposition. I do not know whether hon. Members have themselves looked into individual cases to see what the charge upon the employer is going to be under this part of the Bill. I confess I think it is a very serious burden in many cases. The highest figure which has been brought to my notice by a gentleman whom I can absolutely trust, shows that it is going to cost 6s. in the £ on the average profits of the last three years in the case of the particular manufacture in which he is concerned. You cannot ask an employer, in addition to the burdens placed upon him, to take an additional burden, not on behalf of the person he is employing, but on behalf of his dependent. If you did it would have a result which I am sure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil would be among the first to regret. It would cause every employer when taking on a man to ask whether ho was married or single, and he would reject married men in favour of single men. I am sure that would not achieve the object in view. For these reasons it will be quite impossible for me to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment or to alter his decision in regard to it. I think a very uneasy feeling exists largely in this House and very widely outside as to the general treatment of women under the Bill. The scheme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted deals very harshly in my opinion with women. Of course, I accept from the Chancellor of the Exchequer his statement that women, as women, get more in proportion to their contributions than men as men under this Act. That is a state-
    1202
    ment which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Second Reading of this Bill, and it is for the purpose of going into this point that I have asked for the actuarial calculations upon which that statement is based. Accepting it for the moment as being the case, it does not prove that what is taken from women is fairly distributed amongst the women from whom it is taken. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has framed his Bill so that a very large number of women will pay a contribution quite in excess of anything they can receive either as individuals or as a class.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going into the general question. I could not possibly reply to him, and I do not think it is quite fair to introduce it at this stage. I submit that it is out of order and that it should be raised upon another part of the Bill. The point the right hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise can be raised when we arrive at the part of the Bill dealing with that question, and I think it is obviously out of order to raise the general question on an Amendment of this kind.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to involve the Committee in a discussion which can be more conveniently taken later on, and that is not my intention. I do not, however, wish to give the go-by to this Amendment without indicating to what extent I am in agreement with the hon. Member who moved it, as to the class whom he seeks to protect, because I think they ought to have larger benefits than they get under this Bill. I think, however, it is impossible to treat them as the hon. Gentleman proposes to treat them, and I will not elaborate that point. I will merely say that probably the bulk of the wives of insured persons have themselves at one time been employed, and will be at one time insured persons under this Act. They will be insured before marriage; and a few of them may become insured persons in their widowhood; but the great bulk of them would cease to derive any benefit at the time when they are wives because they will be wives of insured persons under this Act. I do not want to say "No" to this Amendment without indicating that more consideration should be given to the class of case which is raised with the intention of making their position rather more favourable than it is at the present time. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that I have not trespassed unduly. I have avoided details, but I do not

    1203
    wish to exclude the possibility of doing something for these women by the rejection of this Amendment.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not support this Amendment because I think it raised too large a question and fixes too heavy a burden on those concerned.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have not discussed the financial position because I understood that would not be in order. The object of this Amendment was to bring married women within the scope of insured persons. The financial provisions to be made is a matter for subsequent discussion, and I purposely did not raise it at this stage because I understood it would not be in order.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I cannot see that it is out of order in view of the points raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment for East Worcestershire. This Amendment would raise too heavy a tax and increase the burden of this Bill too greatly. I want to put to my right hon. Friend that this Amendment does raise the position of married women, and if you do not bring them under the compulsory Clauses provision ought to be made that they will come under the voluntary Clauses. The position of married women should not be lost sight of, although we cannot bring them under the compulsory Clauses at this moment.
    Mr. HILLS: I do not think this Amendment ought to be accepted, because it will throw upon the married man employed and the employer a greater burden. You will either have to take more from the man's wages and the employers or else use the premiums paid by them to insure the married women. I do not think that is a feasible or a fair plan. It is clearly impossible to charge the employer with a premium required to insure the workman's wife. It raises the obvious difficulty that no married man will get employment easily; besides that, it imposes too heavy a burden upon industry. I think the burden on the man's wages is too great. There is another point to which I want to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the present time married women who have been insured before marriage on marriage lose all benefit, and until they come back into industry or lose their husbands they cannot get on the insurance fund again.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that it is a very important point, but it comes on later. As far as possible I think it will be more convenient that we should confine the Debate to the immediate Amendment before the House. I shall really press for that, otherwise there will be much repetition. I can assure the hon. Member that I have got that point in mind, and I think he will find when we come to it that I shall be able to satisfy him. I submit that we should confine ourselves to the particular question raised by the Amendment.
    Mr. HILLS: I think I can show that I am quite in order. Besides the point that you must get premiums from the employer and the employed there is the point that the State may be asked to pay the 2d. for women. Supposing that it was held by the House that married women insured before marriage could not pay premiums after marriage, and that the husbands could not pay the premiums, it is arguable that the State ought still to grant 2d. a week for all married women. That point is included in the Amendment of the hon. Member, and it does not deal with finance at all. The Amendment simply says that the wives of employed persons are to be included in the compulsory insured Clause. It does not say what the amount of the premium is to be, but it simply includes those women in the class that is to be employed. I submit it is perfectly competent to argue that it might be a fair and proper thing for the State to pay the twopence a week for these women. First of all, I want some information about the figures, because I am told that these married women who would be included in this part of the Bill number 6,000,000, and not 9,000,000 or 11,000,000 as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Anyhow, I think the figure will be found to be much smaller than that stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    7.0 P.M.
    As this may be the last occasion upon which we can raise this point, I feel bound to raise it, because it is one that goes to the very basis of the system of the Bill, and also to the very root of the economic position of a man compared to a woman. It is all very well in the case of a man to say you will not insure him unless he earns a wage from which you can take his contribution. The same rule as to work does not apply to women. The work she does is not wage paid, and yet it is work just as valuable to the State as man's work. Why on this account should a man be placed in

    1205
    a preferable position to his wife? A man goes forth to his work and labour, and woman stays at home to mind the home. Each does just as valuable a work for the State, but by this Bill all the advantage is given to the man, and you put the woman into a very inferior position. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a moment of unexpected generosity, was to consider the possibility of granting the twopence a week to all married women who were insured before marriage. He would then find that these women were some 6,000,000 in number, and that the total charge upon the Exchequer would be something like £2,250,000 a year. I agree that that is a very large sum. Assuming that for a moment, how much could you do for this 2d. In the first place you could give a married woman medical benefit for the whole of her life, and you could give her maternity benefit for the whole of her life. You could not give sick pay, but that, perhaps, is not so important in the case of a married woman as in the case of a married man. You could do all the curative and preventive work this Bill is intended to do for 2d. per week, and beyond that you could give institutional and sanatorium treatment, all for your 2d. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to accept a suggestion of that sort, because I suppose he will say it will upset the finance of his Bill, but it is important the Committee should realise how unfair the whole scheme is to women and how unfair all contributory schemes are bound to be to women. It is not the fault of the way the Bill is drawn, and it is not the fault of the Bill itself. All contributory schemes, whether of pensions or of anything else, cannot be fair to women, because their work is not paid by wages, although it is just as valuable to the State. A woman's health is a more important asset to the State than the health of a man. A recent writer has said that a man's life is the income of the State, but a woman's life is the capital of the State. You cannot risk her health without risking a grave national calamity, and for those reasons I do urge this Amendment in some form or other upon the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think some hon. Members who have spoken, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have come to rather hasty conclusions about this Amendment. The assumption
    1206
    is this Amendment means that 3d. must be paid for the woman from her husband's wages, 3d. by the employer of the husband, and 2d. by the State, but hon. Members have surely not forgotten the first words of the Clause, "Subject to the provisions of this Act." Subject to the provisions of this Act, these women shall be insured. All we want to do by this Amendment and all we actually do is to say that women shall be insured. If a married woman is to be insured upon a threepenny basis, we will say so later on. If part of her insurance is to come from the employer of the husband, we can say so later on, and, if part of her insurance is not to come from the employer of her husband, we can say that. As a matter of fact, there are Amendments which will complete the scheme. All we want the Committee to say now is that it is in favour of the compulsory insurance of married women on precisely the same footing as men. That is all. I want to emphasise that, because there is no use in making absurd replies to very reasonable Amendments. The absurd reply was that the married woman, if this Amendment is carried, must be subject to the same provisions as to the contributions of the employer, the husband, and the State as the husband. That is not involved in the Amendment at all. The right hon. Gentleman is compelling a very considerable number of people to insure who are already insured in friendly societies and trades unions; and if he is going to claim one-tenth of the benefits for his scheme he has claimed he has got to make it a little more liberal than it is. It is simply absurd to go away and say a scheme is at all satisfactory which deals with married men only and not with their wives.
    My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. W. Hills) stated that a contributory scheme must be unjust to women. I think it is unnecessary for a contributory scheme to be unjust to women. A woman's value to the State can be appraised, and the benefits under a compulsory scheme can be made as definite and as fair to women as to men. I want the Committee to remember what the Amendment is. It simply says the wives of people who must be insured under this Bill ought also to Be insured. If the Committee is not prepared to do that, let it understand right away from the beginning that it is going to cut out great benefits from the family point of view, apart from the individual point of view, which this Bill can easily secure. We will deal with the payments and with

    1207
    the benefits when the time comes, and we will also deal with the responsibility of the State when the time comes. Those questions can be solved, and can be met by Amendments on the Paper. All we want the Committee now to say is that in its mind and intention married women must be included as well as married men.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must reply to what has fallen from my hon. Friend. He attacks me because I put an interpretation upon this Amendment which was put upon it by the mover himself. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) suggested increasing the workman's contribution and the employer's contribution, and I inferred that the rest was to come from the State. All I said was that if that was the interpretation placed upon the Amendment it would cost £24,000,000 or £25,000,000. The hon. Gentleman says it will not cost quite as much, but if you bring it down to £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 somebody has got to find the money, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said he would find it by increasing the contribution of the workman, the contribution of the employer of the workman, and the contribution of the State. I say that is a responsibility the Committee ought not to undertake at this stage. That is all I have said. There is one other statement made by my hon. Friend for which he has no warrant, and I think it is rather important it should be pointed out. He says there is no provision in the Bill, unless the Amendment is carried at this stage, for the family. That is not correct, and he cannot have read the Bill if he says so. There is a provision that the surplus may be applied by the societies for the purpose of providing medical attendance for the family. That will be a sum of £2,000,000 within the first three years, and within 15i years it will be a sum of £8,000.000 or £9,000,000. If will be quite possible for the societies with that £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 at their disposal to use it for the purpose of medical treatment and sanatorium treatment of married women. There is, therefore, some provision in the Bill. My hon. Friend may say it is not adequate and does not come up to his ideal of what ought to be done, but it is not correct to say there is not provision. After all, £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 is a very considerable provision for anything in any Bill.
    There is only one other word I want to Bay, and it is in reply to the hon. Member
    1208
    for Durham (Mr. Hills). I hope he does not think I imagine he wants to waste the time of the Committee. He is a genuine social reformer, and always speaks with knowledge on these subjects. He says there are only 6,000,000 married women to come under this Clause. I am not prepared at the moment to challenge his figure and I will accept it for the moment. That would involve £2,600,000 a year from the State, and that is equivalent to an additional penny on the Income Tax. I think it would be a great responsibility to ask the Committee to undertake that, and for my part I shall be called upon at this stage to resist it. There is not really the same urgent demand or reason, as I have pointed out, for insuring a married woman as long as she has a husband employed. The point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) is a point by itself. You must have some benefit, and the cheapest you can get is sanatoria, which would come to one-third of a penny. Nobody proposes to confine it to that, and it would cost 2d. at the very least.
    Mr. DICKINSON: May I ask your ruling on a point of Order? The proposal is to insert the words "and the wives of such persons," so that if those words were inserted it would read "all persons who are employed and the wives of such persons shall be insured." If we reject those words and decline to insert them, will it be competent for us to put in other Amendments which will give benefits to married women under any circumstances?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, of course, means in the Benefit Clause, Clause 8. The rejection of these words would not, I think, interfere with the Committee in reference to the Amendment of Clause 8. This is a wider question. This is to bring women in. as compulsorily insured, and I should not, therefore, treat the decision on this question as excluding them from further benefits under Clause 8.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Clause 8, I think, relates exclusively to benefits, and I submit it would be out of order, under Clause 8, to indicate, in any form, either the amount or the nature of the contribution that will have to be paid. Surely, if we are to raise the question in some subsequent place in the Bill, we should do it where we could arrange for the contribution as well as the benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point of Order. May I submit that if the contribu-

    1209
    tion is to be compulsory then it has to be disposed of at this point. But that does not preclude any one at a later stage suggesting that married women should come in as voluntary contributors. That comes in Sub-section (3), and even if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is defeated at this stage, it will be quite competent for any one on Sub-section (3) to move that married women shall be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors.
    The CHAIRMAN: In answer to the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division of Kent, I would point out that in Clause 8 there is a paragraph which, as the hon. Member very well knows, gives the maternity benefit to the wife of an insured person, and, therefore, although it may be impossible for me to tie myself on a point like this, I do not say, having regard to what is already in Clause 8, it will be impossible to propose other benefits for the wife of an insured person. In reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who asked me about the voluntary contributors in Sub-section (3), I was proposing in regard to Amendments to the Sub-section to deal with them in Clause 34. If I find any reason to alter that opinion, I shall allow some Amendment of Sub-section (3) to be proposed in order to raise a case in regard to women, if there is any case to be raised.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point I want to raise is, whether, in the event of the Amendment being defeated, it would preclude proposals for bringing married women within the scope of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: As there is already a benefit to the wife of an insured person, I do not think that would follow.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: However great the measure of our sympathy with the workman's wife, whose lot is generally hard and bitter, I submit that this is a very crude Amendment, which can hardly have been fully considered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. If it means anything it implies a fresh contribution from the employer. What claim has the workman's wife upon her husband's employer? She is not employed by him, and you will be putting an impossible burden on British trade. It is all very well to talk in percentages, but when it is worked out in £ s. d. it seems a very great change to take 8s., as will be done under the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr
    1210
    Tydvil, out of every pound of profit made in certain trades. You are not only dealing with the case of great companies that have large resources, but there are many cases in the East End of London where the employer, employing thirty, forty, or fifty men, himself does not make more than £2 or £3 per week profit, and you are proposing to impose on that man an added burden of a contribution, because this Amendment must mean a contribution by the employer for the man's wife as well as for himself. When you have figured that out, it amounts to 25 per cent. of the profit he is making, and I say that it is an unfair and impossible burden to put on British industry. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite can have worked out these figures. They cannot have realised what the added burden would mean to the smaller employer. I quite admit it is very difficult in this great question to argue closely, because so much of the land is so wholely unknown. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave airily the figure of 10,000,000 as the number of married workmen in this country, though he has since modified that. I do not think he had any statistics in his possession, and it was more or less a guess, but it shows the difficulty, the very great difficulty, we are in in arguing many of the points that will arise.
    Everybody will admit, of course, that if we can benefit women who are not at present insured in any way, and who do not come into friendly societies, except in so few instances as to make no matter, it would be a great advantage. But I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it does seem very hard, and I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, it is hard that a woman who has been working and paying contributions and then marries should get no return in money in many cases for what she has given by way of contributions. She may be happy in her married life and may —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—I am not sure whether this is in order, but it is only so far relevant because it has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) as arising out of Clause 8. When we come to consider that further, if the maternity benefits can be increased in the case of those who have made contributions, it would meet much of the hardship that has been pointed out and which has given ground for the Amendment. The Amendment, as it stands, would set up a principle absolutely unjust in itself, that is the demand from

    1211
    the employer of a contribution for the wife of the man he employs, who has no real claim on him, and, if it were granted, it would mean an added burden, which it would be not only unjust to impose, but which would be found in practice most harmful to the whole conditions under which men work in this country.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I should not have intervened again but for a fear that the vote on this Amendment may be taken on a false issue. Everyone has assumed, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if this Amendment be carried the financial conditions applying to married women must necessarily be the same as those applying to men. But that is not necessarily so. No one on these benches has said it is so. The hon. Member for Stepney has spoken of the great harm that might accrue, and has told us that the small employer earning only £3 a week for himself would suffer seriously. But suppose a certain employer of, say, thirty workmen has to pay 2d. per week in respect of each one, it only amounts to 5s. out of the £3, and that surely is not a very embarrassing sum in view of the benefits which are secured. The point of the Amendment is this, if this Amendment is not carried women are thereby excluded from the class of persons who are to be compulsorily insured under this Bill. I am, of course, referring to married women. The Committee is asked by the Bill to again treat married women as inferior creatures. If the women had a vote the same as the men have the Government would not dare to treat them in this way. No such Bill as this would be brought in. The object of the Amendment is to bring married women within the class of those who are to be compulsorily insured under the Bill. The terms of that insurance and the benefits to be provided under it are all points for subsequent discussion, but, by passing this Amendment now, you bring married women fully and completely within the scope of the Bill, and then you proceed to make what provisions you think fit, both in the matter of contributions and of benefits. If this Amendment is rejected, it means that at no subsequent stage of the Bill can married women be brought in under the compulsory Clauses. I shall, therefore, press this Motion to a Division, and I hope hon. Members will not vote against the Amendment on a side issue. Let them bear in mind that the real issue is: Are married women to be
    1212
    brought inside this scheme so as to secure all the benefits which the Bill is supposed to confer?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly understood, as also apparently did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman proposed, as his method for carrying out his Amendment and making it effective, that the employer should pay a contribution on account of the wife as well as on account of the workman himself.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: No, I simply used that as an illustration of how it might be done.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course I accept the statement of the hon. Member that he intended it nothing more than as an illustration of one way in which the employer of a married man might be made to pay a double contribution because the man was married. The man himself is also to be called upon to pay a double contribution because he is married, and I put it that that is the only way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested the Amendment could be given effect to. To that I think the objections taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members are well founded. The hon. Member says if you do not like that plan, which was only put forward as an illustration, other plans are open, and I believe the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said he and his Friends had prepared a series of Amendments which indicates other plans. If hon. Members want us to vote in favour of their Amendment, I think they must take the Committee a little more into their confidence. The only plan which has yet been suggested is one which puts an enormous additional burden on the State, and on the employer of a married man, as well as a double tax on the married man himself. That is far too serious a proposition for me to assent to now, and, unless hon. Gentlemen can show that they have a practicable scheme by which their plan can be carried out, it is quite impossible for me to vote blindly for a proposal of this kind; the only interpretation which I can place upon it being the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman states he threw out as an illustration. The case of married women is one of great difficulty. They are hardly dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. But I draw the distinction drawn also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think accepted by the hon.

    1213
    Member for Durham, between the position of the wife and of the husband, in regard to this matter. It is the business of the husband to provide for the needs of the household. We force him to insure because he may be struck down, and in that case the whole means of the household may be suspended. But as long as he is strong and hearty it is his duty to provide for the needs of his wife as well as for his own needs. If the wife is struck down the revenues of the house do not cease; if the man is struck down the income of the house comes to an end. That, and not any desire to place women in an inferior position, is the reason for the distinction which is embodied in the Bill. I cannot vote for an Amendment of this kind so long as the only illustration of how it would work is the one given us by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie).
    Mr. AMERY: May I ask if the Amendment is defeated will it still be possible at a later stage to move an Amendment compelling married women to contribute say a penny, together with a State contribution for limited benefits?
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon Member to hand in an Amendment and let me see it. I cannot answer a question of that kind.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I am only too anxious to obtain the full benefits of the Bill for married women, but I cannot support a
    proposal at the last moment to put it forward in this form. It will be possible, I believe, in the later stages of the Bill to obtain, if not full benefits, at any rate partial benefits for married women, and even if you do not put them in the compulsory class we may nevertheless at a later stage be able to get what we want for them in the shape of medical attendance and other things. But I feel that this Amendment is one that even I cannot vote for and a large number of Members who are anxious to obtain benefits for married women will not be able to vote for. I should like the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment and co-operate with us to try and get these advantages at a later stage, in which case we shall have the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I also appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. His position is quite untenable. The women can insure themselves if they want to, but the Amendment would force them to insure even if they did not want to. That is most undemocratic. My complaint about the Bill is that it is forcing a great many people to injure who do not wish to. There will be trouble if men's wages are docked, and we surely do not want to have all the women of the country as well in revolt.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 244.

    Division No. 256.]

    AYES.

    [7.35 P.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hills, John Waller

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hodge, John

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Johnson, W.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Jones, Left Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmok

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Wadsworth, John

    Crooks, William

    Lansbury, George

    Walker, Colonel William Halt

    Doughty, Sir George

    Logan, John William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanct., Ince)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Wardie, George J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pointer, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanten)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barton, W.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Alden, Percy

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Beale, William Phipson

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Beck, Arthur

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cameron, Robert

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cave, George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Dowd, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Clough, William

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hughes, Spence- Leigh

    O'Shee, James John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Joyce, Michael

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Keating, Matthew

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    Delany, William

    Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Doris, William

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Falconer, James

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A, (S. Geo. Han. S)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    French, Peter

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Maclean, Donald

    Smyth, Thomas-F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Manfield, Harry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Meagher, Michael

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Grant, J. A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

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

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Webb, H.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Hackett, John

    Moore, William

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Morgan George Hay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L (Rossendale)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Munro, Robert

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

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

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harwood, George

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Hayward, Evan

    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "shall" ["this part of the Act shall be"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
    On the Second Reading of the Bill we had a great number of speeches from Members on the Front Bench. I listened to no fewer than five, but in not one of them
    1216
    did I hear a word of justification for what, after all, is the fundamental principle of the Bill, that is, the compulsory nature of it, the fact that you are not merely saying, "We will give you an incentive to thrift," but "We will make you thrifty whether you like it or not." However much the Conservative party may justify and slur over this question of compulsion, I think

    1217
    on these benches we should have some justification for this great departure from Liberal traditions. What is the predominant feature about the Bill? It is that you say to every working man fourpence a week shall be deducted from his wages. It is a compulsory poll tax, and before it is carried into law we ought to know what are the very strong grounds which move a Liberal Government to make this change. The Bill as it stands is compulsory thrift — the compulsory thrift of the lower classes decreed by the upper classes. I want to know as a Liberal by what right you can say to the healthy man "you must pay for the sick and debilitated man." I perfectly agree that it might be right that he should do so, but I want to know by what right you make him do it whether he is willing or not. This is a matter which affects not only myself, but a large number of Liberals on these benches. We on this side of the House are opposed to compulsory service in the Army. It is quite true that it is a very desirable thing that working men should be prepared to defend themselves against their enemies, though possibly we might have different views as to who their real enemies were and as to the direction in which their muskets should go off. It is desirable that the working classes should be temperate, but we have not yet said that it is a crime for the lower classes to drink. We are practically agreed that it is not right for the lower classes to be immoral, but we have not yet taken steps to prevent them from being immoral. We all know perfectly well that it is good for people to be thrifty, moral and sober, but that is a very different thing from passing an Act of Parliament to compel them to be any of these things. As an old Liberal I think we should have from the Government some justification of this change in Liberal policy.
    The advantages of compulsory thrift we have been told about by hon. Members on the other side. Thrift among the working classes is always the ideal of the well-intentioned employer. If a workman becomes sick he often becomes a burden on the rates, and his desolate home affords a very afflicting spectacle for those who are engaged in building up in factory and counting-house this civilisation of which we are so proud. The success of this measure will make it infinitely more convenient to manage the working classes. It should make them more tract-Able and contented.
    1218
    It is not only the compulsory contribution we object to. It is the compulsory inspection, medical attendance, espionage, inspection by your doctors, friendly society visitors and the collecting societies' inspectors. I am not so opposed to the second part of the Bill as to the first. We shall find the second part the finest part of the Bill if it becomes law. It deals with the assistance to trade unions who provide an out-of-work fund or benefits. It is the Ghent system that is provided for in the second part of the Bill, so that the second part, as to insurance against unemployment, does not sin against the old Liberal tradition so much as the first part. I want the House to consider whether it is necessary to make this thrift compulsory or not. Up to now we have got along with friendly societies alone. Men who wanted to be thrifty could be thrifty through our friendly societies. Now you jump a stage and say: "We will make them thrifty, whether they want it or not." You pass over the intermediate stage of encouraging a man who is thrifty to come for a State subsidy without compulsion. In spite of the almost universal acclaim with which this measure was first greeted in the Press I am inclined to think, from the point of view of the working classes of this country that some system of assisted thrift would have been a great deal better than a system of making people have deductions from their wages when they do not want to.
    One thing strikes me about the Bill, namely, that as certainly as free education followed compulsory education, so certainly will free thrift follow this compulsory thrift, and you will, sooner or later, get all your contributions from the State instead of from this oppressive poll tax from the individual. This is only a halting and half-way house on the road to the logical conclusion. You are dealing, as far as you can in this Bill, on benevolent and, more or less, harmless lines with the worst suffering of the working classes. It is a nice, kindly measure. When it passes no one will be able to say that the masters of England are not very kind to their workers. Nor, after the way it has been received by the Labour party, can-it be said that the workers are not very responsive to this kind treatment. The Bill has all this to be said for it. But at the same time I do not think there is the same enthusiasm for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as when he introduced the Budget of 1909–10

    1219
    "Punch" the other day gave us a cartoon —a lamentably true cartoon—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It portrayed him called before the curtain at the end of the play—I think it must have been the end of the first act—and he is receiving bouquets not only from his old friends of the gallery but from the occupants of the stalls as well. I do not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much when he is receiving bouquets from the stalls as when he is receiving them from the gallery. It may be due to my imagination, but I cannot help thinking that the applause and bouquets from the gallery are not quite so profuse as they were two years ago.
    The fact of the matter is that compulsory insurance for the working classes and the lower classes is a very nice comfortable thing for the upper classes. The working classes are, of course, to them a great deal of a nuisance and trouble when they become sick. It will be much better when they are all properly groomed, stalled, and looked after under this scheme. But I want to know whether they will be as free then as they are now. Probably the bulk of the working classes do prefer a little bit of comfort. I am certain that the moving spirits of the working people do not merely want the people to be comfortable and better groomed and looked after. The leaders in the working class movement who are making the future do not desire merely the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but they want above all justice and freedom. And they know perfectly well that the contributions made by the State, the employers, and the workers themselves come from the labour of the workers through the wealth they produce, and that at present they do not get what they rightly consider their fair share. Among the working classes of this country there is a feeling of unrest at the present day. They know that they are being robbed at present, and that they are getting a little bit back by some of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxes. But this 4d. a week which working men are going to pay under this Bill does not mean getting a little bit back. It is taking a little bit from them. At present they have not to pay. When they do have to pay I think the pressure on this Parliament, or a succeeding Parliament, will be so great that though you refuse now you will be compelled in future to couple compulsory thrift with a revenue derived from general taxation and not from a poll tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought that if the Second Reading of the Bill settled any principle in the Bill it was the principle of compulsion.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was not allowed to speak.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think anybody would be allowed to speak against the principle of compulsion.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: May I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a point of the statement that compulsion is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. I think compulsion was accepted in all quarters of the House except by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and his coadjutor (Mr. Bridgeman) sitting opposite, and who is now in a position of less freedom and greater responsibility than he was in at that time. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I congratulate him on the position to which he has been appointed. It may be due to superior intelligence or superior independence, but at any rate very few members in this House took the view that a compulsory system should not be introduced. I think all parties in the State are in favour of compulsion. I do not say they are in favour of the particulars of this Bill. That is not my contention. If my hon. Friend was opposed to the principle of compulsion, he certainly ought to have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I said "No" when the Motion was put.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman had the courage to say "No," but without sufficient emphasis to enable anybody in the House to hear him except one or two hon. Friends who sat near him. I challenge this proposition altogether with regard to compulsion. The hon. Member says we are imposing compulsion for the benefit of the working classes for the first time. I would remind him that we are compelling them to educate their children whether they like it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is free."] That is a totally different question. It is not a question whether education is free. The point I am putting to the Committee is that it is compulsory. The question of compulsion is a totally different matter, and we are now dealing with the question of compulsion. My hon. Friend says that the cost of the

    1221
    scheme should be put on the State. That is an observation which would be perfectly relevant to an Amendment of that kind. We have had compulsion for twenty or thirty years. Before free education came in the working classes contributed compulsorily to a scheme of education, and that was accepted by both parties in the State. It was initialed by the Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I think it was in 1887 that we first introduced the principle of compulsory education. Very well; I am not departing, as the hon. Member seems to imagine, from the principles of the Liberal party. Let me deal with another point. You have got compulsory health provisions for the working classes. You are compelling them to conform to the rules of health. They cannot even keep their pigs within a certain number of feet of their habitations. My Friend has referred to some remarks which were made four or five years ago. Well, with reference to the Public Health, that Bill I think was introduced by the party opposite, and became the Public Health Act of 1875. The Liberal party introduced compulsory education for the working classes, and the party opposite, with the consent and support of the Liberal party, enacted the first of the public health provisions which are now part of our legislation. Therefore I think it is rather late in the day to urge now that we ought not to compel workmen to do anything they do not like to do, whether it benefits them 1o do it or not. These educational pro-visions, at any rate, my hon. Friends have never challenged, nor have they challenged the many extensions of the Public Health Acts, which in many respects are compulsory. These critics are really not consistent. I know that to impute inconsistency to my hon. Friend is to go to his heart, and I am sorry to say that nothing but compulsion would really ever have induced me to do it. But he has imposed that compulsion upon me by his speech. He said he did not mind the second part of the Bill, but surely the second part is just as compulsory as the first part? It is a scheme to provide against unemployment, and the bulk of it is compulsory. It compels 2,500,000 workmen compulsorily to insure against unemployment and to make contributions for that purpose. He says I do not mind that, because, after all, it is only a small sin. That is the old story. Surely he is a man of principle, and if he really says he does not mind the (second part, which is just as much an out-
    1222
    rage upon the purity of his principles as the first part is, what does it amount to? I compel 2,500,000 to sin and he thinks it is a good thing, but I compel 15,000,000 in the same way and that is really a monstrous thing to do. That is the notion ho has of principle.
    Let me take up another point. My hon. Friend asks will there be more freedom under this Bill? This Bill places at the disposal of the working classes fifteen millions of money which is raised outside the working classes and which they will administer themselves. That is a principle of self-government. The whole of these funds are to be administered by the workmen themselves. All we say is that we shall see that the money is spent upon the purposes for which it was raised. But they have a complete system of self-government, and I say that even from the point of view of freedom it is one of the greatest boons to the working classes. For the first time in the history of this country we shall organise as a whole the working classes for the purpose of administering their own affairs. I think those who specially represent the working classes have not yet quite appreciated the full magnitude of that from their point of view. They administer these funds in their own societies, and so far from that being detrimental to freedom, we have organised them for the first time, and I think it is a very significant fact when you come to consider the effect upon liberty in future among the working classes. Take another point. How will they look at it in the future. Will they like it any better? I think they will like it much better in future than they do now. I do not think that for the moment they have quite appreciated the full benefits of what is being conferred upon them. They are doing so gradually, and will continue to do so. That is the experience of Germany. At first in Germany both workmen and employers were suspicious. But what has happened now? In a few years we find that not even the wildest Socialists, who were its opponents at first, are now opposed to it.
    Mr. BOOTH: Oh, yes they are.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. He will find men exactly of his own type even in Germany. He is not quite so eccentric as he thinks. There are in other countries men of the same type, and of the same upright principles, so long as they are not departed from, beyond two and a-half millions.

    1223
    What is there to be seen in Germany? You have, of course, got the Socialists, who said that this was an interference with the liberty of the working classes. They said exactly the same sort of thing as my hon. Friend does, and used the same sort of argument.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: They are coming round.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has used that argument about both political parties here. He said I was going to compel the working men. The Socialists said exactly the same thing in Germany, but to-day there is not a Socialist leader in Germany who proposes to repeal the insurance law. There are many Socialists there who would be very glad to get the same measure of freedom for the working classes as we are conferring in this Bill. There are many who would like to see five or six millions contributed by the State and the same comparatively small amount of contributions by the working classes. They would like to see a scheme with all these advantages to the working classes, instead of doing so much, as they are in Germany, on small wages with the assistance of the employers' contributions. They are perfectly unanimous there in their determination to maintain the existing scheme on something the same lines.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend says "No," but did he ever hear of a responsible Socialist leader in Germany who proposed to abolish the insurance law. I met many Socialists there, and met some of the great employers of labour there. I asked them what was their suggestion, and they replied that their suggestion was to increase the benefits. The Socialists are no exception.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It must have been Mr. Bernstein that said that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He said the same thing.
    Mr. BOOTH: Mr. Bernstein is not a Socialist.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Now that he discovers he never said so, we must get somebody else. I did meet the very gentleman he mentions. He was almost the first man I saw in Berlin, and he was a strong supporter of the insurance scheme,
    1224
    although he would like more self-government for the workmen. I say there is no responsible leader in the whole of Germany who would propose to abolish the insurance scheme, and the same thing applies to unemployment.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If he could name any responsible employer of labour —I do not say he might not get one employer here and there—but if he could name any great employers or combination of employers who has demanded the repeal of the insurance law he might justify that. All I can say is that it is very remarkable that the attention of those whom I employed to go into this matter very carefully did not discover them. I never heard of them and I ask him to name to me now any combination of employers who demanded the repeal of this law. They have asked for larger representation on the body that holds the money, and are prepared if they can get that to increase their subscription in order to do it. But no responsible body of employers have ever asked for repeal of the law. So far from a scheme of this kind being more unpopular as experience develops, I think he will find it will have a growing popularity. The moment the working classes begin to see that gigantic improvement in their condition effected by it, and by the distribution of twenty-two, twenty-three, or twenty-four millions of money for the purpose of relieving distress, sickness, and unemployment; when they see the incalculable difference it will make in millions of the households of this country, that sort of experience will begin to tell as they begin to realise what it means. When that takes place there will be many people who will be very much concerned to point out that they did not oppose the Rill, although they adopt a somewhat hostile attitude at the present moment. They will be far more concerned then to quote passages from what they said in favour of it than their passages of criticisms or opposition.
    One other word upon a final point. My hon. Friend said, "why do not you encourage existing institutions by giving them more money?" The only result will be to give money to those members of the working classes who least need it. If you give that money to voluntary institutions it will help the people who can now afford to go into these voluntary institutions. These are the people you would give the money to. They are not the people who

    1225
    stand most in need of it, and we want to help those who do stand in need of it. And the experience of Germany shows that nothing short of a compulsory scheme will effect that purpose. That is the reason why I am in favour of compulsion.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to refer to me, I feel bound to say that I adhere entirely to the position I took up when I put down this Amendment. I have not yet been converted to compulsion, and I am afraid that nothing I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman has made me more inclined to be. He says his Bill will grow in popularity. If so, what is the necessity for compulsion at all. If every one sees it is the right thing to do—as I have no doubt it is—there is no need for this compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman accused Members opposite of inconsistency and quoted from the experience of Germany. Is it quite fair to charge hon. Gentlemen opposite with inconsistency? I remember a speech made in this House only three years ago discussing the Old Age Pensions question and the German system. That speech said:—
    "The German system … could not be transplanted here for one simple and sufficient reason, that it is founded on the two pillars of inquisition and compulsion. Whatever the hon. Member for Preston may think, you cannot brigade the industry of this country, you cannot, if you would, set up and work here the complicated and irritating machinery by which in Germany the necessary funds for a provision against sickness and old age are extracted from the profits both of employers and employed."
    Who is inconsistent? That is the speech of the Prime Minister, and I should like to know whether it is quite fair that a charge of inconsistency upon this point should be brought from those Benches against those who still adhere to the principles of liberty in the matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: It was not my intention to raise this point again, because I think I was the one hon. Member who on the Second Reading made plain to the House what his views were. I was delighted to hear that hon. Members on my own side below the Gangway, if they had not been closured out, would have supported me in my plea. I did make some of these points on the Second Reading. What I said then I say now, that a voluntary scheme would be better even if we wished for a compulsory scheme to come later. I think it would be better to have a voluntary scheme in operation for some years, and then if we were satisfied we could extend it, and we should have had data
    1226
    accumulating for two or three years under the voluntary scheme which would have been most valuable in framing a compulsory scheme. I am entirely in sympathy with those who consider that the introduction of compulsion into the Bill is a departure from historic Liberal principles. I have no doubt that my friend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) is perfectly prepared to admit that in a passage-at-arms the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to come out well in debate, but that does not at all remove the contention which is made that we are departing from the old line. I was brought up in the Liberal school, as was my predecessor in Pontefract, Hugh Childers; and as were Gladstone, Bright, and Charles Bradlaugh. These were the great men who led the Liberal party in my youth, and I say quite frankly that we are departing from that position, and that the House did so when reading the Bill a second time. I made my protest then, and found that I was out of touch with the House and with my own party, as I freely admit. Therefore I am not going to persist as an obstructionist. That is why if this goes to a Vote I cannot vote for it.
    I would like to say a word in regard to the compulsory principle in Germany. I am one of those who are disposed to turn away with scorn and disgust when they hear of anything being brought from Germany in the way of ideas. Their higher criticism and their power of analysis in many things do them credit; but the House should recognise once for all that we cannot allow it to be laid down that Germany is a pioneer on this subject. We are the pioneers on the subject of insurance, and Germany follows a long way behind. They would be delighted in Germany if they could show the huge insurance and thrift organisations which we can show. I am not, therefore, prepared to adopt a thing simply because it is in existence in Germany. In Germany the important thing for the employer and the employed is the tariff. The employers are prepared to give to the German scheme a benediction and to give their money freely if they are only allowed to have taxes imposed upon what they produce. The cost of insurance is a trifling matter to them in comparison with the tariff being raised to suit their purposes. Insurance there is founded upon conscription and protection. I do not say a word with regard to conscription, but I cannot see how you can carry out this compulsory

    1227
    power as it is now in this Clause without some provisioan for identification. We have had no explanation how there is to be any identification of people covered by the Bill or people who are paid the benefits. It is all very well, presuming that these people are compulsorily brought into the scheme. They are not. They are compulsorily sent to the Post Office. The only thing you are sure about with regard to men being compulsorily brought into the scheme is that they are sent to the Post Office. There has been no undertaking given by the friendly societies to receive them, and the old men, the lame, the halt, and the blind, will not be able to get into the friendly societies.
    Therefore those for whom this appeal is made will be compulsorily brought into the Post Office scheme. That is not an insurance scheme at all. A great deal probably will be said on that when that Clause comes on later. Now I wish to ask what are the means of identification? I put a question on the Notice Paper with regard to this point. I cannot see how you can work a compulsory scheme without this system of identification. In Germany they manage it under the conscription law. In the police dossier they have got everybody particularised, and they can trace them. Here you introduce an element of compulsion, and you do not provide any machinery to carry it out. I ask what would happen in a Chelsea flat if the good lady locks the door with her servant girl, and says, "Nobody will know you are here?" The Bill says that this servant girl shall be insured. What is your machinery for bringing it about? In Germany they manage it all right, because of the system which enables them, not merely to identify a claimant for benefit, but also enables them to collect all the contributions. A policeman knocks at the door, and says, "You have got Mary Jones there. She is of such an age and was born at such a place. Show mo her insurance card." That is done by the police. In that way your compulsion becomes effective. But it has never been explained to me how this is to be done here, and it is a point which seems to me to be a great difficulty in the Bill. Most of the other things I think we can make workable, but I have great difficulty on this point of compulsion and identification. I do not see any machinery for entering the flat and being quite sure that the premium is paid.
    1228
    Again, if the premium is paid I am certain that the servant girl would be in the Post Office section.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I have allowed the hon. Member to make a reference to the machinery. I must not allow him to go too far as other hon. Members will want to follow him. This Clause only deals with the persons who are to be insured. We will come to the methods later on.
    Mr. BOOTH: I must bow to the ruling of the Chair, but at the same time I know that it is quite within the ability of the Chair to prevent me getting this point later. We have not always the same occupant in the Chair and another gentleman who is just as strict may come again. I cannot give my reasons why I dislike this Clause and why I think that the element of compulsion is imperfect. Without introducing that, I am in a difficulty, but I hope with the little latitude which you gave me that I have made clear to the House that the principle of compulsion, which I am afraid we must accept, is foreign to all Liberal traditions. Gladstone, Cobden, and Bright would not have adopted it, but we must accept it. Some may say that we must progress with the times; others may say that we must join in reaction with the times. However, we have passed the Second Reading and I cannot be a party to re-opening eternally what we then decided. But in beginning our consideration of the Bill, if we put this element of compulsion in I want to point out the things that must follow. I do not want the House to decide on this principle of compulsion without warning them of the other things that must come in later in carrying out the work. That is why I mention the point of identification and police visitation of the people's houses. To my mind that will invariably follow, and that is one reason why I warn the House of the great importance of the effects of compulsion coming into the scheme at this particular point.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: We have listened to a very remarkable speech from an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway. But what is the common-sense view of this question? To understand it the hon. Member would want to be in touch with the working people of the country. What is in fact the unanimous wish of the working classes with respect to this Bill? Practically the unanimous feeling of the working classes is in favour of compul-

    1229
    sion. That is, after all, the main point upon which the Committee has to direct its attention. That has been the wish of the working class in years past, those who made great sacrifices, who contributed to friendly societies, who may have devoted all their spare time in many cases to helping the poorer men, the poorer men who gave no time themselves to carrying out this work of friendly societies which the better-off members have carried out free of cost, in many cases, for them. There may be exceptions. There are always a certain number of scallywags who will contribute nothing. Their great object is to get something for nothing, and the object of compulsion is to prevent their spending at the week-end in the public house money which should go to their wives and families. There are men who draw their money on Friday night and spend half of it before they get home, and that is that class of men to whom you ask the Government to give exemption. You are not going to compel these men to take home to their wives and children at the week-end the money which is necessary for them to carry on their home.
    The hon. Member talked about Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden. May I ask whether they would have been in favour of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does the hon. Member above the Gangway (Mr. Booth) say that the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been approved by Mr. Gladstone? Why it was entirely contrary to the doctrine preached by him—entirely different from his methods of finance. We have to march with the times, so far as this matter is concerned. No one knows that better than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who supported the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at all events in connection with the land Clauses. We have to accept the position as it arises from year to year, and the methods of Mr. Gladstone are now wholly out of touch with what the people of the country desire. So far as compulsion goes—and I am speaking for a large industrial constituency—the overwhelming majority of all thinking men welcome this measure as a step to help them forward. So far from rejecting compulsion they accept it, and I ask the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to pay the slightest attention to a class of men who do not fulfil their obligations to their families, but in many ways fall short of their duty.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have heard a conflicting exposition of Liberal doctrine on this side of the House, and I do not propose to introduce a fresh variety. I merely wish to refer to one or two statements which have been made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who takes upon himself to speak for the vast mass of the working people of this country, and says they are unanimously in favour of the principle of compulsion. I think he would be quite right in saying that the vast majority are in favour of the principle of insurance, but it is altogether an unsafe conclusion to assume that they are in favour of the compulsory principle. I am merely judging from what little experience I have been able to obtain since the introduction of this Bill. Undoubtedly in the two General Elections when this insurance question was discussed, there was very little said about the principle of compulsion. What was said was about insurance alone, and that undoubtedly appealed to the vast mass of the workpeople of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as usual, has scored off my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Of course, it is easy to convict my hon. Friend of inconsistency, particularly in the present case; I do not think you can convict the hon. Gentleman of inconsistency as to the main point in his argument. We may assume that it is a part of the Liberal principle that compulsion should not be adopted except in case of strong and overwhelming necessity. We believe that education is such a case. It is true that when compulsory education was introduced, it was on a contributory basis. Cobden sixty years ago preached free universal education.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There was what is known as the unauthorised Liberal programme.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I would be the last to deny all the right hon. Gentleman did for free education. At the same time I think that all those who claim to be Liberals in the strict sense, apart from the old-fashioned Whigs — for after all it was largely a Whig Government that introduced the Education Act of 1870—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Gladstone's Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was Mr. Gladstone's Government, but it was largely a Whig Government in which the territorial element predominated. It was only since

    1231
    1886 that the Liberal party has been emancipated. The principle that I was laying down was that unless in cases of overwhelming necessity you have no right to introduce compulsion. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made out a special case in reference to this Bill? We say he has not. We think the voluntary system would meet the situation. We put it in the form of a dilemma: If you are going to have a compulsory scheme you cannot have it contributory, and if you are going to have a contributory scheme it ought to be voluntary. I say the voluntary principle meets the situation. At the present time many men are being forced into this Bill who do not need it. There are many men with whom it is a term of their employment that they obtain sick pay. These men are being forced into the Bill. We hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make sonic exceptions, and there is a statement in "The Times" of to-day that there are to be certain exemptions made. If that is so, then get rid of compulsion. In reference to the scallywags, to whom my hon. Friend referred, you can have compulsion put upon them, because the State is to enable men to get benefit, and, if they do not take it, they must fall back upon the Poor Law. That is indirect compulsion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member suggests that whenever a man elects to come under the scheme, we also compel his employer to pay 3d.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is an assumption that the right hon. Gentleman has no warrant to make for anything I have said. I am dealing with the general principle, and I am not dealing with the proposal before us. I think there are a great many objections to contributions by the employers. The system is very hard upon a man in whose industry the cost of production is large in proportion to profit. That is a question which has got to be met. The smaller employers of the country are not well organised, and have not been able to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his room like the large employers, who can either reduce the wages or put the contribution on the cost of the article, and they do not mind it at all. The small employers are very much concerned about this matter, which I would not have mentioned had not the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. This compulsory system is based upon the assumption that
    1232
    all the working classes are in a condition to receive it, but the status of the many is such that they have no means of organising, and no means of emerging from it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am opposed to the Amendment, and will vote against it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am not going to divide.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Then why propose your Amendment; which is, as I understand it, to enable a man to say that he will or will not contribute. I stand for a State system of insurance, but when it comes to the question of payment I think I shall take an altogether different line from that of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). I think when you are compelling the people of the country to buy a public health service that there is no more to be said for levying a poll tax upon those whom you think are going to benefit than for the levying of a tax on children who are being educated in the elementary schools. Public health is of much greater importance than education, and without healthy bodies you cannot expect to have reasonable education at all. The Amendment seems to me to lay down that the State has no right to set up a system of this kind and bring within it the people who are outside, and for whom, as I understand, the hon. Members have been pleading and whom an hon. Member here denounced. Those are the people I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give us the opportunity of thoroughly discussing, that is to say, the people who, in our opinion, are much too poor to pay any contribution at all. It is not true to say that the people who are not insured to-day are, as hon. Members called them, scallywags and persons of that kind. I know, as he probably knows, large industrial centres where there are multitudes of men working, from years end to years end, for wages of from 15s. to 17s. per week. I was in a large industrial centre on Sunday last where the working men were working for 17s. 5d. per week. To talk about them not having insured—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not quite what I said. I said there was always a percentage of scallywags who never contributed to trade unions or anything else.
    Mr. LANSBURY: There is a percentage of people who are no good in any assembly in the world, whether working people or any other kind of people. I have no desire

    1233
    to drive the argument of the hon. Member too far, but I do wish to put in a word for a multitude of people for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in a word himself the day he introduced his Bill, when he told us that the bulk of the people are not insured because they are too poor. My main object is to see that if this part of the Bill goes through that it is not to be taken for granted that the money part is to be taken before the third Clause, and that afterwards we are not going to be allowed to discuss the lowering of the rate of contribution. To me that is one of the essential matters in the Bill. If I thought we were not to have the opportunity in the House to discuss that part, I should, on a division, be inclined to vote for the Amendment, because as the Bill stands I am thoroughly opposed to the rate of contribution. But if we are to have the opportunity of discussing those portions of the Bill then I am against the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I think many arguments that have been used in this Debate are entirely foreign to the Amendment that we are considering. It is perfectly true that Cobden or Bright might not have voted for this particular scheme. It is equally true to say that both those gentlemen were opposed to factory legislation. Bright most bitterly opposed it, but it does not necessarily follow that if they were in the House to-day that they would oppose even that legislation. It is equally true that certain Governments on both sides have failed to do certain things, but that, I submit, is entirely foreign to the point we are discussing. I am entirely in support of the compulsory system. In the first place, as a trade unionist, I would compel any man to contribute to the union for the benefits that he enjoys. That is compulsion in the same sense that there are men we have to save in spite of themselves. The voluntary system absolutely has failed, and it is because it has failed that it is the duty of the State to do something in this matter. It is not true to say, as an hon. Gentleman said, that you are compelling some men to pay more for a benefit than they have paid for years past.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I never said anything of the sort.
    Mr. J. THOMAS: I did not say you did. But another hon. Member said that a large number of men had already made provision, and that you are compelling them again to make further contributions.
    1234
    There is not only considerable misapprehension on that point in this House, but there is amongst workers generally. I speak as the secretary of one of the largest organisations, and I say that it will not be difficult for my union to so alter its rules that every member of my society can enjoy the benefits of this scheme without paying an additional copper to the contribution that he pays to-day. The position with my union is equally true with every other union. Men that have made provisions and men that are paying to-day for certain benefits will not only be able to enjoy those benefits, but able to enjoy more benefits, for the simple reason that the contribution they pay to-day will be simply the contribution that they will be compelled to pay under the State scheme.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Why not voluntarily?
    Mr. J. THOMAS: For this reason, that whilst they are paying voluntarily by various methods they are being compelled to help those who will not help themselves, and you are now penalising the men who have made provision. That is the difference, and that is the basis of the whole case.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the hon. Member wants to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle). He was not referring to the men in unions, but to men who by contract of service got sick benefits from their employer.
    Mr. J. THOMAS: I will deal with that because I think I know a good deal of the position of men under contracts. When I joined the railway service I was compelled as a condition of my employment to pay 1s. 4d. per week, deducted out of my money. It is not true to say that the employer is paying my sick pay. Nothing of the kind. I am paying more contribution than I would have to pay under a voluntary system. My employer is paying me nothing for my sick pay. As a matter of fact, I object to him making it a condition of my employment that I should have to contribute this amount. Although I paid 1s. 4d. per week for some fourteen years, when I resigned my position as engine-driver and was promoted to the House of Commons, I was only allowed to draw one-third of the contributions that I had paid. In other words, the railway company kept two-thirds of the contributions that they had compelled me to pay. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point, and I understand that

    1235
    under the provisions of this Bill a man who is in the service to-day in a similar position will be able, by making it an approved society, to carry from that organisation, if he so desires, what he has paid for a number of years. Therefore I say it is for us to consider fully the real bearing of this proposal. There are many Clauses to which I object and I have put down, Amendments to them, but it is not right for us to bring forward our objections on other points on the particular Amendment before the House. It is because I believe the voluntary system has failed, and that you must save some men in spite of themselves, that I oppose the Amendment. If there are men who ought to make provision, but will not, surely there is no injustice in compelling them to insure against sickness. If, on the other hand, there are large numbers of men, as there are, whose wages and general conditions do not allow them to make provision for themselves, it is the duty of the State, as is proposed by this Bill, to help them to make the provision which hitherto they have been prevented from making. For these reasons I oppose the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worth-ington-Evans)—in Sub-section (1) after the word "insured" ["insured in manner provided in this part"], to insert the words "either as members of an approved society, or as members of a health society, or as members of the Army and Navy Society"—seems to me to deal rather with the method of insurance and not with the persons who are to be insured.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On a point of Order. If I do not raise at this point the question referred to in my first Amendment I do not see that it can be raised in any other place. It does affect the persons who are compulsorily insured, and for exactly the same reason as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) was permitted this Amendment seems to me to be in order. In the financial Resolution to be taken on Friday next a definite fixed proportion is laid down, and that will have the effect, if carried, of guillotining a whole series of Amendments standing in my name. There are some thirty or forty Amendments consequential on this particular Amendment, and it seems to me that it would be much
    1236
    more convenient to raise the question now and settle it. If the proposal is not acceptable to the Committee the decision will dispose of the whole of those thirty or forty Amendments, whereas if the financial Resolution is adopted it will deliberately guillotine the whole series. Therefore I submit that this is the proper time to raise the point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot deal with the financial Resolution, except to say that any points dealt with by that Resolution are obviously debateable on the Resolution itself. In regard to the particular Amendment in question, I have given careful consideration to it, and done my best to convince myself that the hon. Member is right, and that it should come in here. But I am clearly of opinion that if I allowed this Amendment I should have to allow the projection of a whole series of Amendments from other Clauses into Clause 1. I am sure it is my duty to keep the discussion on Clause 1 to the persons who are to be insured under the Bill. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester—to insert at end of Sub-section (1) the words "And no benefits or additional benefits under this Act or under any scheme confirmed in accordance with Section 55 hereof shall be taken into account in calculating the yearly means of a person for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or any Act amending the same"—ought to come as a new Clause.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will it not come in on Clause 3? Unless you rule that it will be out of order, I will move it then.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will not prejudge that question. At first sight it seems to be a proper subject for a new Clause, but the hon. Member may at any rate make an attempt to raise it on Clause 3.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Do I understand you to rule that the alternative system which my hon. Friend desires to bring before the House by his series of Amendments can properly be raised on the consideration of the financial resolution if it cannot be raised now?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think that is a different point. No doubt the hon. Member can find a place for raising the question of the exemption of existing friendly societies, but Clause 1 is not the place to do it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid my proposal has not been understood if you say it is the exemption of existing friendly societies. It is nothing of the sort; it is to bring them all within the compulsory insurance. The only exemption about it is whether or not there should be the 4d. deducted from the weekly wage. I am not seeking to exempt the members of friendly societies from compulsory insurance. If I were, it would be in order on the exemption Clause, and I should not have put it down on Clause 1, where it would not be in order because it is not an exemption.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: We have already decided to include all persons employed within the meaning of this Part of the Bill. If this Amendment were inserted would it not prevent any man becoming insured under the Bill unless he was a member of an approved society?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so. What the hon. Member for Colchester last said fully confirms my previous opinion that what he wishes to deal with is the machinery and method of deduction and not the question of general compulsory insurance. Therefore it is quite clear that this is not the place to raise the question. The next Amendment in order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood).
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words: "Provided that the Insurance Commissioners hereinafter constituted may, with the approval of the Treasury, by regulations, provide for including amongst the persons employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the said schedule."
    These words mean that the people who at present are not compelled to be insured may by the act of the Insurance Commission, without any consultation with this House, suddenly find themselves compelled to insure like the rest of the world. I submit that the compelling of British subjects to pay 4d. a week is a question that ought to come before this House, and should not be left to the obiter dicta of a Government Department. The scheme as it stands at present deliberately leaves the doors open to the Treasury and the Insurance Commissioners to push into the scheme any class of workers who are at present exempt, like
    1238
    municipal workers or public workers of any sort; to push them in without consulting them; for the Commissioners simply to say, "We decree without any reference to Parliament that you are to have 4d. taken from your wages to get the problematical benefits of this Bill." It is true that the House, and particularly the Labour Party, are intensely anxious to have all the working classes compelled to insure. I do think that the question as to whether the net shall be thrown wider than at present should come before this House, and not be left to a Government Department without any control from us. I beg to move.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After the skirmish that the hon. Member and I had a little earlier, I am very pleased to be able to afford him a little consolation at this stage. I think he has made some case at any rate for the amendment of this provision. What he said, and said very properly, is that in enlarging the area the House of Commons ought to be able to express an opinion upon it. I agree with him. The principle of compulsion is accepted; we must proceed upon that basis.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I came across classes of the kind referred to by the hon. Member the other day. You cannot quite locate or describe by any words all those whom it may be desirable later on to give the benefit of the Bill to. At the same time I quite agree with the hon. Member that Parliament should have the opportunity of saying who shall and shall not be included. The proposal that I make is that we should leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead "a special order made in manner hereinafter provided." That will make it necessary in order to extend the provisions of any special Clause that we should work under Clause 78 and the Ninth Schedule. That means that before you can make an Order which will be published there will be an opportunity given to any person to send in objections—which carries out, I think, the hon. Member's intention — and in the second place if the objections are not withdrawn, a public inquiry shall be held at which persons affected by the Order shall be entitled to be heard. Even then, before the Special Order comes into force it must be laid before both Houses of Parliament thirty days. I think that will meet the case of my hon. Friend. It gives every objector in the country opportunity to demand a

    1239
    public inquiry, and then the Order must be laid on the table of the House, and any Member of the House can object. I think that meets the whole case of my hon. Friend, and if he will withdraw his Amendment, either he or I can move to substitute the words I have suggested.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am extremely obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I say what I forgot to mention before, that, of course, my chief difficulty in fighting this Bill at all is the personality of the Chancellor. If it had been any other Minister on that Front Bench the Bill would not have had a chance. He disarms us every time. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will not press my Amendment in connection with this matter, for it seems to me that ray point is quite covered. But I should like to have an assurance to that effect.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so; it is really more than covered.
    Mr. FORSTER: May I congratulate the Committee on the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the Second Reading Debate I pointed out this power of the Insurance Commissioners under the Bill to vary an Act of Parliament without the matter being officially brought before Parliament itself. I understand that in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer such opportunity will be given to the Houses of Parliament in future. That being so, I think our objection is well met.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead thereof the words "a special Order made in manner hereinafter provided."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation."
    This means that the Clause will be altered so that it will read: "Persons not employed within the meaning of this part of this Act who are entitled to become injured persons include all persons who are engaged in some regular occupation." It
    1240
    does away with the qualification, "and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood—." My Amendment here is not to exclude certain classes from compulsion, but to allow a larger number to voluntarily insure. I do not see why those people who are not wholly or mainly dependent should not have the same right to insure as the rest of the country have. After all, they, too, pay taxes just like anybody else, and they will contribute their 4d. a week like anybody else. Their employers will probably pay their contribution by deducting it from the wages just like anybody else who have a legitimate claim to be included within the Act. This is not a question of compulsion, it is simply giving an opportunity to these people to come in.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Amendment is the exact opposite to that of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). This is to extend the voluntary part of the Act and to extend it very considerably to persons who are really not in need of it and who have no claim. The very idea of their coming into the scheme would excite the indignation of the medical profession. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, this class of persons would come in wholesale. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I have done rather well by him this afternoon. This would not only get us into worse trouble, and the hon. Member has already scored heavily. He is the first to draw blood, and he has drawn a very considerable quantity of blood, and I hope he will be satisfied with that, at least for one half hour.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not see what course is open for me after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman but to withdraw my Amendment. I quite agree, having seen the doctors this morning, that, if anything, this Amendment would make matters worse and put them at a serious disadvantage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) to add after paragraph (b) the following paragraph (c), "being married women fulfil the special conditions hereafter established," would come better, I think, on Clause 34. I doubt whether it could come in here, and there is another Amendment on the Paper that raises the question in a better form.

    1241
    The next Amendment in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock).
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I should like to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith), and if this would be the place to move it I am prepared to move it in the form in which it is later down on the Paper. I only wish to move it as a precautionary measure, and if you rule it is in order I will move it now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can claim precedence on behalf of another hon. Member. I call on the hon. Member for Warwick to move his Amendment.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph:—
    "(c) having contributed for a period of not less than five years previous to the passing of this Act to a society which becomes an approved society."
    It will be plain that this is not an Amendment which interferes at all with the general scheme of the Bill, but that its purpose is to make quite plain that certain persons who might otherwise be excluded should have an opportunity of coming in and having the advantage of this Clause. There are certain persons in friendly societies who are members of those societies for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits given by the friendly societies. A great number of the friendly societies think that unless provision is made, such as is indicated in this sub-Clause, a certain number of their members might fall between two stools. That is to say that, although they are members of the friendly societies for the purpose of obtaining medical benefit, which they do obtain and, so to speak, are under contract to their societies to obtain, yet inasmuch as they are not members for the purpose of obtaining the whole benefit, that they would, as members of the approved societies, be able to obtain, under the system laid down in the Insurance Bill, and so get the full advantage of members of approved societies under the Act. They may be faced with this difficulty that they may be too few to form an independent branch of an approved society of their own, while they might be able no longer to obtain the advantage of medical benefits offered by the friendly societies as they stand at present. The object of this Clause is to enable such persons as are insured for medical benefits for which they
    1242
    have contributed for a great many years to obtain the advantages of this Clause to enable them to come in and become contributors under Clause 3. Their exclusion from the National Insurance scheme might still deprive them of obtaining the advantages under the friendly societies scheme, and at the same time, if they desire, I think, without in any way interfering with the present limits of the scheme, they might be given the opportunity of coming in under this Clause. It seems quite clear that unless a special sub-clause is put in they will not be able to come in. As the matter stands at present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to maintain the system of friendly societies and to prevent them in any way being interfered with. This Amendment is moved on behalf of the members of friendly societies who at present enjoy a somewhat limited benefit to give them an opportunity of coming in and taking the advantages which are given them under Clause 3.
    Mr. BOOTH: Why should these people have special treatment?
    Mr. POLLOCK: I was explaining that point. The reason why they should have special treatment is that they are persons who for a number of years have taken advantage of the system of friendly societies and have made use of that excellent system of thrift; and the anticipation and fear expressed on their behalf and by them is. that they might no longer be able to receive the same benefits which their thrift has so far given to them. It is on the ground that their position might be imperilled that I am asking that they should have special benefits, inasmuch as they are a class belonging to friendly societies who have taken the opportunity of taking advantage of the limited insurance offered by friendly societies. For that reason I submit that they are entitled to special treatment, and unless they get it they would lose under the Act, because they would no longer be able to get precisely the same benefit, and probably they would be too small a number to form a branch themselves. It is in the interests of the class who are members of friendly societies that I move this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can hardly imagine the hon. and learned Member would press this Amendment if he fully realised what the meaning of Sub-section (3) is. What is he proposing? He says that he wants to safeguard the interests of existing members of friendly societies and

    1243
    to see that they will enjoy precisely the same benefits after the Act. May I inform the hon. Member that they will enjoy exactly the same benefits after this Bill is passed as they are enjoying now. The hon. and learned Member does not seem to appreciate the point. He wants them to enjoy greater benefits than they enjoy at present. Who are the people he wants to enjoy these benefits'! They are not members who are engaged in any regular occupation and wholly dependent for a livelihood from that occupation. Who are the members of friendly societies who can come in? Those who have been contributors for five years. Who are the persons the hon. and learned Member wants to come in? The members of friendly societies who have no occupation and need not hare an occupation to earn a livelihood, but who would probably join, not in their own interests, but to encourage the local friendly societies. Can the hon. and learned Member mention a single person who will be excluded by the proposals in the Bill?
    Mr. POLLOCK: The persons I allude to would join to receive the medical benefits, and they are not necessarily rich people.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member is not answering my question. I asked him, can he give the kind of member who will be excluded? What is the kind of member who will be excluded under Sub-section (3) unless his Amendment is carried? He does not appear to realise that all those persons who are members of friendly societies now can join.
    Mr. CAVE: There are members of friendly societies who have contributed for many years who are no longer either engaged in a regular occupation or dependent upon an occupation, and of course have not been employed contributors for five years. They are people who have retired or got past the age for business and who are now insured under friendly societies schemes, and they will be prevented from coming into the Government voluntary scheme.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I have said. No person engaged in any occupation will be excluded, but only the sort of retired person who has already made his money and retired, there-fore the whole of this Amendment is to
    1244
    enable these retired gentlemen to get the benefit of the 2d. offered by the State and what benefits would they derive? The benefits of coming in, although they might be forty years of age, just as if they were sixteen years of age.
    Mr. POLLOCK: They are not well off.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been through the list of members of friendly societies, and the type of member he is referring to I will not call the local "swell," but he is the man who is well off and generally joins to encourage the others. I ask the hon. and learned Member to give me the members of any friendly society and show me a person who has not got means who will not come under this scheme. He says these gentlemen have got private means and need not have any employment. The result will be that they will get full medical benefits at the expense of a State scheme. Has the hon. and learned Member followed the controversy with the doctors? The very class he is proposing should come under the scheme is the class objected to by the doctors.
    Mr. POLLOCK: This is one of the Amendments pressed for by the Manchester Unity.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought the hon. and learned Member was going to answer my question. The doctors objected even to this limited class getting the benefits, and now the hon. and learned Member is proposing a further extension to include the private patients of doctors who pay them well, and suggesting that they shall come within the benefits of the Act. This Amendment really proposes to include the local "swell," the local squire, and the man who has retired.
    Mr. POLLOCK: It docs not mean that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman really knows what his Amendment means. It must mean all those who have been in a friendly society five years before the passing of the Act come in.
    Mr. POLLOCK: May come in.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, they may come in although they are men who have retired and who may be very well off. The hon. Member says they are not all well off, but he cannot deny that some of them are. They may be well off, but under his Amendment they may come in and claim medical benefits at the rates

    1245
    at which they are extended to the poorest of the working classes. If it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? It means they are to come in on the same terms as anybody else, and therefore they must be entitled to claim medical benefits as well as anybody else. Let the hon. Member try that on his medical constituents, If they come in at all you increase the deficiency, which means that you postpone additional benefits for members of the industrial classes for men who have retired on their income. I do not think he can possibly have contemplated the full meaning of the Amendment; otherwise he would not have moved it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite fair to my hon. and learned Friend with regard to this Amendment. He has tried to run off on the medical question. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, the whole of his speech was directed to the fact that these people are going to get medical benefits, and he challenged my hon. and learned Friend to go down and face his medical constituents if he voted for this Amendment. I am going to vote for this Amendment and for all the Amendments desired by the doctors. I do not think this Amendment is in the slightest degree inconsistent with the subsequent Amendments regarding the doctors' position. Subsequent Amendments will be moved affecting the medical position with regard to all the voluntary contributors coming under the provisions of the whole of this Sub-section, and they will apply more or less to those members of friendly societies included in my hon. Friend's Amendment as well as to those Members of the Government who may be voluntary contributors. I do not think these men are solely the local squire and swell. That was all said to impart prejudice with regard to them They may be working men who for years past have belonged to their friendly society and who, through ill-health and through their work going wrong, are no longer in the position of being employed but are living with relations or with friends eking out a scanty existence. Those men, merely because they are not Cabinet Ministers with £5,000 a year, are not to be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who objects to those unfortunate men coming in under the Bill as it is drawn, can himself become a voluntary contributor and can claim all the medical benefits.
    1246
    There are two sides to every question, and I ask the House to see there is another side to this question. There are members of friendly societies who are no longer employed, and who, if this Amendment is not passed, would not be allowed to come in either as compulsorily insured members or under the Voluntary Clauses. They are men who have done their best for the State by belonging for upwards of five years to friendly societies, and they are men whom the State would wish to see in their great scheme of National Insurance. I am friendly to the scheme in its main lines, and I want to see everybody who can reasonably become members come into it. This Amendment is supported by one of the greatest friendly societies the Manchester Unity. They desire to see it passed in the interests of their members, and I appeal to hon. Members who have the interests of friendly societies at heart and who desire to recognise the work friendly societies have done to vote for this Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I do not think anybody on these benches can be accused of not having the interests of friendly societies at heart, but I think, in considering this Amendment, it is as well for us to accurately know who are the people for whom a special plea is being made. I do not think either Gentleman is right. I venture to say two-thirds of the Members of this House are the very men for whom this plea is made. I do not suggest that Members of this House became Members of friendly societies for any such benefit. On the contrary, they became members for other benefits, but the fact remains that they are members of friendly societies. The only people outside Members of this House are people rich in the sense that they need not necessarily work. If they do not belong to either of those two classes, they are persons who are in low circumstances, and who, through ill-health, have been unable to follow their work for five years. There is nothing to prevent a friendly society giving all the benefits he has hitherto enjoyed to such a member after this Bill passes, and surely that is not an injustice to the individual. The friendly society will be able to give him and continue to give him all the benefits, medical and other, for which he has paid and which he expects, or, in other words, they will be able to meet all the obligations and liabilities that attach to such a member. Surely, we are not justified in asking for anything

    1247
    more than that. If you ask for more than that you ask for something for one class of member at the expense of another class of member, and therefore, instead of helping the friendly societies you are really doing them an injustice. I quite recognise this Amendment has been suggested by the Manchester Unity, but I say they were under a misapprehension on this point. The same position applies to other societies. They have hundreds of members who did not join for the medical benefit, and did not expect it. Very often they join for ulterior motives— political, or otherwise. Those who do not join for ulterior motives will not suffer under this Bill, and providing this Clause is carried, which guaranteed to them the existing number of benefits paid for. I say, therefore, we are not justified in giving any special preference to any special class of member.
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there is any real difference between the two sides of the House as to the dangers that are allied to this Amendment. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford had been moved when it should have been, according to its place on the Paper, and if it had been carried, there would have been no real objection raised in any quarter of the House to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock). As far as I can see the only objection taken to this Amendment by hon. Members who object to it is that those who are too well off will obtain medical benefits which are really designed for those who are poor. The question of limiting it to the class whose incomes are less than £160 a year will, I hope, be raised on the next line of the Bill, and, if that is done, I think the objections which have been advanced against this Amendment will fall to the ground.
    Mr. BOOTH: I regret very much I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I do not consider there has been any answer to the argument of the hon. Member below the Gangway. I know that hon. Members opposite have brought this suggestion forward with a view to serving friendly societies, but they may take my assurance, for what it is worth, that they are doing a dis-service not only to those societies, but to the scheme of the Bill itself, because the Amendment will bring in more than a number of old
    1248
    men. For instance, I am one of those who voluntarily subscribe to many friendly societies. I daresay many other hon. Members do so, and it will bring in those who do that because the words are "any member who contributes for five years." If the hon. and learned Member had taken note of a recent Return I think he would have found there were 57,000 honorary members of friendly societies in this country, and this proposal would apply more particularly to them. I have no doubt that some of the officials of friendly societies put the Amendment down with a very good motive. They may have some friends or relatives who will be affected, but to say it can possibly be in the interests of the vast body of members cannot be right; it would be distinctly to their detriment; it would further be contrary to the whole design of the principle of the Bill, and it would be necessary to consult the actuaries, as the financial fabric is pulled to pieces. It is, therefore, more important than hon. Members think. I have no doubt many hon. Members have been requested to put this forward. I am not antagonistic to friendly societies, and I do not want it to be thought that the champions of friendly societies are only to be found on one side of the House. But in order to let in one or two friends we ought not to vitiate the whole scheme.
    I would like to point out another difficulty, and that is that this is the first attack on the position of the medical profession. It is the first Amendment proposed which will be resented in a keen degree by that profession. It is difficult enough to get them to work the schema as it stands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of considerable brain power and has a great deal of tact. In his absence I may pay him that compliment. When he is present I am not so apt to be complimentary. But his abilities are being taxed to the utmost in order to gain the co-operation of the medical profession in making the scheme a beneficial one, while at the same time upholding the dignity of that profession. If you admit an Amendment of this character there will be many of a like nature introduced later on, and they will all be regarded as hostile to the profession. I think it is indispensable that the profession should be upheld. It should be a body of dignified, well-paid and independent men who will give an independent judgment and will not be overridden by local committees or local managers. If you introduce to the benefits of this Bill

    1249
    some of their best clients, if you remove those clients from private practice to club practice, and that is exactly what this Amendment will do, you will create hostility to the Bill. I repeat if we pass this Amendment we shall have to pass many others of a similar nature.
    We shall go on admitting the middle classes to the benefit of the Bill. The hon. Member for Brentford spoke as if this only applied to poverty stricken people. But could people of that description keep up their contributions to the societies for five years'? Do people who are helpless and without money keep on subscribing to a society for five years merely because of the memories of the past and in order to enjoy the privileges of attending the lodge meetings and wearing the regalia? Such a thing docs not obtain in every-day life. The people who will be admitted by this Amendment will be middle-class people who do not work because they have no need to, and if we are to ask the doctors to treat them as club patients we are raising difficulties to the Bill itself and this will be but the beginning of the trouble in dealing with the doctors.
    Mr. CAVE: I hope hon. Members will consider this Amendment with rather more care. The hon. Member has laid much stress on the suggestion that this Amendment is intended to favour hon. members of friendly societies, or local swells, or people who are well off. My hon. Friend the Member for the Sevenoaks Division pointed out that, in that, they are entirely wrong, as in fact it is desired to limit thi3 Clause or rather this Sub-section to men whose income is below a certain limit. Fix the limit where you please, but make it such a limit, as will prevent rich men, Members of this House or others, from coming in as voluntary contributors. None of us want to come in and we do not want people who are well off, better off than we are perhaps, to come in either. So we may rule that particular matter out and assume that the Amendment is not meant to assist men who are well off but men who are badly off. Let me take the second matter of prejudice. The hon. Member suggests that this Clause is unacceptable to the medical profession. That is not so, at all events in our intention or in our view, because when the proper time comes, when we come to the benefit Clause, we shall, I think, support proper Amendments which will prevent men who can afford to pay a doctor a proper fee from coming in under the con-
    1250
    tract system, and I am quite sure, now that we know a little about the doctors' views, that on that footing they will not dream of objecting to an Amendment of that kind. Therefore I hope that matter of prejudice, too, may be ruled out.
    Let us now get to the merits of the Amendment. The hon. Member said that there are very few people who will come in under it. If that is so it is a very small matter, but in fact, I have it on the best authority for this purpose, the Amendment would bring in about 10,000 members of the Manchester Unity alone, who could not otherwise come in as contributors. The men I refer to according to this authority, and no one recognises it more freely than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are people whose incomes range from £100 to £150 a year. They are small tradesmen or small workmen, gardeners and so on, who have given up their occupation, who have for years been in a friendly society as working men, who have made perhaps a little money or may have small interests in business, but who are not within the class contemplated by the Clause as it stands. Look at the position of these men. Surely there is nothing to be said against them. They have been thrifty. They have belonged to friendly societies for years past and have been looking forward to their benefit. I think it is a little cheap of the hon. Member opposite to talk of them as he has done. They are perfectly honest, thrifty men, who have done their duty and have subscribed to these societies, putting by towards bad times to come. Ought they to be shut out from the Government scheme? I think they ought not. It is said "but you will remain members of your society. You will get from your society all the benefits you have expected and you will be no worse off." Will hon. Members look at that question and see whether it is so, because it bears upon a good many Clauses of the Bill. What is the effect of the Bill on the friendly societies, and what will bo the effect on members of friendly societies who cannot come in under the Government scheme?
    I think we have all read Clause 55 of the Bill. That Clause amounts—I say it without any intention to disparage the Bill, but by way of caution—to partial liquidation of the existing friendly societies. A scheme is put forward under which the interests of these existing members of the society who come in as insured contributors shall be divided among them, or

    1251
    rather shall be applied for their benefit in manner provided by that Clause. So that they will be practically out of the society so far as any accumulation of interest goes. They will get an equivalent, I agree, in the funds invested in the State, but so far as the society itself is concerned as a voluntary society they will be out of it. That will leave behind, as a separate class, the residue of members, exactly the members who would come under this Amendment. To provide for them there will be a reduced fund in the hands of the treasurers of the society. They will no longer have a right to look to the very great funds which are now accumulated by the societies in their own name. They will not have the security of those large funds. They will only have the smaller funds. I am the last to prophesy evil, but it may be that that fund will not be sufficient to provide for the benefit to which these older members are now entitled by virtue of their subscriptions. That would be a very deplorable result indeed. I hope it may not be the result. If it were it would be a condemnation of the Government scheme. If I am right there it may be that these very members who come within the Amendment which we desire to pass would by the Bill lose the security for the benefits which they have subscribed for so many years. Will hon. Members look at it from that point of view and see whether there is not a good deal to he said for the Amendment. The remedy proposed here is to tell them "you have done your duty. You have subscribed for some time, and you may come in as voluntary subscribers." I do not see who is hurt by it. The voluntary subscriber really pays for himself. He pays for the benefits he is going to get. He gets the benefit, speaking broadly, of his own subscription. Why should you desire to keep him out? I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment, and the Unity are, I think, well advised—their advisers may know as much, or even more, than the hon. Member opposite; I do not want to put it too high—in putting forward this Amendment. I would not support it and my hon. and learned Friend would not propose it unless we thought it was a right one. I do not want to pose as the champion of this or that body, but we all want to see that every one who has a right to consideration should be considered.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I quite understand the position taken up by the hon. and
    1252
    learned Gentleman, but I think he is pleading for a privilege for a special class of men which might legitimately be asked for by a far wider class than those for whom he puts in a claim. We are now dealing with those people who may insure themselves voluntarily under this scheme, and, naturally, I am anxious that as large a class as possible should be able to come in. I am sorry I did not receive any assistance from the hon. and learned Gentleman when I moved my Amendment to let everyone come in, but now he is asking that members of friendly societies who are five years' members should have the special privilege of coming in under this Act. They did not ask for it apparently at the National Conference of Friendly Societies. It is only the Manchester Unity who asked for it. I think in spite of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) that they were probably well advised in asking for the privilege, but I do not think we should be well advised in giving such a special privilege to one particular class. Members who subscribe for five years to a co-operative society have, I think, a better claim than those who subscribe to a friendly society.
    Mr. CAVE: May I point out that it is not confined to one class.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am afraid that under the Bill trade unions will have difficulty in coming in as friendly societies. It would be possible for the hon. Member to press for a wider interpretation. I object altogether to the attempt made to introduce a distinction between those who get £160 a year and those who do not. I think the less we have of these income limits introduced or insisted upon in this or any other Clause the better. I am in favour of the proposal to bring in the whole population, and I shall object to any proposal to bring in one privileged class.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am going to support the Amendment. There is a large class of members of friendly societies who when they joined the societies were in good health, and who may or may not now be in good health. Unless they are in good health, they will not be in a position to join a new and approved society under the Bill. That appears tome to be a very poor reward for their thrift. It would be quite unreasonable if this Amendment were not limited to a certain period of years. Some reasonable period of qualification ought to be insisted on, but it is very absurd to say that only after five years they should be qualified

    1253
    for the Government subsidy. This will also affect another class who at present are probably cut off from the benefits of the Bill. I mean soldiers and sailors. They have joined their friendly societies in order to get benefits, but they will not be permitted, or at any rate they will not be encouraged, to continue as members of the friendly societies. If they do, at any rate they will get no benefit from the Government subsidy. This Amendment would remove a portion of their grievance, although not the whole of it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) said he would not mind if this was extended to members who have exercised other forms of thrift. Trade unions, which become approved societies, are included in this Amendment. I believe co-operative societies are not included. Savings banks also are not included. A man must have joined a friendly society in. the belief that he will be able to continue to receive benefit once in the society, but as this Bill intervenes he will not be able to receive the same benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] This is what will happen. Friendly societies may endeavour to continue the voluntary section, but they will not get voluntary recruits, because every person at. sixteen will be obliged to come into the State scheme. In my opinion the voluntary section of the friendly society will be killed. There may be additional benefits under the State scheme, but the purely voluntary section will be killed, and unless you allow members to come in as volunteers you are practically killing the provision they have made for insurance. That is why you should differentiate between them and those who have been saving and thrifty in other directions. From the State point of view the State would get a good bargain by allowing them to come in. The State is going to got 7d. for something that costs less, and if people are willing to join in order to save that which they have already paid it seems to me a stupid policy from the financial point of view, and bad policy from the point of view of the encouragement of thrift not to allow them to come in.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member that we have to discuss this without in any way importing matters of prejudice, but I do not think that the arguments used on this side of the House ought to be subject to that
    1254
    criticism. There is no question of importing prejudice in the sense of saying something which has no relevancy to the subject under discussion and which is really for the purpose of arousing feeling against those the Amendment aims at benefiting. The argument put against the Amendment is perfectly sound. I wish to point out that what has been advanced by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) docs not seem to me to refer to the argument which we are using against this Amendment. He says that there will be difficulty unless the members of a society become members of an approved society. Rut why should that be? The Amendment provides that they must have been members of an approved society for five years, so that it presupposes that a man has been a member of a society for at least that period right up to the passing of this Act. I am unable to understand the argument which the hon. Member put forward that that man will have difficulty in becoming a member of an approved society when the real assumption is that he has been a member of a society for at least five years. One argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was that those who have been members of societies for five years and upwards would suffer because of the provisions of Clause 55. That does not seem to me to follow. Under Clause 55 all that a society can deal with is a scheme "for abolishing, reducing, or altering such benefits as respects members who become insured persons under this part of this Act." The objection has been taken that if these Members are not insured persons they are not affected by Clause 55. But if they have accumulated funds to meet their benefits for the future, they will be dealt with under Clause 55.
    Mr. CAVE: I pointed that out.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That was the point. These men may have accumulated funds, and, if so, they will have the benefits, and they are in exactly the same position. They will be in exactly the same position with regard to the accumulated funds as they were before. If that argument is right, what is the object of introducing this question now? It does seem really difficult to follow, because no one has been able to give a good instance. The Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) said you might take persons who were in receipt of an income of £150, and no more. But the object of the Bill is to meet the case of persons who were at work and earning that

    1255
    amount. That is what the State benefit is intended to meet. In the compulsory part of the scheme you are seeking to meet the case of the breadwinner who is earning from£100or£l50 a year, but not more than £160, but whose income stops from the moment he becomes sick. You are trying to give this man the advantage of the State rates. It is not intended to enlarge the voluntary benefit so as to give the State money to people who are already in receipt of a sufficient sum to meet sickness whatever happens. I do submit there is no ground for introducing the special class, and that the Amendment ought to be rejected.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General leaves me rather puzzled. He says the real object of the Bill is to deal with the people who are breadwinners. But these are the people you deal with in the compulsory part. This is to help other people who do not come under the compulsory parts. They would be dealt with if this Sub-section stopped at the end of (a). But then you come to (b), which is much more parallel to the new Sub-section which the hon. Member seeks to introduce than it is to anything in the Government Bill. It does not show how they are going to be affected. It says they must have been "employed contributors" for five years; but it does not show that whilst they have been contributors they have been dependent on their daily labour. He says there is a reason for that, but his argument as it stood was inconsistent with the Bill. This Sub-section (b) deals with people who have been in employment and who made good their insurance as bread winners, but they may have ceased to be bread winners. The people whom it is proposed to include in the new Sub-section are exactly similar in character and come into the same category. They are those who have insured themselves, presumably in ninety-nine cases out of 100, when they were dependent upon their daily exertions to make provision for sickness, and they may or may not have ceased to be so dependent. And in that respect are in no ways different from those who are already included in Sub-section (b) of the Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that they must have been "employed contributors" for five years or upwards; but
    1256
    whilst they were contributors they must have built up a reserve, whilst they have been employed contributors, as defined in Sub-section (2) of the Clause. They will have contributed for five years, and that does not cease when they cease to be employed. Let me take the case of a man who has been forced to contribute. Let him have the benefit of the State contribution. If that man ceases to pay after a period of years he should not lose his advantages. We should let him come under the voluntary part as a contributor, so as to get the benefit of the State contribution.
    Mr. LYNCH: This is the first Amendment by which the position of the medical profession has been touched, and I desire to say a few words in defence of that profession. I have listened carefully to what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I think it will certainly include a number of men whom this Bill was never intended to benefit. The case for the Amendment has been extremely well put by the Member who moved it, and by the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), but the very fact that it has been so well put indicates that the Amendment has not been so well drafted. If it were possible to introduce the class of person for whom they plead there would be no objection to the Amendment on either side of the House. But the objection is that whilst it introduces them it introduces a number of others to whom there would be serious objection, particularly by the medical faculty, and therefore I hope the House will not have such an Amendment introduced into the Bill unless it carries only its good intentions.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I have been considerably interested in the various speeches, but I am not at all convinced that the Amendment is one which I can fully support. As I understand the Bill, men will come into the voluntary class, although a large proportion of their income is derived from investments. Such persons are indicated in the words of the Bill as being engaged in some trade or profession or wholly or mainly dependent upon it, but they may be mainly dependent upon the profession and at the same time may derive some of their income from investments. Will a man come under the contributory scheme who has been compelled, possibly by force of circumstances,

    1257
    to retire on a small pension and desired to secure some provision against ill-health and has joined friendly societies. He may have been a member for a number of years, but as the Bill stands I think he will be excluded from all benefits, while a professional man or a tradesman, notwithstanding that he has a private income, will be within the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has referred to the position of the doctors. I confess I feel a good deal of sympathy with the objection of the doctors to the inclusion in the Bill of men whose incomes exceed £160 a year. That objection may apply to this Amendment. But I understand the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) proposes to move a further Amendment excluding those whose income exceed £160, and on that ground I can support the Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the Division takes place may I say exactly what my proposed Amendment would be. It would be to insert this proviso after the conclusion of this Sub-section: "Provided always that no person shall be entitled to become a contributor within the provisions of this Section whose total income from all sources exceeds £160 a year." That I shall move.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: I must protest against the attempt that has been made by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to make out that this Amendment is in favour of the well-to-do. There are belonging to friendly societies very many thousands of people who are of very small means indeed. It is these poor men whom we desire to see included, because it would be an injustice if they were kept out. For instance, a man has been all his life a gardener, and it happens that his health does not permit him to continue pursuing that occupation. He has managed to save a certain amount of money, and he finds that he has £l a week from his investments. There must be many thousands of people of that description in this country, and I think that when they have shown their thrift in times past they should obtain the advantage of the new scheme. I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment. I must protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer describing it as one for local "swells." I do not think that it touches that class of people at all.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 257.]

    AYES.

    [10.20 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Forster, Henry William

    Martin, Joseph

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Paget, Aimeric Hugh

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Grant. J. A.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Boyton, James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cave, George

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chamberlain, Rt.- Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lansbury, George

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Younger, Sir George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Adamson, William

    Hancock, John George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Shee, James John

    Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

    Harwood, George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hasiam, James (Derbyshire)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Barton, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Beale, William Phlpson

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

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hinds, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hodge, John

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Reddy, Michael

    Bowerman, Charles W

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Johnson, William

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Robinson, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Keating, Matthew

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Crooks, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)

    Sheehy, David

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Leach, Charles

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Davies Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.)

    Dawes,' James Arthur

    Logan, John William

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Summers, James Woolley

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Sutton, John E.

    Doris, W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Taylor, Theodore c. (Radcliffe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maclean, Donald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Manfield, Harry

    Ure, Rt. Ron Alexander

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wadsworth, J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wardle, George J.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Meagher, Michael

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Falconer, James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Webb, H.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    French, Peter

    Mond, Sir Alfred M,

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Munro, Robert

    Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Glanville, H. J.

    Neilson, Francis

    Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) at the end of paragraph (6) to insert the words: "or
    1260
    (c) being married women, fulfil the special conditions hereafter established."

    1261
    The reason I move this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) is that we decided earlier in the day that married women will not come in. under the compulsory powers, and we are now dealing with the voluntary powers and have decided that voluntary contributors shall be persons who are engaged in some regular occupation or who have been paying contributions for a period of five years or upwards. I rather gathered from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that he might be prepared favourably to consider the position of married women in the Bill although he could not have a compulsory scheme. We fear that unless we put in a provision here qualifying them for a voluntary scheme that we may not be able in the later stages to bring them in. I do not think I need argue the case further. The Amendment is simply to make it possible to put in married women and enable them to come into a scheme subsequently, and does not decide as to the conditions or the benefits they will receive.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have preferred, if my hon. Friend and those who sympathise with him—amongst whom I count myself—had been satisfied to raise this question on Clause 34. By that time I think we would be in a position to formulate a scheme to satisfy all the reasonable wishes of those who want to see married women get the benefit of certain advantages of this Bill. The difficulty of bringing it in here is that if you admit married women at this point it means that you permit the wives of the better class of artisan to come in up to the age of 45 as a charge upon the women's fund. I want the Committee fully to realise that. It is not the charge on the Exchequer that I am afraid of, because I do not think that a very considerable number would come in; they would have to pay not merely their own 3d. but also the 3d. of the employer, and I do not think that a very large proportion of the wives of the industrial classes would be able to pay 6d. in addition to the 4d. already provided by the husband. Let us see what that means. If they come in at this stage, it means that they could come in at the age of 39, 42, or 43, and to that extent increase the deficiency which the women's section will have to wipe out before the younger women can receive the fuller benefits. That would be a much more serious thing for the women's section than for the men's
    1262
    section. The voluntary contributors coming in in the men's section would be a comparatively small percentage of the whole, as there will be some 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 men altogether. But you might have a considerable number of women of that class coming in and thereby increasing the deficiency by ten per cent. or twenty per cent. What does that mean? It means that women who are earning 9s. or 10s. a week and are contributing to the fund will have to bear the whole burden of wiping out the deficit for women who are in a position to find 6d. a week for themselves. That is really not fair.
    If the hon. Member had put to me the case—he did not, as he would not have been in order in so doing at this point— of the young unmarried woman engaged in some employment who maintains her contributions for seven or eight years and then marries and had said that it was fair that she should go on paying her voluntary contribution and remain in the society—that is a different case. That is a case with which I have very strong sympathy, but it arises on Clause 34. It is really a question for the women themselves. The whole of the burden comes on the women's fund; it means that if there is malingering it is the women's fund that suffers. If the women are perfectly prepared to allow those who have already been in the fund to go on as voluntary contributors, it seems to me that is entirely a question for the women themselves. There will be nothing in the resolution to exclude our finding an additional sum of money for that purpose. It is framed in such a way that it will be quite possible to move Amendments on Clause 34. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that. I ask him and those who are really in sympathy with his object whether the women themselves are prepared to place upon those who are earning 9s. or 10s. a week the burden of wiping out the deficiency for women who are well enough off to pay 6d. a week. It is a very serious burden to put on the women's fund. But in regard to the case to which I have referred, I am prepared to consider favourably—I should like to see the scheme first—a proposal made on Clause 34.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets me quite fairly; really meets the view that I desired to put before the House, though I thought I was precluded from raising it now. I wanted to be perfectly sure that married women would not be left out of the scheme. If it

    1263
    is perfectly clear that on Clause 34 we can determine whether or not married women can come into the scheme voluntarily; that the conditions under which they may come in can then be determined; that they may be such as the Chancellor has just stated—as, for instance, that they have already been contributing—that really meets my view. I only wanted to be perfectly certain that we should not find our hands tied when we got to a later stage of the Bill, and when we desired to consider the scheme as a whole. Provided it is quite clear that we may later discuss the question of the admittance of married women into this scheme, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. COOPER: I feel it would be a great advantage to the Committee if the Mover of this Amendment stated how he intends to deal with the inclusion of married women in the Bill. Because we all feel, especially on these benches, that it is our duty not to support suggestions of this nature, which practically amount, if carried, to swamping the proposal that the Government have placed before us. On the other hand, there are many of us here—and I am one— I voted in the last Division for the hon. Member for Merthyr's Amendment—who desire to see if something cannot be done for married women without loading the Bill to any great extent; if loading it at all In that connection I want to mention that the purport of the Bill itself, above all things, is to deal with the prevention and cure of sickness; above all, to benefit those who most stand in need of that benefit. I would be glad if we could have some idea of the proposals of hon. Members opposite in regard to married women. If we know that we may be able and ready to support you. If not, we shall feel bound in carrying out that understanding to which we have allied ourselves, in reply to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to support Amendments which are going to impose a considerable burden on the Bill to the extent of crushing it.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has asked leave to withdraw it.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I said subject to what you might say on the point that I raised, that such action will not keep us from doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his willingness to do.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make quite clear to the House the one statement on which he has based his opposition to the Amendment. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer chiefly objected to the Amendment because of the danger to the women's funds of the additional expense involved. Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is irrevocably committed to the separation of the men's funds and the women's fund? That is a very grave matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I think upon Second Reading I made it quite clear that upon the face of the Bill it is absolutely plain that the women's fund must be kept quite separate from the men's fund.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked me whether it would be possible to do this on Clause 34.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Or on any part of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: Clause 34 is the place. It is very difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. It seems to me that the women who are eligible under Sub-section (3), which we are now discussing, should be dealt with under Clause 34. It is quite clear that the restrictions under Clause 34 could be struck out and other conditions established. I think that is the only answer I can give the Committee at this stage.
    Mr. HILLS: Would it be enough to strike out the special exclusion of women under Clause 34? Do not we want some special inclusion here or some words that would not exclude married women independently of Clause 34?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the question, but as I understand it the women who are dealt with under Clause 34 must satisfy the conditions under Subsection (3) of Clause 2. I think that must be so, and that is why, contrary to my first intention, I allowed this Amendment at this stage.
    Mr. CAVE: As I understand the Bill the married woman who is a worker is upon the same footing as a man. If she is an employed contributor, she must be insured; if not she will come within this particular Subsection (3). Up to this point she is in. exactly the same position as a man. It is

    1265
    only upon Clause 34 that an attempt is made to cut down the rights of women. There is this further observation. If it is desired that the subscription paid by the man shall bring the benefit to his wife, that does not arise at all under Clause 34 or under this Clause, but under Clause 8.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the compulsorily employed insurance it is expressly stated, but in the voluntary part nothing of the kind is stated. I call attention to that because it is the volunteers we are dealing with under Clause 34.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Would it be possible under Clause 34 to make a provision that a woman who was an employed contributor before marriage might continue as an employed contributor after marriage provided she desired to do so?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If any doubt arose in connection with this Clause later on I certainly should not object to any part of the Bill being re-committed to clear it up. I can assure the hon. Member that I am at one with him in that respect.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am perfectly satisfied with that.
    Mr. HILLS: Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 will not suit the case of a married woman living at home. She cannot come in unless she is in regular occupation and wholly or mainly dependent upon her earnings, or has been a contributor for five years. Assume that a girl who has been a contributor for three years marries and lives at home, she cannot come in as a volunteer, and whatever we do with Clause 34 we cannot bring her in. If we pass this Clause all the married women who do not come within the narrow lines of Sub-clause (a) and (b) are ruled out of this Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Clause 34 provides for the case of a woman who is already in the scheme. If there is any doubt on this point when we come to Clause 34, as I do not want anybody to be ruled out, I shall consent to the Bill being re-committed in order to introduce words to meet this point if it is found to be necessary.
    Mr. HILLS: Still I do not understand the point. Supposing when the Bill passes a woman is married and lives at home, how can she come in as a volunteer? If we get a pledge that the right hon. Gentleman will re-commit the Bill if necessary I will accept it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have given that pledge twice.
    Mr. HILLS: All right.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "persons" ["include all persons who either"] to insert the words, "whose total income from all sources does not exceed one hundred and sixty pounds and." Under the Bill as it stands the voluntary contributor can have any income whatever as long as it comes from his own exertions. A lawyer earning a big income, or a Cabinet Minister, can become a voluntary contributor. Members of this House, when they are paid, could become voluntary contributors and be insured under the provisions of this Bill. I have no objection to any man becoming a voluntary insurer, but I have a strong objection to a rich man accepting these benefits so far as the State is concerned. I do not think poor men—who in the ultimate resort pay the bulk of the taxes—should be called upon to provide 2d. for the voluntary insuring of the rich man. If the Government or the Committee feel that £160 is not enough and that any other sum, such as £200, £250, or £300 should be substituted, I have no objection, but I do object to allowing a rich man to join in this scheme. There is something more than the mere desire not to have a man who does not need the benefits in this scheme. The voluntary insurer is undoubtedly somewhat of a drag on the scheme. The voluntary insurer, according to the actuaries' figures will probably be considerably older than sixteen, and he will be coming in under this scheme at the same price as a man of sixteen. He will therefore swell the deficit. There are no really good figures to enable us to ascertain how many voluntary insurers there will be. The actuaries, under Section 68 of their report, estimate that some 829 people will be voluntary contributors, but they tell us there are over 2,120,000 who may become voluntary contributors. They cannot tell us they will not; they only estimate that some 800,000 will become voluntary contributors, but there is certainly the possibility that a considerably larger number will become voluntary contributors. Every man who becomes a voluntary contributor adds to the deficit and to the cost to the State. I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment, either in its present form or in some modified form. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,

    1267
    in that celebrated meeting he had with the members of the British Medical Association, gave an assurance to the doctors that he will accept an income limit with regard to medical benefits for voluntary contributors. That is perfectly clear. I am a great student of the Chancellor's speeches with great benefit, because I find sentences in his speech to the British Medical Association which I think will preclude him from opposing this Amendment. He said:—
    "I am quite prepared to consider an income limit dealing with the volunteers, so that a man earning £200, £300, or £400 should not be entitled to claim medical benefits at 6s., 7.s., or 8a. per year. When you come to voluntary contributors. I agree with you it is desirable there should be an income limit. I will support an income limit with regard to those."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is therefore pledged to support an income limit with regard to the voluntary contributors so far as medical benefits are concerned. How is it possible to have one limit for medical benefits and another for sick benefits? It would be quite impossible. It would mean the recasting of the Bill to enable the voluntary contributor to come in with an unlimited income for sickness benefits and a limited income for medical benefits. I feel sure the Chancellor will see, as he is pledged to a limited income for medical benefits, he must agree, and I think it would be to the advantage of the scheme he should agree to an income limit for the whole of the voluntary benefits. I have pointed out not merely with regard to medical benefit that it will be to the benefit of the Bill altogether to limit the number so far as you possibly can of voluntary contributors because each such contributor adds to the cost of the Bill, and will help to pile up the deficit. Every voluntary contributor above the age of sixteen who comes in up to the age of forty-five as if he were sixteen, must necessarily add to the deficit and to the cost of the Bill. Therefore if we can, without doing an injustice to any section of the community limit the number of voluntary contributors we shall limit the cost of the Bill to the deficit—or I may put it in another way: we shall set free more State money for other purposes, at the same time we shall be doing no injustice to men of large or moderate incomes by limiting them from taking part in the benefits so far as State payment is concerned. It would be no injustice whatever to a man with an income of £160, or £200, or £300 per year to prohibit him sharing in the State benefit under the provisions of this
    1268
    Bill. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the Amendment in some form or another.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is a good deal to be said for limiting benefits of this character. The hon. Member is quite correct when he says that every voluntary contributor who comes into the scheme increases the deficiency, and therefore places a burden on the industrial members of the community having a low wage, which is very unfair, as being imposed by persons whose income is sufficient to enable them to provide medical attendance for themselves. It also simplifies the matter so far as the medical profession is concerned. One of the greatest difficulties we have had is the apprehension under which medical men are labouring that the class of patients which enable them to give more liberal treatment to the lower wage earning community will be taken from them, and that they will have in future to deal with them on contract terms. Therefore, I cannot resist an Amendment of this kind. I agree that a great scheme of national insurance of this kind should provide medical and maintenance benefits for those who are unable to provide them for themselves, and I think that those who are over the Income Tax limit hardly come within that category. I therefore will not resist the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is a slight hardship that may be done by the acceptance of this Amendment, exactly as it stands, as existing members of friendly societies will be shut out again in precisely the same manner as they were shut out by the acceptance of another Amendment. If we are really endeavouring to maintain the position of friendly societies we ought at least to maintain the rights of existing members of friendly societies. You are otherwise going to break up the organisation of friendly societies which are largely dependent for their management and some of the best advice of members who will be shut out under this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite wrong. They are not shut out, and they are not deprived of any existing rights they have. They will be exactly in the same position they are in at present. This is one of the greatest complaints of the doctors, that men who have hundreds of pounds a year insist on being doctored at 4s. a year. That is a very serious thing,

    1269
    and it cannot be interfered with as long as it is a voluntary organisation, but I do not think its members have a right to come to the State and ask for this 2d. a week to enable them to pay their 4s. a year for a doctor when they ought to be paying the full rate.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understood my point. I do not in the least want to have the 2d. I am quite willing if he limits them not to have the 2d. at all, but you are interfering with existing members of friendly societies.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is going back to the old point. I do not think that part of the question arises on this Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I submit that my hon. Friend was really not arguing the point which had been previously discussed. He was arguing as to the effect of this Amendment upon existing members of friendly societies.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was discussed for about an hour.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment introduces a new restriction. My hon. Friend may be right or wrong as to its effect upon the existing members of friendly societies. He could not have been discussing the restriction introduced by this Amendment before it was moved on an entirely different Amendment.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am saying that under this proviso you are shutting out those who are at present members of friendly societies. I do not want them to get the extra 2d. I do not want to extend that provision. I want, to preserve the rights of those who are at present members of friendly societies. That is all I want to do.
    Mr. HOLT: Before the Amendment is definitely accepted I should like to put this to my hon. Friend. I think it is quite proper with regard to Sub-section (a), but is it quite fair with regard to the voluntary contributor under Sub-section (b)? If you take the case of a man who has been a compulsory contributor, an employed contributor, and ceases to be so by reason of the fact that his income has risen above the £160 limit, is it quite fair to prevent him by this Sub-section from getting the full benefits of the State contribution if he chooses to go on as a voluntary contributor?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that this is at the wrong point. I think we shall have to move it back to its original position when we come to the Report stage. I am accepting it now in order to accept the principle.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As to the business to-night, perhaps this would be a convenient stage, as it is now after eleven o'clock, for the right hon. Gentleman to state how long the House is to sit. I do not suppose it is intended to sit late to-night.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there is very much more to discuss on this Clause. I would suggest to the Committee that we should get this Clause. I will then move to report Progress.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4). My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has an Amendment down which raises the same question in another form, and it is a matter of indifference to me which Amendment you accept. This Sub-section bars persons over sixty-five years of age from the benefits of the Bill. I submit that the deletion of this Sub-section would remove what we regard as a great blot from the Bill. The Bill proposes to penalise persons who are from sixty-five to seventy years of age. I say that because it is only when men or women reach seventy years of age that they become entitled to the benefit of the Old Age Pensions Act. It is proposed that men and women over sixty-five years of age should not be entitled to the benefit of this Bill. That would be a grave injustice to them, because they have lived the productive part of their lives and have contributed to the fund from which must be drawn the money wherewith to pay the benefits to those who are under sixty-five years of age. We say that is a grave and manifest injustice. The matter has already been brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer by myself and others, and the only plea against the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has stated is that the risks of sickness are so great over sixty-five years of age that the insurance scheme would not stand the strain. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that that is the very best reason that could be adduced for the inclusion of these people in the scheme. We have been told by the Home Secretary that this

    1271
    Bill is to pool the luck, so that the burden which would otherwise fall with crushing weight on the shoulders of the individual will be borne by the broad shoulders of the many.
    If that be the purpose of the Bill, then the deletion of this Clause is consistent with such a purpose, and the insertion of our Clause is justified. The shutting out of these people from the benefits of the Bill is altogether inconsistent with that purpose. It is manifestly unfair that we should leave these people after sixty-five years of age to bear their own burdens. If that is the only reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer has for their being shut out, I hope it will not weigh with the House. If one goes into the tables of expectation of life at sixty-five years of age—I have not the figures; I have been called upon to move this Amendment without preparation—but I think I should be right in saying that the expectation of life of persons at the age of sixty-five is not more than three years.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    Mr. BARNES: Well, the average—
    An HON. MEMBER: Eight.
    Mr. BARNES: Taking it at that, the burden, such as it was, would be spread over that period, and over the whole of the resources of the employer and of the State, and the contributions of the workmen could be drawn upon to fulfil the obligations in respect to these people; and I say, whatever the burden may be, it is manifestly unfair on our part to leave these people outside the scope of this Act. These are briefly the reasons that operate in our mind for the insertion in the Bill of those who are over sixty-five and under seventy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have in his mind an intention, when excluding those between seventy and seventy-five from the operation of the Act to immediately reduce the pensionable age under the other Act from seventy to sixty-five. That would meet my purpose much better, because I think that people at the age of sixty-five are entitled not only to the benefits of a scheme of this sort, which is founded on the contributions of the people, but that, having lived a life of industry presumably, they are entitled to a pension from the State under the Pensions Act. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has that in his mind, and would reduce the
    1272
    age in the immediate future, possibly we may be induced to withdraw this Amendment. Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, I shall press it to a division, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will avoid the need for doing so by accepting it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend is not under the impression that some people have as to the effect of these words, and that they mean that as soon as a man reaches the age of sixty-five, he is disqualified and he receives no benefits.
    Mr. BARNES: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There were certainly some who thought that was so, but it is not the effect of the Bill. If a man joins at the age of sixty-four, he receives benefit under the Bill. But my hon. Friend says: "Why do you exclude these men? Why do you forbid men at the age of sixty-five joining for the first time?" We do not forbid a man at sixty-four from joining, and if it were not for this Bill not only the man of sixty-five but the men of fifty-five, and the men of forty-five would have gone on receiving nothing. This is the first time under any scheme in any country that it has been proposed to admit all these men up to the age of sixty-five. But my hon. Friend says, "Why do you go on to exclude men from sixty-five to seventy?" My reply is that you must have a waiting period. You have six months as a waiting period for sickness pay. You must have a waiting period of two years for invalidity. In Germany it is five years. We have cut it down to two. Therefore the man who is over sixty-eight years of age might get his six months' sickness, but after that he would receive nothing, unless you propose to increase the burden upon the whole fund. Therefore it is purely a question of the man between sixty-five and sixty-eight. That is the period when the burden is really heavy upon your scheme, and you are beginning to insure at a point when your contributions bear no proportion at all to the amount that you are paying. At whose expense will you be doing that? Not at the expense of the State, but at the expense of the other members—the expense of the men who have got the burden of the family. The case of the old people is a very hard one, and we are providing for them. But we can only provide up to the limit of the means at our disposal. If you go beyond that you

    1273
    must make the burden upon the younger people greater, just at the time when they are bringing up a family.
    As between the two classes, I think that the case of the man of thirty-five or forty, with young children, the breadwinner, who is stricken down with sickness, is much harder than that of the old man of sixty-six, who at any rate is done with providing for a family. The suffering is infinitely greater that a man would feel for his own children than that which he would feel for himself. Therefore, I consider that the man of thirty-five deserves more of the attention of the State from the point of view of the suffering involved, and from the point of view of the fact that the State ought to see that the children are properly fed. It is to the interest of the State. Why should you increase the burden of these younger men with families? They are bearing a very large burden now. They are postponing their benefit for fifteen and a half years in order to enable people up to sixty-five to benefit. If you put on in addition to that the very heavy burden of sickness between sixty-five and seventy for people who have contributed practically nothing, I think it is an excessive burden to ask the younger man to bear. It amounts at least to a deficit of five millions. The whole of that five millions has got to be borne by the young people who have got to bring up a family and who have got to postpone for a much further period the time when they receive the additional benefit which will enable them to get doctoring for their family, and bring the family in, which everybody desires to hasten. I think it Would be too great a burden to ask them to bear, and, therefore, I think, that the conditions of the Bill are exceedingly liberal. If you put on an additional burden of that character, for periods that amount from ten to eleven, twelve or thirteen weeks in the course of the year in respect of people who have not contributed it ceases to be a contributory scheme really in respect of these people. I very deeply regret, therefore, that it is impossible for me to do what is asked.
    I have a suggestion to make to which I invite the attention of the hon. Member. We provide in this scheme that the employer should pay 3d. As far as that goes that ought to go to the benefit of these people. I would not object to an amendment that would give 2d. from the State between sixty-five and seventy. It is the burden on the fund that I wish to avoid. If these men
    1274
    were to contribute their own 4d. and we were to put the fund to their benefit to draw upon, then there would be not merely the 4d., but there would be the 3d. from the employer, and they would get the whole benefit of the 2d. from the State. I would suggest that is as far as we can go. The fund would be of value to those who have worked for two or three years, and then have suddenly broken down. It would just give them the necessary help to bridge the gap between that time and the time they reach their old age pension. The Bill, within the limit of that fund, which would be ear-marked, would enable them to get the medical benefit. That is really all the Government can do, and I think it is a very fair proposal.
    Mr. G. J. WARDLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether inquiries have been made as to how many people there are between sixty-five and seventy years of age who are already in friendly societies and are being provided for? It would greatly simplify matters if these figures were available.
    Mr. CROOKS: If a man at sixty-five is at this moment a member of a friendly society, you are taking him over as a member of an approved society. Either you do or you do not. If you do not take him over you leave the old man a burden on the society, while, at the other end, you nip off from the young man who is keeping the old man. That is manifestly unfair, because you have the burden of the old man on the society, while you are getting the benefit of the new blood.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely the hon. Member knows the friendly societies better than that. The man of sixty-five has been paying to the friendly society, and the money has been accumulating up to that age. There is no more profitable member of the friendly society than the man who has reached sixty-five years of age. It is for the man who is not in a friendly society that I have real sympathy. The man who is already in the friendly society is in clover.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like made a little more clear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. I think we on this side want clarifying a little on the subject. Am I right in understanding that the man may pay 4d., the employer 3d., and the State 2d., and that the money would be carried to the Post Office—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, to deposit.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: You make a deposit fund, and they will have their money as far as it goes.
    Mr. GILL: Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion is adopted, it it would still be necessary to pass the Amendment, because otherwise those of sixty-four and sixty-five years of age would not come in. It appears to us, from the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, after the next three years everybody will be in affluence. The men of sixty-five years of age cannot draw on the very large sum of money expended, while the young persons who pay at thirty years of age, the employers deducting the contributions from their wages, will not be entitled to anything until they are sixty years of age. If the whole thing was averaged up, it appears to me that it would be a reasonable thing to have in persons between sixty-five and seventy. It is an age that appeals to everybody, just as the old age pension did, seeing that the people of that age are not able to look after themselves. I think the Chancellor would be well advised in accepting this Amendment. At any rate, the scheme he proposed is an advance on what has been suggested previously, but is it not necessary to accept this Amendment in order to carry out that scheme?
    Mr. MOUNT: It was stated, I think, by the Chancellor that he was going to pay 2d. towards the benefit of the old people. I understood the State paid two-ninths of a penny, and not 2d. per week.
    Mr. BARNES: I should like to make the point quite clear. It has been suggested these men are to be put on a Post Office contributory basis. As I understand, it is nothing of the sort, and that what he would do would be to make this a collected fund, so that if a man broke down between sixty-five and seventy he would not be entitled, but that the whole of the money in respect of the old people would be pooled. Of course, the moneys in respect to any person reaching seventy would revert to the pool, and therefore those men and women would to some extent be insured.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mount), the amount would be two-ninths of a penny, which would be the equivalent of 2d. We have no intention of the money reverting to the pool at seventy. I think the person ought to get the benefit of his deposit.
    Mr. BARNES: He would get the benefit of the old age pension.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What he really wants is that the person should have the benefit of his own money.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is to be an insurance deposit fund.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He is to get the benefit of his own 4d., of the 3d. of the employer, and of the 2d. of the State— that is practically making it deposit contributors. What I suggest is that I am prepared to move or let the hon. Member move at the end of the section, "Except a deposit contributor as hereinafter provided." I think he would be well advised at the present stage to accept that.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The matter is rather complicated, and I do not yet quite understand what the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. I understand that he does not propose to put all men from sixty-five to seventy years of age into a pool together, but that he means to treat each man separately. Each man has a deposit account of his own, with no claims against any surplus there might be on the fund if it were treated as a whole. But what happens to a man who at the age of seventy has not exhausted his fund? Is the balance paid over to him then and there, or what does the right hon. Gentleman propose should be done?
    Mr. BARNES: The matter could be-settled without discussing these complicated details if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept an Amendment quite in accordance with what he has just stated—namely, to insert after the word "year," or wherever is more appropriate, the words, "except as hereinafter provided." That would give us free scope to discuss at the proper place the whole question between a pooled fund and individual funds.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will accept that Amendment, but it would not be fair to do so without making it perfectly clear what the view of the Government is.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Could not the words come in at the beginning of the Sub-section?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would it not be simpler to leave out the Sub-section altogether? All that the Chancellor of the

    1277
    Exchequer has suggested could, I think, be done by an Amendment on Clause 9.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the hon. Member will allow this Amendment to be made. It will not prejudge the question later on, but it makes it perfectly clear that a person of sixty-five does not come in on the same terms as others.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire—
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that if the hon. Member is not allowed to withdraw his Amendment that these words cannot be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to Move, at the beginning of Sub-section (4) to insert the words, "Except as hereinafter provided." Then the Sub-section goes on as printed in the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this alteration does not increase the compulsory nature of the Bill? We are not really insuring these people. You are only putting them into the Post Office contributory scheme. None of them are really insured. I do not think we have any right under these circumstances to force them to pay their contributions. My Amendment later on is to alter sixty-five to sixty. I view with great regret any alteration which would force people of sixty-five or seventy to enter into this very deficient insurance scheme.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I do not know whether the acceptance of this Amendment will do away with the possibility of dealing with the plan referred to in the last Amendment, that is in relation to persons who have been members of friendly societies for five years? It is really a very important point. No one who is acquainted with the work of the smaller friendly societies can help but be aware that the effect of the Bill will be that the smaller societies will be destroyed. The result will be that men between sixty and sixty-five who now have benefit from the friendly society of which they are members will be deprived of that benefit by the operation of this Bill, and will at the same time be excluded from the benefit of this Bill by the operation of this Clause. In my own county there are at least 4,000 members of small societies and two conferences have been
    1278
    held by them. They have drawn the particular attention of their representatives to the fact that the inevitable result of the Bill will be to destroy them; that their members will ultimately be men between sixty and sixty-five, who will be brought into the category where they have no provision for ill-health or old age. If then these men are also to be excluded—
    Mr. CAVE: Does this point arise now?
    The CHAIRMAN: It does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I only wanted to know whether the acceptance of this Amendment will exclude discussion later on as to the position of these societies?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (4) after the word "require" ["nothing in this Section shall require or authorise "], to insert the words, "a person over the age of sixty."
    This Amendment, if accepted, would still leave these people the option of becoming insured if they wanted to do so. I think it is probable that persons over the age of sixty would be wise to insure, but there is another point. A man over sixty finds it very difficult to obtain employment, and I think he will not be very anxious to insure. In any case, there is no family depending upon a man of sixty. It is not a question of letting the children or the mother starve; a man at that age has only himself to consider, and surely people of that age might be allowed to do as they like. I understand the object of making the ordinary workman insure is that the family may be made secure. When a man reaches the age of sixty he will begin to consider himself free of responsibility to his family. Therefore I hope the Government will consider the possibility of giving this slight extension to people over sixty years of age.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Amendment of the hon. Member would cut people of sixty and sixty-five out of the scheme and prevent them getting these great advantages.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am not proposing to cut them out, I am proposing to give them the option.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The whole point is that all the benefits are calculated on the basis of giving persons over sixty

    1279
    years of age these very great benefits. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have an Amendment on the Paper lower down which raises this point, but perhaps this would be the more convenient place to raise it. Many Members of the Committee will bear me out when I say it is becoming increasingly difficult for men at sixty and sixty-five years of age to find employment. I do not think the answer which has been given quite meets the point. Our object is to make it easier for these men to have employment between the ago of sixty and sixty-five. Hon. Members are saying it is bed-time, but they do not seem to care about the bed-time of these poor men of sixty and sixty-five. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member confine himself to arguments which are appropriate to the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes, Sir. I think this Amendment raises a most important point upon which the operation of this Bill will be judged. If we could make pro-vision for these people in some other way than by extracting contributions from the employés, then we should be contributing to the solution of the continued employment of these men at this critical age.
    Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member says the Workmen's Compensation Act has given us an illustration of how easily the old people are displaced. That is perfectly true, but what comparison can be established between the Workmen's Compensation Act where an employer has to undertake a known obligation, but under this Bill he knows his obligation exactly. The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment did so in the name of individual liberty, but the hon. Member who supported him has given us an indication that this proposal will mean the destruction of individual liberty. The Amendment means that every old man of sixty-five will practically have to contract out of the Act, and when he applies for employment the employer will say, "We cannot take you on unless you are prepared to abdicate your rights under the Act." Therefore, there is no comparison between the Workmen's Compensation Act and this Amendment. Individual liberty would be destroyed by this Amendment, and it would not enable the elderly men to exer-
    1280
    cise their individual liberty, and would mean a destruction of that liberty. Those are just the people for whom the benefits of the Act are most important, and not so much the young life.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The intention of this Amendment is not to compel old people over sixty to contract out of the insurance. As I read the Bill they will have to continue to pay under any circumstances, and it will only be the contribution of these men that would be exempted.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member for Ince is quite wrong. Ninety-nine out of every hundred employers insure.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "authorise" ["shall require or authorise"], to insert the words, "a person under the age of sixteen years or."
    The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that a person under sixteen years of age would not be entitled to insure under this Bill. I want to understand exactly the position of boys under sixteen who are in employment. Clause 8, Sub-section (3) says the right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the assured person attains the age of sixteen, and I cannot understand why his employer should pay for what he does not get. He has no benefit except the right to medical treatment and treatment at a sanatorium, which would only be required in a few cases. I know it is provided by Clause 10 that arrears should not be calculated while the person employed is under sixteen, but I am doubtful how far that is intended to exempt persons under sixteen from payment altogether. In any case, it seems to me the employer has to pay, and I do not quite see for what he is to pay. Clause 38 provides that no part of the contributions above 4s. 8d. in the case of a boy and 4s. 6d. in the case of a girl, payable in respect of a person under sixteen shall be credited to the society of which he is a member, or, if he is a deposit contributor, carried to his credit in the Post Office Fund, so that a young person suffers in every way. This question is a very important one to a great many persons and societies. For instance, the district messengers are very much concerned as to what their position will be under the Act. There are others, such as paper boys, as

    1281
    to whom there will be some difficulty in deducting the amounts from the small sums paid to them. Would it not be better, as you have an upper limit of age, to have a lower limit of age, and exclude altogether from the Bill children under sixteen?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): If you exclude children under sixteen you put a premium on child labour, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree it is undesirable to give any advantage whatever to an employer in favour of employing children under sixteen rather than persons over sixteen. I admit for the time being the sick benefit is reduced in amount, but the youthful contributor later on gets the full benefit of his contributions. I think the general desire not to put any premium on child labour is so strong that it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. It must be remembered that the medical benefit and the sanatorium treatment are exactly the same for the youthful person as for that of any other insured person. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member on Clause 10, it only appears that no account shall be taken of arrears due from a contributor under the age of sixteen. That is really a proviso in favour of the youthful contributor. I think, therefore, on the whole, looking at the advantages I have stated, it is undesirable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. FORSTER: I want one point made perfectly clear. Is the employer of the youthful contributor to pay the full contribution of 4d. or 3d. as the case may be? I understand that no account is to be taken of arrears, and if the youth does not pay nothing happens.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates this part of the Bill. This is a real concession to the boy under fifteen. In other cases the arrears accumulate. In the case of those under sixteen we do not propose to take account of arrears during the period before the age of sixteen, because the labour may be of a very casual nature.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not the fact that out of these youthful persons a sum of £807,000 is made by the Insurance Fund? That is my recollection of the actuaries' report as to the results of the payment of 4s. 8d. in the case of boys and 4s. 6d. in the case of girls per annum. But when the right hon. Gentle-
    1282
    man says that these youthful contributors are going to get the full benefit of their money he is speaking of the sweet by and by, when there may be additional benefits. There are some words in the Bill that young persons shall be personally considered, and I think the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies or the Insurance Commissioners ought to take into account the case of these young people who are robbed to the extent of £807,000 a year. That is a very small compensation surely, for what is being done, and it seems to me that the Amendments either to give them benefits or else not to take contributions from them is a thoroughly just one. I do not want to put a premium on child labour, and I should like in some way either that they get additional benefit or some cumulative advantage definitely guaranteed them, and I say without fear of contradiction it is not guaranteed them under the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has been discussing a point which could not possibly be met under this Clause. The question whether they should receive additional benefit is a proper one for discussion, but even if I were prepared to agree I could not meet it under Clause 7. The whole point is whether you are to exclude them altogether. If they are included that does not prejudge the question whether they are to receive additional benefit. I suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. CAVE: If I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will later favourably consider an Amendment to give something in exchange I will withdraw.
    Mr. HOHLER: Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us an undertaking, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. There is no right in this Bill to penalise any particular form of boy labour or any particular class of employer. If you pay you should receive your benefit. We may all agree in regard to boy labour, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider to what extent this will injuriously affect agriculturists. This is particularly important in Kent, where there are two great industries, hop picking and fruit picking, and invariably small children and whole families go out to these employments. Under this Bill,

    1283
    in regard to each of these members of a family employed, there will be a liability to contribution. Look at the injustice you will do to these persons who are as a result not to be employed at all. This is not a Bill for a penalty at all. If it is improper to employ boy labour introduce legislation to deal with it. It is well within my knowledge that in these great friendly societies they insure from the age of twelve upwards a great number, and I ask that in some way effect may be given to a most just and proper Amendment. We cannot at this stage go into all the questions which have been raised on the other side. There will be ample opportunity at a later stage to deal with any special advantage which may be given to young persons, and obviously it will be a most unjust thing to persons under sixteen to shut them out from the scheme and to encourage employers to employ the very class of labour which is so largely producing unemployment. Newspaper boys are one class that we do not want to encourage. It would be a disastrous thing to do, and I hope very much that the Committee will reject the proposal.
    Mr. POLLOCK: What my hon. and learned Friend is asking by this Amendment is why these young persons are included? As I understand the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty it is in order to prevent any premium on the employment of child labour. That does not follow. Children are safeguarded in many other ways in almost every trade. I think that by the Acts which have been passed in the last three or four years their interests are sufficiently protected. Surely the real answer why they are included is that by this means the sum of £800,000 is obtained for the scheme. That seems to me to be so powerful a motive to include them that I attach more importance to it than to the statement that it is intended to prevent the giving of an advantage to persons employing them. It seems to me that there is a difficulty in dealing with this, for if hereafter, when the Committee is discussing the later stages of the Bill, we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be possible for him financially to give these increased benefits, he may be compelled to say that inasmuch as the Bill has a financial foundation to stand upon it would take away some portion of that foundation if he provided benefits for those very young people. That seems to
    1284
    be the real difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman asks whether, in the event of this Amendment not being carried it will be possible for the Committee at a later stage to discuss a proposal to increase the benefits for young persons under sixteen—
    Mr. POLLOCK: Not only to discuss the benefits but to grant them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter that must be discussed. It would certainly be possible to discuss it.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I think I understand him. The question before us was whether we should cut them out of the scheme or leave them in the scheme. What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say is this: that, if and when we are discussing the latter stages of the Bill, and what benefits they shall be entitled to, that no difficulty of any sort or kind, nothing in the terms of the financial resolution, and every other sort of difficulty, will not stand in the way of the Committee against further benefits being granted to those persons in respect to their contributions under the Bill. If he will give that undertaking to the full, in the way I have expressed it, that to a large extent will meet the difficulty. That is what I have been asked to look for, and I must press the point upon his attention, so that there may be no misunderstanding. If we are asking for further benefits to be granted, or, in the event of the House so deciding, no difficulty of any sort or kind, financial or otherwise, will be— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I think I am in order. I only want to put it so that it may be perfectly plain, so that not only myself but hon. Members may understand it. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes us all to understand what he means. If I have happened to be exceptionally stupid, he can make it clear out of his courtesy to the Committee that no difficulty of any sort will be placed in the way later on.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to say is that nothing in the form of the Resolution will prevent this matter being discussed, and that the House will have full liberty, if it wishes, at a later stage, if the Amendment is withdrawn now.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE expressed assent.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If he could go a little further he would save us the necessity for a Division. I frankly confess I should be sorry to see the subject prejudged, and we want to be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will keep an open mind. I cannot expect him to accept it; that would be prejudging it the other way; but I ask that he will not make up his mind on this point until the House has had a full opportunity of discussing it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I at once accept that suggestion, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look again at what I have said he will see that there are strong reasons to be considered. It is not merely a matter of the children; it is a question of the fund itself, and I think it would be well worth while for the Committee to keep an open mind. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will keep an open mind I will promise to keep an open mind.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have an open mind on the broad principles.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg leave to withdraw with the understanding on my part that if we are not fully satisfied after the later discussion as to the condition of these young people under the Bill I may take the opportunity of moving this Amendment again at a later stage.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether there is any pledge that we shall have another chance of discussing whether agricultural children shall or shall not be cut out of this scheme?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You can only cut them out on the Report Stage. You cannot increase the charge. You can cut out the whole of the children on the Report Stage if you think the conditions are not satisfactory.
    Mr. HUNT: Shall we have another chance of discussing the question of cutting out agricultural children from the contributors to the scheme? Is there no answer to that?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move to add at the end of Clause 1 the words:—
    "Provided that a person who for at least one year before the passing of this Act has been a member of a society which provides benefits similar to those
    1286
    conferred by this part of this Act shall be entitled to become an insured person under this Act, notwithstanding that he is over the age of sixty-five years."
    A previous Amendment was to permit all existing members of societies which become approved societies to become contributors under the State scheme, and we did not have the benefit of a reply on that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.
    Under Clause 35 you are practically liquidating so much of the friendly societies funds as is attributable to members who become insured and you leave as a special class with a special fund those members who cannot become insured or who would be entitled and do not. It may be that that special fund would not be sufficient in the end to provide the benefits, and, therefore, you are making them less secure by your scheme and should give them something in exchange. Therefore, I ask that if they have subscribed for any time to a friendly or similar society they shall have the benefit of their thrift and the special privilege of coming in although over sixty-five. By virtue of this scheme all the younger contributors are likely to drop out, and if so the fund will diminish and be less likely to be solvent than if the Bill did not pass. I am afraid that whatever happens the scheme must injuriously affect the whole friendly society movement. There is a tendency for all voluntary movements to be absorbed in the end in a State scheme. But I think that this special privilege should be given to the men who are now subscribing. I do not want to put an undue burden on the fund, but I think that the number coming under this Amendment would be small.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already indicated that the Government are willing to consider some special benefits to all persons over sixty-five. Those who are members of friendly societies will get exactly the same privilege as those who are not. The principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that to him who hath more shall be given. I do not say that he should be in a worse position. These people should be in as good a position at any rate. They are in an exceedingly good position at 65 years of age if they are members of a solvent society. The hon. and learned Member is under the impression that somehow or other a friendly society will be weakened. One view of the friendly societies is that the younger men pay for the old. That is surely not

    1287
    the principle of an accumulating society, and any society which went on that principle would soon arrive at insolvency. The whole principle of an accumulating society is that the accumulation should come out of the period when a man is young, in order to provide for him when he is old. So far from societies being weakened they are enormously strengthened by this provision. What do we do? We take the whole of the responsibility of the reserve between sixteen and sixty-five for every member of a friendly society in the country, and we undertake it at 20s. in the pound. [An HON. MEMBER: "An approved society."]
    There is no first-class society in this country that I know of which is not an approved friendly society. All they have got to do is to associate with others, and they can come in. I do not want to prejudge that, however; it will arise later on. Hon. and learned Members are always attempting to raise questions which will come on later. I contend that every member of a friendly society comes in. Take the Oddfellows. In that case it has been calculated that three and a half millions will go to that society alone. The hon. and learned Member said that the funds of friendly societies would be weakened. How can three and a half millions going to a society weaken its funds? It is a very extraordinary proposition. On the contrary, seeing that we are undertaking the whole of the burden up to sixty-five, the amount that the society has got to find will not be such a great sum. The position of a man at sixty-five who is a member of a friendly society will be greatly strengthened. The hon. and learned Member knows that none of the friendly societies, if wound up, would pay 20s. in the pound for all their branches. We take them over, and pay up to 20s. in the pound. That is putting them in a very much better position, in so far as the benefits of the Bill are concerned. May I also point out that these questions will arise on Clause 55?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman. The Government relieve the reserve of the friendly societies from all liability for members between sixteen and sixty-five. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. There are certain members of societies who have
    1288
    insured from 18s. and 25s. We do do not undertake liability for that reserve. There are funeral and other benefits. We take up to 10s. and 5s., and we take whatever reserve is accumulated in respect of these benefits. We undertake the whole liability of that up to sixty-five years of age.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is putting in a very necessary qualification. That was not in his speech. Surely even now he has not got the matter rightly before the Committee, because benefits under this Bill are limited for any who claim over the age of fifty.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade a remark which was inaudible.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: So that they have got to provide not only for the men over sixty-five, but the difference between the reduced benefits of the men between fifty and sixty-five and those given by the society.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Suppose their liability now in respect of all these persons is five millions pro tanto to the extent of the benefits we guarantee. There is a reduction of their liability. Three and a half millions does not represent the whole liability of the Oddfellows, but it does represent a very considerable reduction and to that extent releases their finances, and therefore to that extent must strengthen the society financially.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not deny that a large number of societies are going to get certain advantage under this Bill. That is a statement which I have never denied and never thought of denying. That is not at all the statement the right hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. He is limiting the statement very much now and if he made the statement in this form I do not know that I should have any criticism.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said under the benefits of the Bill.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to say that. I can only say I did not hear him. That he is speaking in perfect good faith I have not the least doubt, but I was sitting opposite, and did not hear it. He went on further to say that the position of the old men who were already members of the society could not be prejudiced under any

    1289
    circumstances, and that there was no society in this country, if it were called on, could meet its liabilities.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Over all its branches.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How, then, do those societies exist? How do they propose to exist except by the influx of new members? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that where there is a deficiency they levy a higher contribution. By those means they accumulate funds to make themselves actuarily sound. You come in and stop the method by which that process is going on, and leaves old men dependent on the society, and I think in such cases the position of the old men must be prejudiced, because the new scheme of the Government is taking away the subscriptions of the younger men which would meet the liabilities' incurred.
    Major WILLOUGHBY: I support this Amendment. I have one later down, in a rather different form. In the agricultural villages we have many societies which may not be absolutely solvent. We have men for a great number of years subscribing to a society, and under this Bill all the younger members will be absorbed by some great society, and so they lose the advantage they ought to get through having subscribed for a great number of years. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this point most carefully, in order that he may not inflict any injustice on a deserving body of men. I know that he has no desire to inflict any injustice, but possibly in thinking of the larger bodies he may have to some extent overlooked the small but deserving class.
    Mr. BAIRD: I think a case of some hardship has been put before the Committee. Only this afternoon I met the representatives of a considerable number of friendly societies, and they pointed out to me that this particular class of individual who would not come under the Government insurance scheme will not benefit by the action of the State, and that consequently the proportion of the funds that will have to meet the liabilities of the friendly societies as regards that particular section of their members will suffer. They will not be affected by what the Bill proposes to do for the other branch of the friendly societies' funds. It seems to me that they are people who have done something for themselves, and
    1290
    they are to be in a position not so favourable as they have a right to expect. It is true they will be in a better position than people who have made no provision at all for themselves, but that scarcely meets the case. It is only fair that something should be done to improve their position. There is no getting over the fact that in many country villages there is a great deal of anxiety amongst these people. It may be that the particular friendly societies to which they belong will not be in a position to become approved societies. What is going to happen to them? They will undoubtedly lose the benefit of the young blood which at present keeps the societies going. Unless you do something for them you will undoubtedly be inflicting a great deal of hardship on a large section of the population. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision on the matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Member opposite asked if the Government were prepared to give an undertaking that these members would not be put in a worse position. Not only am I prepared to give that undertaking, but I will undertake that they will be in a better position as a result of the Bill.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has just given an undertaking which I presume must be in connection with Clause 55. Can he not extend that?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say Clause 55 at all.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman said they would be in a better position. There has been nothing in all the discussion on this Clause to show that they will not be in a very much worse position. The only substitute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer offers them is that they now have his permission to join some form of deposit contributory scheme, the details of which we are to get later on. Those members of friendly societies who are sixty-five have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, a considerable reserve value attached to them in their societies. That reserve value will in all probability be sufficient to make it a paying proposition for the Insurance Fund to take them in, to continue them, as approved members for the purposes of the Insurance Fund. If that reserve value is sufficient, what reason can there possibly be for their not continuing their insurance in the approved

    1291
    societies-going on just as if this Bill had not come into force?
    Mr. HOHLER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an undertaking that these men shall not be in a worse position under this Bill but in a better. I am not clear whether or not that undertaking simply means that he has said that he is going to confer an immense benefit on the friendly societies by something they will receive: consequently they will be in a better position. In my judgment that is not worth anything at all. What I want the Chancellor to give is an undertaking that in adapting the machinery to these approved societies of this Bill he will accept the whole of the obligations of those who are already insured in the approved societies. Why, otherwise, should they be in a worse position, as in my judgment they will be?
    Under this measure there is to be a double set of accounts kept; a separate account for the funds received and expended under this Bill, and a separate
    account that the societies have to keep themselves. What have these men of sixty-five to look forward to? It is a fact that it is the young blood that keeps these societies going. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the House to help him to make this Bill a good one. If we are to continue in the spirit of trying to make the Bill a good one, he will have to be more generous in the promises he makes to us in some of these matters. Consider the hardship this proposal means to the man who has been insured all his life, and who has been thrifty and prudent. You approve that, and approve it so much, that you are going to leave the man high and dry. The Chancellor shakes his head, and says, "No, no." But the Bill says that. He may have said differently in his speeches; and I ask for an undertaking to be given.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 53; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 258.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dixon, C. H.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Doughty, Sir George

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Forster, Henry William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Starkey, John R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Guinness, Hon. W. E.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Bird, A.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunt, Rowland

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Cator, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cautley, H. S.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Cave, George

    Lewisham, Visccunt

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. Baird.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Adamson, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clough, William

    Glanville, H. J.

    Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Gulland, John W.

    Anderson, A. M.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hackett, J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Doris, W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Barton, W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Beale, W P.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bentham, G. J.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Hayward, Evan

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Falconer, J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brady, P. J.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Johnson, W.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Munro, B.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Joyce, Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Keating, M.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Moiton)

    O'Dcwd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Lansbury, George

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Shee, James John

    Summers, James Woolley

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld. Cockerm'th)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Leach, Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lundon, T.

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Maclean, Donald

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Webb, H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, Michael

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (ches., Crewe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Manfield, Harry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Captain Guest.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    The CHAIRMAN: The remaining Amendments are either out of order, or else they should be moved at a later stage.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I desire to inform the Committee that it will be necessary for us to take the Financial Resolution after Clause 2 to-morrow, because we cannot get any further without it.
    Lord BALCARRES: I presume it will not be necessary to take the Report Stage of the Financial Resolution on Friday?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unfortunately we cannot proceed with Clause 3 without the Resolution. I am afraid we shall have to take the Report Stage the first thing on Friday to enable us to go on with Clause 3.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to suspend the five-o'clock rule on Friday?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Five minutes before One o'clock.

  Indian Collections (South Kensington).
  Indian Collections (South Kensington).
  Royal Gate of Kyoto (Kew Gardens).
  Royal Gate of Kyoto (Kew Gardens).
  National Debt (Old and New Sinking Funds).
  National Debt (Old and New Sinking Funds).
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  STATISTICS OF SICKNESS (MANCHESTER UNITY).
  STATISTICS OF SICKNESS (MANCHESTER UNITY).
  HOLLOWAY SOCIETIES.
  HOLLOWAY SOCIETIES.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  EXPECTATION or SICKNESS.
  EXPECTATION or SICKNESS.
  Local Taxation (County Longford).
  Local Taxation (County Longford).
  Royal Dockyards (Workmen's Petitions).
  Royal Dockyards (Workmen's Petitions).
  H.M.S. "Philomel" (Additional Leave).
  H.M.S. "Philomel" (Additional Leave).
  Coronation Medal (79th Cameron High landers of Canada).
  Coronation Medal (79th Cameron High landers of Canada).
  Territorial Force (Grants to Officers Transferred).
  Territorial Force (Grants to Officers Transferred).
  Hussar Regiments (Linking).
  Hussar Regiments (Linking).
  Appleshaw (Hants) Sheep and Cattle Fair.
  Appleshaw (Hants) Sheep and Cattle Fair.
  Patent Medicines (Government Stamp).
  Patent Medicines (Government Stamp).

VISCOUNT KNOLLYS.
Francis Baron Knollys, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., K.C.M.G., having been created Viscount Knollys of Caversham in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl GRANVILLE The Earl GRANVILLE—Took the Oath.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Cannock Gas Order the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 28th of June last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Preston Gas Order was withdrawn: The Order made on Wednesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
DOVER GRAVING DOCK BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
CHASETOWN GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POOR LAW (IRELAND).
Return of the number and percentage of children maintained in Irish workhouses on the 13th May 1911: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 1st May last), and to be printed. (No. 126.)
RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 127.)

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
DERWENT FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

CHAMBERS INSTITUTION PEEBLES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  DUMBARTON CHURCHYARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
(Busby and District Gas Order and Uxbridge Gas Order.)
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

  M. Exeter,

  L. Sackville,

  L. Basing,

  L. Welby,

  L. Rotherham;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Zetland and the Lord Brabourne be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on Order No. 3 of the said Bill in the place of the Lord Belhaven and Stenton and the Lord Aldenham; read, and agreed to.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Debate resumed on LORD LANSDOWNE'S Amendment to insert, at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 2, the following words—
"Provided further that any Bill—

(a) which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or

(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or

(c) which has been referred to the Joint Committee, and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained

shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive the Royal Assent under the provisions of this section unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the electors in manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.
(2) Any question whether a Bill comes within the meaning of paragraphs (a) (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be decided by the Joint Committee."
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the Amendment of my noble friend behind me has now been under discussion for a whole day, and I think that we may consider the discussion to have been a somewhat instructive commentary on what will take place in this House under the Bill if it should pass into law. The noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council made a reply to the noble Marquess behind me, but I think that those who heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Curzon later in the evening will agree that that reply left some gaps to be filled up, and attempted to establish some points which could not be carried through.
But what is more remarkable even than the gaps in the speech of the noble Viscount is the entire absence of support for that

197
speech from noble Lords on the Benches behind him. This is a vital Amendment on the most important Bill that has ever been submitted to your Lordships' House, and there are sitting in this Assembly, not only a considerable body of Peers who were supporters of the Government before 1906, but a large number of newly-created Peers. We are told that they are all heartily in sympathy with the policy of the Government, designed though it may be to humiliate and paralyse the order to which they have consented to belong. But where are they on this occasion? They were represented last night by a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Courtney—a powerful speech, a convincing speech, destined to show that the need was great, and the occasion was grave, for some such Amendment as that which my noble friend has proposed. He was supported also, if support it was, by a speech from Lord MacDonnell, who went a long way back into the arguments and quotations which I well remember were used in Parliament twenty-six years ago by Mr. Gladstone from the same sources. The noble Lord appeared to entirely ignore all the changes which have taken place in Ireland since those speeches were made. Though he shakes his head to imply that he did not ignore them, there is one point, I am afraid, with regard to which he cannot shake his head—that is, that throughout his speech he never attempted to apply his argument for giving Home Rule to Ireland to the question which is before your Lordships, as to whether that should be done, not by the wish or against the wish of this House, but by the wish or against the wish of the people of the country.
Then, my Lords, if this debate is remarkable for the want of support of the Bill on the part of noble Lords opposite, what about the attendance, and what about the Divisions which have taken place in this debate? There used to be, before 1906, some fifty Peers or more who rallied to the Whip of the present Government. The Government have created the unprecedented number of nearly fifty more Peers to support their policy, and the Government might have expected to put at least 100 members into the Lobby on so vital an occasion as the present; but when your Lordships divided on a matter fought out by the Government, after successive speeches from the Front Bench, on the question of the Speaker deciding as to
198
what is a Money Bill, only forty-four supporters of the Government were found, and I believe the Government themselves number twenty votes. In my opinion, that shows an apathy with regard to this measure even amongst the professed supporters of the Government which goes far on the way of going back on the continued statements of the noble Viscount that this Bill, and this Bill alone, will content the Party to which he belongs, and the country which he refuses to consult.
If this is the treatment which is meted out to us while our powers are still intact and complete, what do you suppose will be the treatment meted out to us when we have only a dilatory power and our discussions become of a purely academic character, as they are intended to become? To see what the real position of the Government is with regard to this Amendment we have to consider in quiet language what is the offer which the noble Marquess has made to them; and if I re-state facts which have already been put before the House I hope I shall be excused, because I want to make the matter perfectly plain. We are told that the country is suffering from the predominance of your Lordships' House, and that the supremacy of the House of Commons has got to be unmistakably affirmed. What does the noble Marquess offer? He makes the offer that the battalions behind him, which are supposed to number 400 or 500 to the 100 on the opposite side, shall be reduced so as to secure practical equality in this House—an offer which no member of the Government, I submit, ever expected to get, and the importance of which they have continually attempted to decry since it was made. This is offered in place of what is now an absolute power of rejection. Under that offer we confine the purview of your Lordships' House to those measures which are essentially general in their character and not Money Bills, and we ask for a reference to the people beyond the powers given in this Bill only for such grave matters as may seem to a Committee—on which, if anything, the House of Commons will predominate—matters sufficiently grave to call for a decision of the people on the difference between the two Houses. Is not that a concession which, if it had been contemplated five years ago, the mildest advocate of the House of Commons in this Ministry would have been surprised to receive? But the noble Viscount says,

199
"Your proposal directly traverses our policy." Those were his concluding words last night.
Now what is the Government's policy? Their policy is this Bill. If their policy is that the will of the people shall prevail—and that is the old watchword of the Party under which the noble Viscount enlisted many years ago—they are bound to vote for the Amendment which my noble friend has tabled. If their policy is to shuffle through a measure which the country has rejected on every occasion upon which it has been submitted to it, and to do so behind the back of Parliament, and behind the back of the country, then, undoubtedly, we are traversing the whole of their policy; but to one or other of these alternatives they are bound to assent. Now watch the evolution of the proposal and pretensions of the noble Viscount. We were urged not to speak in any way disrespectfully of the work of the House of Commons, but the other day I was called in question by the Lord Chancellor because I said that if the privileges of the House of Lords were to be clipped and taken away, we had a right to ask that the pretensions of the House of Commons with regard to privilege should not be extended. That is our view. Our view is that the privileges of the House of Commons, which we are prepared absolutely to maintain o and give way to, should not be allowed to encroach on the privileges of the Second Chamber so long as that Second Chamber exists. But you have asked something beyond that in the course of this debate. The homage which we are being asked to pay to the House of Commons is now being exacted from us for measures which have never figured in the election addresses of members of the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Londonderry pointed out last night that in the majority of the election addresses of the present supporters of the Government the question of Home Rule never figured at all. If we are to pay homage to the House of Commons it must be on subjects with regard to which the House of Commons has obtained the approval of the country.
Then, again, we are asked to render homage to the proposals of the Government in regard to clauses which may commend themselves to the Government but which have never been allowed to be discussed in the Lower House of Parliament. Again,
200
we are asked to give full homage to the decisions of the Speaker, who, being, however eminent, the nominee of one party in the struggle, would in no other struggle which takes place in English life be accepted as the arbiter of both parties. It has been claimed that even in these circumstances the House of Commons faithfully represents the people. I think in the last 40 years there have been ten Parliaments. The Parliament of 1865 was reversed by the General Election of 1868. The dealings of the great Parliament of 1868 were reversed at the General Election of 1874. Lord Beaconsfield's Ministry, which seemed all powerful in August of 1878, was thrown out by a large majority 18 months later. The first Home Rule Bill was thrown out by 120 majority, I think, by the constituencies in. 1886. That Government, again, was reversed in 1892. The Government of 1892, and their Home Rule Bill, was also reversed in 1895. With the exception of the Parliament of 1906 the proceedings of not one Parliament out of ten have received the assent of the electors when they were asked to express their opinion. We should be sure that the present House of Commons faithfully represents the opinion of the people before we are asked to stake our all, the whole existence of the United Kingdom, and to stake every measure that may be brought forward, to the chance vote of a bare majority in the House of Commons.
A still further step in the evolution of the noble Viscount was to tell us that Home Rule could be properly decided in this way. This point has not yet been made, and I therefore hope I may trouble the House for a moment upon it. You can, of course, claim a general assent to Home Rule even if you can get no surer ground than to quote the speeches of members of the Opposition warning the constituencies that Home Rule would be the result of the success of the Government at the last election. But think what a Home Rule Bill means. It involves great considerations of finance, which caused a large portion of the wreckage of the Home Rule Bills which were proposed in 1886 and in 1893, and from all the evidence that has reached us the problem will not be rendered any more easy at the present time. Home Rule Bills involve also the whole question of Irish Members in the British Parliament,

201
whether they should be there for Imperial purposes, or whether they ought to be there at all—whether they should manage their own affairs and manage ours. That, again, was a subject on which Mr. Gladstone, after months of deliberation, made one proposal, and changed it half way through the Bill, and the failure of that proposal finally assisted largely in the wreckage of the Bill.
Then there is the question of the protection of minorities, which I imagine this House will not pass by with unconcern. Is it conceivable that all these questions can be held to have been decided by the electors because of a few loose words put together by the Prime Minister at the Albert Hall covering a general idea of Home Rule, and not touching any of the intricacies of the subject, any of which might tend to change the votes of the electors with regard to this measure? I do not believe that any eminent City firm would invest £10,000 for a client without more precise guidance than the present Government desire to receive from the electors when they are dealing with £10,000,000 of the revenue of the United Kingdom and the future lives of 4,000,000 of the population.
The noble Viscount, after giving the go by to the people, spoke, as I thought, some rather bitter words with regard to the past history of your Lordships' House. It is true, as Lord Curzon observed, that, whatever be the past history of your Lordships' House, it is hardly relevant to the Amendment before the House to say, as Lord Morley said, that this House should not have a deciding voice in reshaping the Government of Ireland, because it is not proposed by this Amendment that this House should have a deciding voice, but that it should be the subject of a Referendum to the people. When the noble Viscount uses such language, which throughout, the whole country will create prejudice as regards the rights of this House to be heard on an Irish Home Rule Bill, I do not think his statements should be allowed to pass unchallenged.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I have never for a moment denied that this House should have a voice in Irish affairs. My words were—It was rather doubtful tactics to raise the question of specially reserving—that is the point—Irish affairs. I said that that was not
202
good tactics, and was maladroit in view of the facts which I brought forward.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Viscount's contention, with great respect to him, was this, that the past history of this House was so black in this matter that this House had not even the right to move this impartial Committee, headed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to decide whether the issue of Home Rule was sufficiently grave to be submitted to the judgment of the electors. I challenge his statement from every point of view. He tells us to go back for 100 years and look at the character and history of this House, and he further tells us that Irish legislation was ignorant, mischievous, and retrograde. Lord Curzon asked, and I have yet to hear the answer to it, What were the House of Commons doing during all this period? I would still more ask the noble Viscount what in the early days of his own Parliamentary life was that majority of the House of Commons, which for 25 years had complete control—during which time the Conservative Party never had a majority—doing when they could reduce the Irish population during the 25 years from eight millions to five millions? Has the noble Viscount ever considered what measures this House can put to its credit with regard to Ireland? He tells us that we have been the mainstay of all the prejudices and passions, religious or otherwise, which have divided that country? I do not think that even the noble Viscount will contend that all the Land Bills, stretching now over nearly 40 years, have done as much to set at rest this vexed question as the legislation for land purchase initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, and carried by your Lordships, and of which debate after debate in this House was the pioneer.
We are, of course, averse to giving powers of self-government which we think will interfere with the rights of minorities in Ireland; but have we been backward in granting local government? How many countries in the world can claim that they have a larger power of local government than that which the Ministry of Lord Salisbury gave to Ireland with both hands, as it was given to England and Scotland? If there is one subject more than another on which divisions have been created in Ireland and which has probably been the mainstay of passion and sentiment in that

203
country, it is the question of religious education. What has been our policy, persevered in up to this day, with regard to that? We have fought the battle of freedom on behalf of religious education for every denomination according to the wishes of the parent. Where was the noble Viscount, and where were his colleagues, when we were fighting that battle side by side with every Catholic in the Empire? He was in the Lobby with the political Nonconformists, who were grudgingly endeavouring to prevent the denominations from obtaining that which every Churchman and every Catholic in Great Britain and Ireland desired to secure. I think we have no blackness to look back to in that respect.
Although neither the noble Viscount nor any of his colleagues served in Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1880, I would ask him to let me make this comparison. Take the history of the Liberal Government from 1880 to 1885, and consider the changes from coercion to concession, and concession to coercion, when after a period of concession the Phœnix Park murders were followed by more coercion. Lord Salisbury said of those black days that what Ireland required was 20 years of firm government, and I ask, Where in the British Empire has there been progress equivalent to that which took place in Ireland in all departments of material prosperity during the 20 years of Unionist Government, from 1885 to 1906, which had the support of the House of Lords? As Lord Mayo so truly said last night, the crux of Irish agitation was the land difficulty, and that difficulty has been largely swept away by Unionist policy. The feeling as regard local government and want of power in their own affairs was swept away 20 years ago. The battle of education, if it has not been won, at any rate has not been lost, by this House, and the policy, largely decried by the present Government, which was carried through so unflinchingly by Lord Salisbury, with the consent of this House, resulted in such material prosperity that I venture to say the noble Viscount has no right to brand this House as having been the means of ignorant, retrograde, and mischievous legislation with regard to Ireland. Such a statement is an attempt, perhaps not intentional, to increase bitterness and arouse fires which have been smouldering and passions which have been dying out.
204
My Lords, I have spoken mainly on Ireland because I believe that Ireland is the most important question for exclusion under this Bill. I feel, and I believe it will be felt generally, that these debates prove conclusively that the effect of the Bill will not be to free the hands of Parliament. The Bill abolishes the control of this House over finance. It abolishes also our control over legislation, and it abolishes the safeguards on which your Lordships' House is supposed to rely in carrying out its Constitutional functions. All this is done in the name of what?—not of obtaining fairness between the two Parties, for that has been already offered to the other side of the House and refused. The Government cannot make out that anything has occurred requiring the Parliamentary machine to be recast entirely. What country in Europe can show such material progress, can show a better record in legislation, can show such prosperity as the result of the action of Parliament, as Great Britain can to-day? I am far from saying that there is not much to be done. But upon Home Rule the country has apparently made up its mind for 100 years, and therefore it is a strong proposal to ask Parliament to pass a measure with regard to it in two years against the wishes of one House of the Legislature and behind the backs of the people.
The Government are acting with the power of a temporary majority. They know that they are acting contrary to all precedent, and I hope that even now, at the eleventh hour, or before this measure is sent back to us from the House of Commons, they will weigh this Amendment, not in the light of the prejudice of preconceived ideas, but in the light of what they may well think will be advantageous to Liberal legislation. I hope that something may yet result. Otherwise, although it is always unwise to prophesy, we cannot help believing that the day will come when they will rue their mistake in not securing such a settlement as they can secure, and which is held out to them this afternoon with both hands, rather than a Pyrrhic victory which will recoil upon themselves.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening in this discussion, but I do so in order to place before your Lordships a view somewhat different from that which has been expressed in many

205
quarters in the course of this debate. I certainly do not propose to follow so narrow a line as has been lately taken by speakers on the other side in endeavouring to confine this discussion to the consideration of the question of Home Rule. Home Rule is, no doubt, an important element for our consideration, and it is probably going to be one of the earliest topics with which Parliament will have to deal, but it is not solely upon the question of Home Rule that I should like to discuss this Bill, but rather from the point of view of a wider outlook into the future as affecting the interests of the Constitution and of the people of this country.
There have been many speeches on this particular question of Home Rule, but few speakers have discussed, as it seems to me, the general principles of the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite. We unfortunately had introduced at an early stage into this Bill certain Amendments—Amendments which I hope I may be excused for saying seem to have been introduced under pro-Consular influences—which, in the judgment of many and in my own, have largely enforced, and in certain conditions perhaps enlarged, the control or the interference of this House in matters of finance. I believe the country has made up its mind absolutely that the control of pure finance shall remain entirely and indisputably in the hands of the House of Commons, and everybody will admit that it is because for the first time in its history the House of Lords took upon itself the rejection of the Budget that we find ourselves to-day discussing this great Constitutional change. I therefore deplore the adoption at an earlier stage of our proceedings of Amendments which to my mind prejudice the case put forward by those who desire to see a final and permanent settlement.
Passing from that, I will now approach the Amendment of the noble Marquess, of the terms of which I regret I cannot altogether approve, because it seems to me that the provisions which specify the questions that are to be submitted in certain circumstances to a vote of the people are not wisely drawn. But the Amendment enshrines the principle of the Referendum, a principle to which I am committed. It is to that that I desire to confine my remarks. Last night we had a remarkable speech from my noble friend Lord Courtney.
206
The noble Lord speaks with the authority of a man who has been in public life for thirty if not forty years, who has presided as Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons during a long course of years, and who probably classes himself as one of the old school of Liberals. I also class myself as one of the old school of Liberals, or Radicals, who believe in the principles taught by one of the great masters of Liberalism, Mr. Gladstone, and carried on so earnestly by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whose loss we so deeply deplore. Has the appeal, so able, convincing and moderate, which Lord Courtney addressed to my noble friends below me, received any kind of response or consideration? On the contrary, has it not been rather flouted? I dare say, in their hearts, my noble friends regard his opinions as those of a "crank." We have arrived at this pass now, that those of us in the Liberal Party who venture to have an independent opinion upon great questions of public policy and who remain convinced Liberals, are to-day classed as "cranks," or even put into the last of the three categories: Party men, cranks, or idiots. I am willing to be classed at present amongst those men who enjoy little or no favour with the Liberal leaders—I will not say the Liberal Party, because there is a large Liberal party outside who have yet to be consulted on this question and to be taught by bitter experience.
I am not in the least afraid of coming here to-day to express with all sincerity, and as clearly as I can, my view that the Government are making a profound mistake in not accepting, or, at all events, taking into favourable consideration, the question of the adoption of the Referendum in the interests of the country, and, even more, in the interests of the great Party which they represent. The Referendum has been attacked by my noble friends on various grounds. The first is that it is destructive of representative government. I have lived long enough to see representative government take many different forms and shapes. Twenty-five years ago Liberal opinion had its say from whatever quarter of the Liberal Benches it came and influenced the course of action of Liberal Ministers. Since then we have seen the closure and the guillotine in the House, the caucus in the constituencies, and we have seen growing up in the House of Commons itself a system of groups which

207
has entirely modified and changed the whole position of our representative system. It is absurd to argue that the position is the same to-day as it was twenty or thirty years ago when there were two Parties in the State, one opposing the other and both endeavouring, according to their conscientious belief, to carry out public business to the public advantage. To-day, you have none of those conditions in your representative government, and it is because the conditions have been entirely modified that, however great the innovation may be—and no one denies that the Referendum is a great innovation, as is also this Bill—the Referendum is imposed upon us by the circumstances of the hour, and is necessary for the security of the State and for the safety and security of individual citizens. Representative government to-day is tending, not to liberty but oligarchy, and I regret to see my noble friend, Lord Morley, whom I have so often listened to with pleasure, taking a hand in setting up or bringing about a state of government which is surely opposed to the best principles of Liberalism. Last night Lord Morley said that lie was unable to define democracy. I may be wrong, but I fancy that in the old days I heard him define democracy as "Government of the people, for the people, and by the people." Does my noble friend disagree with that statement? If he does not, how can be possibly contend that a reference to the people by means of the Referendum is not a democratic assertion of that principle? I really am at a loss to understand how he will be able, although I admit his dialectical ability, to establish that a reference to the people of matters of urgent and vital moment is not a democratic method of settling them according to the wishes of the people.
Now, my Lords, may I deal with one or two points which arise on the proposal as to the Referendum? In the first place, I do not entirely agree with the proposed form of Committee, certainly not with the form of Committee suggested either by the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, or by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, and I am inclined to think that the smaller the Committee, the more representative if you like of the great offices in the State, the better it would be. But I would leave the Committee in the position of a tribunal, and in order to put that tribunal in action there should be two forces. Both of those
208
forces, as it seems to me, should be perfectly capable of taking the necessary steps for that purpose. In the event of a Liberal Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords, it would be the majority in the House of Lords which would make an appeal to that tribunal. Now for the converse proposition, and it is there that the interests of the Liberal Party are chiefly concerned. Assume a Conservative Government in power, and a Bill passed by a Conservative majority in both Houses. What protection will Liberals have under this Bill in a case of that kind? None whatever. Therefore I would put it in the power of a sufficient minority in the House of Commons, probably not less than 200 Members, to make the appeal to the tribunal for a reference to the people. It is in that way also that you will be able to secure to the Liberal Party some guarantee for the permanence of its legislation.
We may be told that there is no risk whatever of this Bill being modified or reversed. I do not share that view. And I believe that the immediate effect of passing this Bill into law will be that the floodgates will be opened. The various fractions, all of them worthy of attention—the Home Rule fraction, the Welsh Church fraction, the Plural Vote fraction, and, last but not least, the Woman Franchise fraction will all come and say, "Now is our opportunity. We insist that you shall take advantage of those precious first two years in order to pass into law without any reference to the people measures on which the people have so far expressed no judgment whatever." But I must at once say that I do not include Home Rule in that category. I entirely share the view that Home Rule has been sufficiently long before the constituencies and was sufficiently understood at the last General Election. The election turned upon two things—upon the reconstitution of the House of Lords and the curtailment of its Veto, and upon the consequent introduction of Home Rule. I believe that. Home Rule in principle has been accepted by the electors of this country. But when we say that Home Rule in principle has been accepted by the country, that does not cover all forms of Home Rule. Have the Government the least idea of the form of Home Rule they are going to propose? I well remember the Home Rule debates on Mr. Gladstone's Bills of 1886 and later,

209
and the differences in the Cabinet itself upon the question, for instance, of the inclusion of the Irish vote—and at last a compromise was brought about between those conflicting interests. As we all know, my noble friend Lord Morley expressed himself in favour of the exclusion of the Irish Members, and others were in favour of their inclusion; and in the latest Bills there were a good many in and out clauses, and there have been upon the whole principle of Home Rule a good many in and out minds since then.
Various views have been enunciated by prominent men as to what is meant by Home Rule. I may tell the House quite fairly that by Home Rule I mean Home Rule on the lines of Mr. Gladstone's Bills—those at least which I supported years ago, and which I am prepared to support again. But that is not the mind of many of those who favour Home Rule to-day on the Liberal Benches, and while I say that the country in principle has accepted Home Rule I maintain there will be very great and serious questions arising out of the debates on Home Rule which must give rise to strong passions and feeling in all parts of the country. Now I will ask my noble friends this question. You have passed let us assume, as I think you will pass, this Bill at the point of the bayonet. It is a gallant act to carry any position at the point of the bayonet, but when you have got there you must maintain your position. How do you think you are going to maintain your position in the future in the privileged position in which this Bill will place you? During the next three years we shall have a controversy with regard to Home Rule and with regard to the Welsh Church, and we shall have, I greatly fear, profound dissatisfaction with the increasing expenditure of the country. We may also have trade depression, and it is possible, no doubt, that the popularity of the Government itself may wane and diminish in those days, and that circumstances may lead to a great reaction, such as we have seen before, which will place a Conservative Government in power. If that happened, what security have the Government that the Conservative Party then in power will not take advantage of this particular measure to establish a reformed Second Chamber with much greater powers than are suggested to-day, and with perhaps a complete Veto upon certain classes of legislation? I ask my noble friends what means will they have
210
then of preventing such a radical and unsatisfactory change as that in the fortunes of Liberalism? None whatever, as the Bill now stands. But if they incorporate within this Bill some simple system of Referendum, then at least they would have an appeal to the people of the country which would guarantee that no change which might take place in the constitution of a new Second Chamber would be of a character seriously to injure and to impair the liberties which we have fought for, and which we hope to win.
I know that my noble friends will tell us that they had a mandate for this Bill. But do they pretend that the mandate went to the extent of creating a sort of sacrosanct document admitting of no change, of no kind of new provision, and absolutely so sacred that it is not to be touched by the sacrilegious hands of Parliament? It seems to me that the mandate of the people meant nothing of the kind. I know it is very difficult to interpret what the mandate of the people may mean, but I have had enough to do with elections in time gone by to form a rough-and-ready guess of what was in the minds of the electorate when they came to their conclusion at the last election. My belief is that the country was determined, in the first place, that the control of finance should be indisputably in the hands of the House of Commons. Secondly, I believe they were determined that the Liberal Party should have equal opportunities with the Conservative Party for legislation. Thirdly, I believe they were profoundly dissatisfied with a House which is solely based upon the hereditary principle. But, my Lords, this Bill leaves the hereditary principle just where it was. I know that some of my noble friends—Lord Haldane in particular—are very anxious at some future date to deal with this matter. I believe my noble friend is of opinion—and the Prime Minister has also expressed a similar view—that in the course of the present Parliament an opportunity will be taken for dealing with the constitution of this House. I really ask my noble friends in all seriousness, what prospect do they think there is of obtaining the concurrence of their supporters in the other House to deal with this part of the question. They know as well as I do that there is none whatever. Do they rely upon the consideration and the co-operation of the Party opposite,

211
because if they do it seems to me, after this debate, and after this Bill, that they rely upon a very broken reed indeed.
It seems to me, therefore, that this Bill is going to have the effect of handing over the final settlement of this Constitutional controversy very probably to the Party opposite in a sense extremely unfortunate for the interests of Liberalism; and as a Liberal, believing that it is important that the great Party with which I have been so long associated should continue in full strength whenever called upon by public opinion to control the destinies of this country, I greatly deplore the decision which the Government have arrived at, and I earnestly appeal to them before this matter goes to a final conclusion to reconsider the determination which they have expressed so often in this House and endeavour to make the settlement a permanent one, which will give satisfaction to the Liberal Party, and, in a lesser degree, of course, to the Conservative Party, but, above all, to the great electorate of the country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat clown has referred to me, and there are a few words which I should like to say, not about that part of his speech in which lie seeks to penetrate the enveloping gloom of the future, but upon the question which we are at present discussing at such great length—the value of the Referendum. On this question the House is in a very curious position. The Referendum is regarded with almost passionate affection by the noble Earl who, I believe, is going to speak later—Lord Selborne—and is regarded with an equivalent suspicion by Lord Willoughby de Broke, who thinks it wholly unconstitutional. But the case upon the other side is not worse than the case upon my own side of the House. There are my noble friends Lord Courtney of Penwith and Lord Weardale, both of whom think that in the Referendum you have the true solution of the principles of democracy. I think I have before quoted Rousseau in this House. He used to say that the British nation, whose representative institutions he hated, was never free except at a General Election when there was no Parliament; but although the opinions of Rousseau have had a great deal of attention paid to them
212
they have not converted modern States, much less this country, to the doctrine of the Referendum.
It is worth while considering why it is that every country in Europe regards the voice of the people, if one may use the phrase, as best expressed through representatives. This is no new question. It is not some striking discovery that has been made, that you can substitute for the voice of Parliament the voice of the people directly ascertained. That is not as old as the hills, but it is as old as the most ancient democracy. In ancient Athens the voices, when they were taken, were the voices of the people taken directly. That was a possible means of proceeding, because the democracy of Athens was enclosed within a wall of no great ambit. It was possible, therefore, for the great orators of that time to make the people hear and understand. I have before used the illustration in your Lordships' House, and I venture to use it again. It occurred to Themistocles, when he was desirous of building the great fleet with which he was so successful in inflicting a crushing defeat upon the Persians at Salamis, to consult the Athenian people with a view to their devoting the proceeds of the silver mines of Laurium to that purpose. That he did by means of the Referendum, and he got the reply which, no doubt, he was wishing for. But there is no analogy between the conditions existing in ancient Athens and the conditions which exist in this country. Why is it that the Referendum has been rejected by democracies systematically and continually, except for very special purposes, right through modern times?
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Will my noble friend seriously offer me any case of a modern democracy which works systematically through the Referendum? The Referendum in Switzerland is taken under totally different conditions from any that are suggested here. My noble friend referred to America. I can tell him that the Referendum is held in low esteem in the opinion of some competent authorities in the United States. Then lie referred to Australia. Under the Federal Constitution the Referendum is only used there after the two Houses have differed upon an amendment of the Constitution. It

213
is only convened for that purpose, and that purpose only.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: When they agree, questions are still referred.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That is so, but it is only with regard to questions affecting an amendment of the Constitution. Those are the only questions that are referred. That is not your Lordships' proposition. It is questions going far beyond matters dealing with the Constitution that you are proposing to send to the Referendum. I challenge my noble friend to point out any case in modern times in which States have taken any other course than reject this expedient as an impossible, clumsy, and inadequate way of ascertaining the will of the people. I will tell your Lordships why I conceive they have taken that course. What you want to ascertain is the considered opinion of the people, and in a form in which it can express itself and make itself usefully declared. There is only one way of doing that. You cannot go to the people on every detail of every Bill, and on every sort of question. My noble friend spoke of the Insurance Bill as a Bill which he thought was not unlikely to add to the demoralising tendency which was going on amongst the people of this country. How could you refer such a Bill as the Insurance Bill to the people of this country and ask them whether they will have it or not? I have had a good deal of experience, as many of your Lordships have, in dealing with electors, and I know that unless you go and explain every point to them in detail, unless you bring before them your side of the question, and somebody else puts before them the other side of the question, and does it in detail and adequately, large numbers of them will not take the trouble to vote, and even as it is others of them say, "We will not vote because we are not in a position to apprehend the point."
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: How about Australia?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My noble friend brings forward one small and particular case—it was a question of amending the Constitution; and even then it was only after there had been great discussion and preliminary stages gone through in Parliament that the matter was referred. There
214
is not the smallest analogy between the Referendum as exercised in Australia and the form of Referendum proposed by the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Has the noble Viscount considered the case of Natal?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Referendum in Natal is worked in quite a different way from the Referendum in Australia, cited by Lord Courtney.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Natal put the Referendum in force upon the question as to whether it was wise or not for Natal to come into the South African Convention. It seems to me that the result of the Referendum there showed that the people of Natal supported the action of the Natal Ministry in joining the South African Convention. I think that strengthens the case, and not weakens it, in favour of the Referendum.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke has brought out the very question with which I was dealing. As I say, the Referendum is employed with regard to questions dealing with the Constitution. It was exercised in Natal upon the question of Natal coining in under the new Constitution. The thing had been debated over and over again, and everybody in Natal knew every detail connected with it, and the question that was put to the people was a simple one on a specific point, to which only the answer "Aye" or "No" had to be given. I have never said that it is not possible to make use of the Referendum in certain cases. I only say that it is not possible to make it useful in such cases as are covered by the Amendment of the noble Marquess. In the case of Natal it may have been a good way of ascertaining the opinion of the people of that country, but the Referendum there is widely different from what is offered to your Lordships to-day by the Amendment of the noble Marquess to take the place of our own representative institutions.
How do we govern this country? There are two great Parties in the State—the Party which is in power and the Party which is in Opposition. The Party in power puts forward its programme; the programme is put before the country, and the Government brings forward its Bills, which at a General Election are discussed

215
in the constituencies. Numbers of the electors are not the stupid people they are sometimes imagined to be. They take a keen interest in these things and insist on having them debated, and they go, many of them, to the meetings of both sides. What happens? A general approval is given to the principle of the Bill, and the Member representing the constituency is left to work out the details with other representatives and the Government. The constituencies do not want to be consulted on every point that arises in the discussion in the House of Commons, and never express a wish that their representatives should come back and consult them upon the details. They say, "You are our representatives, and we are satisfied for you to represent our general point of view. We have authorised you to give our assent to this particular Bill, the general evolution of which we leave in your hands, and we send you to Parliament to represent us in the working out of the details." That is why every modern State, without a single exception, has eliminated direct reference to the voters for the ordinary purposes of carrying out democratic government, and that is why, where the Referendum is kept, it is only kept for exceptional cases and for special purposes. With regard to the argument of my noble friend Lord Weardale, that representative institutions lead to oligarchy, which is what he said, they certainly in my own opinion lead to nothing more than this—
LORD WEARDALE: Will the noble Viscount excuse me for pointing out that we are now establishing under this Bill single-Chamber government? At present we have not got single-Chamber government, and no other great country has single-Chamber government. You cannot apply the analogy to other States.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I would point out to my noble friend that we upon this side do not admit that we are establishing single-Chamber government. And when he says that single-Chamber government is being established by this Bill he must not assert it as a fact. He must assert it as an opinion—an opinion, no doubt, which a great many noble Lords in this House share.
LORD WEARDALE: There are a great many Liberals on this side and outside who share my view.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: In that case my noble friend will doubtless put himself at the head of a new Party. But whatever the Referendum is, it is no substitute for representative government. It may give you an indication of the ideas of the great mass of the people, but it is no substitute for the reasoned opinion or what has been called the general will of the community which the experience of every State in modern times has shown is obtained best through the medium of representative institutions.
My noble friend Lord Courtney of Penwith spoke of the decay of the Parliamentary spirit, and my noble friend Lord Weardale spoke of the tendency in the House of Commons to split up into groups. Have we not been accustomed to the splitting up into groups in the past? We have not witnessed the group system for the first time, and perhaps Lord Weardale himself will form another group in this House. At present I doubt whether we have more groups in the House of Commons than has been the case during the past seventy years. In the years before the Reform Bill there was the Repeal Party, the O'Connell Party, the Economists, represented by Joseph Hume; the Whigs, and the Radicals belonging to the Westminster school, and there were the sections of the Tory Party which had split up—Peelites, Protectionists—and between 1850 and 1860 there were so many groups seen that it was always a difficult task for any person forming a Government to see whether or not he could obtain the support of them. We have always groups, sometimes more and sometimes less; and it is a feature which you cannot dissociate from our Parliamentary life. It is true that there is more control of representatives by Whips than there used to be. Why? Because of the amount of business to be got through and the little amount of time in which to do it. The amount of business transacted in the House of Commons is enormously greater than before. Does the noble Lord doubt that it is becoming more and more necessary to economise the time, and that those who are responsible for using the time are compelled to apportion it out by means of the closure and other machinery originated by a succession of Governments in order to deal with a situation which is getting more and more intense. The congestion of local business in Parliament is such that for the working

217
of Parliamentary institutions you will have to resort to some sort of devolution if you are to make progress. But I do not believe that the spirit of our Parliamentary institutions has in the least decayed. The same spirit exists in the House of Commons as has always existed; but there is a greater necessity for the economical use of its time; and until you have made some provision for the relief of the congestion of business you will never get to the root of the existing evil.
This Amendment proposes to apply the Referendum in a way which goes far beyond any previous experience. It raises the question whether the representative institutions with which we have been familiar for centuries are now to be destroyed and something quite different substituted which has been condemned by the political experience of our own and other nations. It is because we hold the view very strongly that we are standing here in defence of representative institutions, and because this Bill gives its place, and nothing more than its due place, to the House of Commons in that representative system, that we are resolute opponents, not of the Referendum in any conceivable circumstances, but certainly to the Referendum in the vast bulk of circumstances which are covered by the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we who sit on this side of the House are believers in the virtues of Parliamentary discussion, and I do not think we shall be likely to modify that conviction by our experience this afternoon. We have witnessed the effects of Parliamentary discussion even upon the flinty hearts of His Majesty's Government, and at last, after a great pause, we saw the noble Viscount, who according to rumour was to have spoken later in the debate, brought to his legs. Your Lordships will judge of the kind of defence there is of the Government resistance of this Amendment from the remarks of the noble Viscount. There was a sort of parrot cry of representative institutions. The noble Viscount repeated over and over again that this Amendment was the negation of representative institutions, and he seemed to think that there was some virtue in the phrase. We do not believe that this Amendment in the least bit conflicts with representative
218
institutions. It is a necessary corrective to the invasion of the rights of the ancient Constitution of this country which the present Bill constitutes.
The noble Viscount had the boldness to appeal for an example to every country in Europe. Could there be anything more amazing than that one of the authors of this Bill should appeal for support of it to Europe? There is not a country in Europe or in the civilised globe, except, I believe, Greece and one South American Republic, which has a Constitution the least resembling what this ancient British Constitution will be after His Majesty's Government have worked their will upon it. The noble Viscount—I do not complain of it a bit—was driven, in his defence of the Government position, to reminding us of a former speech of his own. He told us how Themistocles appealed to a Referendum. I confess I did not see the point of the illustration. Themistocles seemed to be entirely successful; the Referendum seemed to have worked perfectly, and in regard to a sort of extremely unpopular proposal—a proposal for extracting money out of the pockets of the people. I certainly should not have supposed that the most likely field for a Referendum was Navy Estimates, but Themistocles did use that as the occasion of a Referendum and used it successfully and obtained the consent he asked for. The noble Viscount says that the Referendum is almost unknown in the civilised world. It is incredible that he should commit himself to such an assertion. Although lie was reminded of the classic cases in Australia and the United States, he made light of them. What right had he to make light of them? He said he understood that the principle of Referendum was much discredited in America. My information is entirely to the contrary. The principle of Referendum has not been introduced into the United States very long, but its popularity is increasing every day. It was started first of all, I believe, in the case of certain great municipalities, but it has already extended to complete States and is being adopted in all directions, and is, in fact, an integral part of the Constitution of the United States. I am informed that as many as forty-six out of forty-seven States cannot amend their Constitution except by means of the Referendum. So that, far from being unknown in the civilised world, it is perfectly well known and particularly in the

219
Anglo-Saxon parts of the civilised world, which is important from our point of view.
The noble Viscount seemed to despise the case of the United States, and he said he did not think much of the Australian precedent. Why not? Could there be anything more in point than that? Here is a recent Constitution and a purely democratic one. I cannot improve on the statement of the case which was made by Lord Courtney last night. There the Referendum has been allowed by the British Government to be established, and it has been used with absolute success, not on trifles, as the noble Viscount seems to think, but with regard to very important proposals affecting the Constitution of the great Australian Commonwealth. What possible ground has the noble Viscount for his argument? I must remind him that mere assertion is of no value. He will never convert your Lordships' House or the country by mere assertion. When he says that the Referendum is not known to the civilised world and when he makes light of the Australian precedent he must back his assertion by argument.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not say it was not used. I said it was confined to Constitutional questions of a specific kind, and that it had no application in the case of questions which it is proposed to submit to it of broad policy under the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know how much I am to read into that admission. Is the noble Viscount prepared to accept the Referendum for great Constitutional issues?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I know the noble Viscount did not say so, but if his argument is of any value that must be the logical conclusion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I do not think you understand me. What I said was that the very specific case which obtains in Australia does not cover the much more wide and general cases which are proposed in the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That might be, but it certainly would cover such
220
a case as Home Rule, for example. If there ever was a Constitutional issue that is one, and yet the noble Viscount shrinks from the conclusion of his own argument. Is it not obvious that he has not got a word to say for himself? Then the noble Viscount told us that there was a difficulty in submitting every detail to the constituencies. Who wants to submit every detail to the constituencies? If the Government are prepared even to submit the principle of a Bill that will be something gained. But they do not want to submit anything. They want to be returned to power and to pass any Bills which they please. Does any noble Lord call that assertion of mine in question?
I should like to draw attention to a most significant observation of the Lord Chancellor with reference to one of the Bills which your Lordships were pointed to as criminals for having rejected in the last Parliament—a Bill which the noble and learned Lord was defending and reproving us for throwing out. This is no contest between the House of Lords and the House of Commons; the contest we are waging is in defence of the people themselves. Let that be perfectly understood. Did the noble and learned Lord when advocating the Bill to which I am referring—the Licensing Bill—really desire to follow the wishes of the people? No, not at all. He is far too honest a man to say so. He knew that he was not following the wishes of the people and took pride in the fact. This is what was said by the representative of the Party who think that the people's will ought to prevail—
"I know very well that the subject is unpopular, and it may have influenced the recent by-elections, but I think it is our duty to stand by this Bill no matter how many by-elections may have gone against us."
The point is that the noble and learned Lord was quite aware that the Licensing Bill was unpopular, and he took credit to himself for the fact that he was, as a member of the Government, advocating a Bill which was unpopular. I am not criticising the noble and learned Lord but his statement confirms my assertion that the Government do not in their hearts desire to carry out the wishes of the people. That is a matter of indifference to them. They desire to carry out the programme of the Liberal Party, and if they can by means of the Parliament Bill make it impossible for your Lordships to refer

221
these Bills which are unpopular to the people themselves, then they will be thoroughly satisfied.
There is no question, as I have said, of submitting every detail to the people. Yet it is not true, on the other hand, to say that the people will be ill-informed of the issue they have to determine. The noble Viscount thought it would be impossible for the people to understand the issues submitted to them by Referendum. He did not seem to think it applied in the case of a Dissolution. He thought that in the case of a Dissolution following on the discussions in Parliament the people would be fully equipped with the necessary information, but, if you please, that argument is not to apply if it happens to be a Referendum. Why does it not apply? Can there he anything more ridiculous than that distinction? Reflect what will have happened. The Bill will have been passed on three occasions by the House of Commons and rejected on three occasions by your Lordships' House, the period extending over two years. I am afraid I have already had occasion to say in your Lordships' House that it is probable that the discussions in the House of Commons may be seriously curtailed, but at any rate the Government cannot take advantage of that particular argument. According to them the discussions there are to be full, and I can answer for it that the discussions here will be full. Are the people deaf, are they blind, cannot they read? Are all these discussions to take place in Parliament and nothing reach the people?
It does not rest there. The various Members of Parliament will, of course, go down to their constituents. Many Members of your Lordships' House will go down to the various parts of the country and make speeches on the subject which has been referred to the people. The matter will be discussed in the greatest possible detail. Every device known to modern electioneering will be availed of in order to bring the matter home to the people. And there will be this immense advantage over a General Election. The effect of a Dissolution is not to concentrate the attention of the people on a particular issue—there are a great many issues submitted, and it is very easy for any evilly-disposed person to confuse the issues. It is easy when a candidate at a meeting finds himself pressed on one subject for
222
him to shift his ground and go on to another subject. None of that will be possible at a Referendum. There will be a single issue on which the whole attention of the people will be concentrated. It will be quite impossible to evade it, and, so far from the noble Viscount being right in thinking that the people will be less informed, they will be a thousand times better informed of the arguments to be advanced on one side or the other. I maintain, as do all of us who sit on this Bench, that the Referendum will be an admirable method of really ascertaining the wishes of the people. We quite recognise, however, that it is not an operation to be undertaken without great care and circumspection, and that it should be applied only in really important cases.
Is it thought that the use of the Referendum will become an abuse? I do not believe it for a moment. We have taken the greatest trouble in drafting the Amendment to prevent its becoming an abuse. Let me remind your Lordships—I know it has been said before—how difficult it will be to abuse the system of Referendum, if your Lordships and Parliament are good enough to adopt the Referendum of my noble friend. In the first place, only very grave matters would be referred to the people. The great mass of ordinary legislation, even when the two Houses of Parliament differ upon it, will not be subject to the operation of my noble friend's clause. It may be that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will differ diametrically upon half a hundred Bills, but unless they involve very grave matters the operation with regard to a Bill will take place as the Government propose. It is only in the case of the very few Bills which this impartial Committee consider to be grave that the Referendum will operate at all.
Then it is thought that your Lordships' House will invoke a Referendum with a light heart upon trivial occasions. Of course not. It is not a very easy proceeding to invoke a Referendum. There is a good deal of disturbance of business and a great deal of expense incurred, and we know that if this House were ill-advised enough to invoke the Referendum without due cause it would suffer in credit and popularity in the country. So far from thinking that the Referendum will be very often employed, I believe it will be very seldom employed, but it will remain

223
of the very greatest value, because it will be there as a protection of the most vital interests of this country. When the House of Lords believed that the House of Commons had not really received the assent of the people, the Joint Committee would be convened, and if they agreed with this House there would be a Referendum, and if the people justified your Lordships' action they would be protected from changes in the law to which they had never assented and which they agreed to be of the greatest danger to the interests of the country at large.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Marquess overlooks the fact that it is not what the House of Lords thinks about referring a Bill, but what the Committee thinks. The House of Lords will move the Committee, who will then be free to say "Aye" or "No" to the request that a Bill should be referred to the people. There is all the difference between that and this House deciding for itself. You are erecting a tri-cameral arrangement. This Committee will have the deciding voice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I really do not see the force of the noble Viscount's interruption. He says it is not the House of Lords that is going to decide it, but the Committee. It is quite true the Committee has the last word, but the point is that as it stands the Referendum is not brought into operation unless both the House of Lords and the Committee desire it. I think that is quite clear. I am assuming that if the general form of the Amendment of Lord Cromer is passed this Committee cannot be moved other than by a Resolution of either House or on the action of Mr. Speaker. I would ask is there likely to be an incautious Resolution of either House of Parliament? Is it likely that a Minister of the Crown will provoke a Referendum unnecessarily about one of his own Bills? Is it probable that Mr. Speaker, whose great position we have been justly reminded of again and again in these debates, will use the power entrusted to him trivially? No, It is perfectly clear that these great authorities would only act with due circumspection, and even then they would not do more than put the Committee in motion, who would decide whether the Referendum was to take place or not.
224
It only remains for me to remind your Lordships that even supposing a mistake were made no great harm would be done. All that would happen would be that the people themselves would be consulted. Nothing worse would happen than that this great democratic principle should be vindicated, and that the people themselves should decide. For these reasons we recommend this Amendment to your Lordships' House; and we are bound to say that unless the Government can put up a better defence than, with all his great forensic ability, the noble Viscount has been able to offer in the speech he has just concluded, we cannot doubt what verdict your Lordships will give when you are asked to go into the Lobby. We commend most confidently this Amendment to your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I think we are at this moment on what I may call a Second Reading debate on the principle of tile Referendum. I do not think it would be fair to press the Opposition and the noble Marquess who has moved this Amendment too closely on the fact that his Referendum does not satisfy us. If we accepted the Referendum at all it would have to be in quite a different form, and I think we have heard enough from the other side to show that the Amendment as presented is not quite satisfactory to them either. It makes no provision as to the point which my noble friend Lord Weardale pressed—the security and protection of the Liberal Party when the Conservative Party is in office. It would only work to protect the Conservative Party, and would do nothing for the Liberal Party. We have heard nothing of that form of Referendum which was promised us before the General Election by Mr. Balfour—that there should be a Referendum in the case of any Budget which tampered with the question of Free Trade. I do not press that too much, because if the Opposition got any sort of encouragement with regard to their Referendum proposal they no doubt would bargain with this side to modify it, and endeavour to make it as fair as possible to both sides of the House.
In my opinion we shall not gain much advantage by discussing the results of the Referendum in other countries. I do not think precedents gained from other countries, especially so remote a precedent

225
as its operation in Athens, are very useful. The government of Athens was conducted very much as affairs are now conducted at a parish meeting. It was the ordinary and necessary procedure for Themistocles in Athens to present his Navy Budget to the people; but that is quite different from the way in which the Referendum would have to be conducted in this country. It is a simple matter in a small area such as Athens comprised to call the people together and to educate them, but where you have a country with 45,000,000 people, distributed over a large area, who would all have to be educated in the various questions, the proposition assumes a different character. Therefore I do not think there is any analogy between what prevailed in Athens or of what prevails in the cantons of Switzerland and what would prevail in a country like our own. It is safer to follow the guidance of our own history, and the lesson which our history has taught us is that it is best to work on the lines of the old-established political system.
I do not think my noble friend Lord Courtney was entitled to use the analogy of Australia for the purpose for which he used it. His point was that it was possible for Parliament to misapprehend the wishes of the people. He cited the instance where the Ministry in Australia, having somewhat outrun their mandate, were on Referendum pulled up and checked by the power of the people. None of us can deny that it is always possible for a Parliament to outrun what we familiarly call the mandate of the people. I do not quite like the expression "mandate," but, after all, it conveys a sound idea that the House of Commons is elected to represent the will of the people for the time being and to give effect to it. But when we have been dealing with the question of the Referendum in other countries we have been dealing with countries which had Constitutions, in other respects also, but pro-eminently in respect of their Second Chamber absolutely different from ours. If we had a House of Lords which was as truly and readily in touch with the dominant feeling of the people of this country as the house of Commons is, the friction between the two Houses would rapidly diminish, and the possibility of a Referendum would arise much more rarely. But it is not fair to introduce machinery which would allow a body
226
unsensitive to the general feelings of the country to force upon the representative body such a new machinery.
I can quite understand that there might have been, in the early stages of the discussion, some opportunity of meeting the views of the other side, because I feel there is an element of truth and true political insight underlying some of the ideas expressed in the speeches on the other side. We all of us would be glad of many occasions to secure further deliberation before a thing is passed into law. If I remember right, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in the earlier stages of the suggestion for modifying and limiting the powers of the House of Lords, suggested that if there was any important piece of legislation proposed, the Government of the day should introduce Resolutions indicating broadly the purposes of their legislation in the House of Commons, and that then those Resolutions should stand over as a sort of signpost to the electors of the tendency of the legislation proposed to be introduced in the new Bill, and in that way they would have as full notice as they could expect of the broad lines of the legislation which was to follow. I do not think noble Lords opposite can expect the electors to go into the details of a Bill, and you would not allow them to do so where the Referendum was employed. If the Referendum was applied in the case of education, or licensing, or the disestablishment of the Welsh, or the whole English Church, it would not be on the details of the Bill. The question would be, after the people had been educated by means of the political organisations and meetings and speeches, "Do you think you ought to take the Bill as it stands, or throw it out altogether?" That is all you could get out of the Referendum, and that is why I think if five or six years ago the Conservative Party had met the Liberals while Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was Prime Minister they might have come to a settlement on some such lines as I have suggested. But you were not ripe for it then. When Falstaff thought he was dying he said "God! God! God!" and Mrs. Quickly saw there was no need to think of God yet. Now like Mrs. Quickly your Lordships thought while there was time there was no need for a settlement, and now under compulsion you offer a settlement when it is too late. I wonder how many of your Lordships were in favour of the Referendum eight

227
years ago when Mr. Balfour was Prime Minister. I think not one, but misfortune brings strange bedfellows and the extraordinary spectacle is now presented of the Tory Party lying down with ultra-democratic principles.
For my part, while I have great sympathy with the desire to consult the nation on important matters of legislation, I have no sympathy whatever with the proposal to consult it by means of the Referendum. I think that to work upon the old lines of the political institutions which we have inherited, which have been improved and modified with time, is better than to work with something quite new. We have always considered that the proper way of consulting the nation was by a Dissolution and by the electors returning a new Parliament. The electors cannot determine details of policy; they can only determine whether they prefer the Liberals to the Unionists, or the Unionists to the Liberals, leaving the responsibility and power to the Government they return to make the decision on questions of policy, and I should be very sorry to see that responsibility and power taken to any extent out of the hands of those who have to lead and guide the Party and transferred in any way to a plébiscite of the country.
Noble Lords say we have plenty of experience of plébiscites in various countries. We know the experience of France under the Second Napoleonic Dynasty, and I think every French politician would tell you that the habit of taking plébiscites by Louis Napoleon was merely a device for confusing the people. There has been a great deal of discussion and dispute in France—I am sure the noble Marquess who was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has followed it and is intimately acquainted with all the movements of French politics since 1870—and the plébiscitary idea in France is completely discredited, politicians of all kinds considering that it is through the improvement of representative institutions not through appeals to the vote of a scattered population that the best, results are achieved. We have to work out from our own precedents and history what is the best way of going forward. I am only now dealing with this Amendment on Second Reading lines, not criticising it in detail. It is the principle that it should be by an appeal to the whole electorate, and not by an appeal to the
228
new House of Commons, that I object to. As I said before, I have not heard a single word from noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite that they would accept a Referendum of the character suggested by Mr. Balfour, by means of which we should get rid of plural voting——
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Marquess himself referred to Lord Saltoun's Amendment as a reasonable method of working it.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am afraid I did not catch that. I think it is only fair, in discussing this Amendment, that we should go to the root principle of it rather than discuss details. While I should have been glad if this thing had been taken in hand at a time when it was possible to have had some agreement between the Parties with regard to it, yet I feel that such a time has gone by. The situation is too strained between both Parties; the temper of the House of Commons is much too high and resentful for any Government to be able with any hope of success to accept Amendments such as have been put forward by the other side, which, even considered fairly, must be objectionable, and can very well be held up as outrageous and tyrannical. But I cannot help hoping that this legislation may be temporary only, and that we may come with a reconstituted House of Lords to a period when the relations may be reconstructed, and possibly more powers given to the new Chamber than are left to the present one. I cannot help hoping that when the finance of the year is protected to the House of Commons there may be discussion allowed to your Lordships of Money Bills which, though including grants from the State, are Bills dealing with social matters, like the Old Age Pensions Bill and the Invalidity and Sickness Bill. But we are face to face with the extreme ruling that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, gave on the question of the Voluntary Schools Aid Bill, when he absolutely suppressed all discussion and all amendment. Those precedents have to be got rid of before we can look to getting any reasonable power for dealing with such things. I hope your Lordships will excuse me for having given that illustration, but I think it is a necessary one and until something of the kind I have suggested is done I have no hesitation in voting against the Amendment of the noble Marquess, because in the present temper of the House

229
of Commons and with the present constitution of your Lordships' House I see no possibility of its being accepted.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, it has been said that this debate is assuming too much the character of a Home Rule debate and that sufficient attention is not being paid to the portion of the Amendment dealing with other subjects, but really the danger of Home Rule is so imminent and it is so notorious that this Bill has been introduced chiefly as a prelude to a Home Rule Bill that I may be excused for returning to the subject. I wish to strongly support what fell from my noble friend Lord Mayo when he stated that opposition to Home Rule was as strong as ever in all parts of Ireland, and was not confined to Ulster. I do not know who the junior members of the Unionist Party are who were mentioned in the quotation my noble friend read from the Lord Chancellor's speech as being less strongly opposed to Home Rule than the senior members of the Party—probably some young gentlemen who have not given much attention to the subject. Anyhow, I feel sure that they do not live in Ireland. That I think I can say. I can only recall one instance of any member of the Party having asked me what dangers we anticipated from Home Rule. The answer which he received gave him, I think, very serious food for reflection.
Living as I do in Ireland, I have a large acquaintance with people in all the provinces, and I receive constant assurances from them that the feeling against Home Rule is as strong as ever it was and probably even more widespread. For, as was pointed out by Lord Mayo, farmers who have purchased their holdings are not so keenly in favour of Home Rule as they used to profess to be. The reason is perfectly plain. They have something to lose. As was pointed out by the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, land is the main question in Ireland, and they know that the large farms they are now possessed of are as much coveted by the landless men as the land which is held by landlords. Irish Unionists are convinced that on the maintenance of the Union the prosperity of their country depends. They love their country, they absolutely refuse to concede to their political opponents a monopoly of patriotism, they are keenly interested in
230
the welfare of their country, and they are convinced that any weakening of the tie which binds the two countries together will materially injure that welfare, and that therefore it is in the interests of the two countries that this bond should remain unaltered. I say "in the interests of the two countries." For let Englishmen reflect on the difficulties that might arise, in the event of any foreign complication, front having a possibly hostile Parliament, sitting at no great distance from this country, with full control of the Executive.
In addition to the question of material prosperity, there is a strong bond of sentiment uniting Irish Unionists to this country. They wish to maintain unimpaired the traditions of their forefathers in the past century, and to remain united to the governing centre of the great Empire which their countrymen have done so much to extend and to consolidate. They wish when they land on these shores to feel that they are not treading upon foreign soil, that they are not strangers in the land, but that they can identify themselves with all the feelings, hopes, and aspirations of the people of this country, just as when Englishmen come to Ireland they wish to receive them not as strangers but as fellow-citizens of the United Kingdom. Irish Unionists like to know, when they see the electric light shining in the tower above us that the interests and destinies of Ireland, as well as those of Great Britain, are committed to the charge of the Parliament sitting below. The intensity of this feeling cannot, perhaps, be fully appreciated by people who are not in the same position, but it ought to enlist the sympathies of people in this country and render them averse to placing those who hold this feeling so strongly at the mercy of an Irish Parliament. The knowledge that in most parts of Ireland where patriotism has shrunk to a narrow provincialism such sentiments are looked upon as criminal, and the knowledge that in some cases they are still guilty of the unpardonable crime of holding property which is coveted by others, renders Irish Unionists most apprehensive of being placed at the mercy of an Irish Parliament with full control over the Executive.
I know we shall be told that these apprehensions are unfounded, that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament will be

231
maintained, that with the establishment of an Irish Parliament all differences will be forgotten, and that peace and goodwill will prevail everywhere. In spite of the plausible utterances of the leaders of the Party and the promise of toleration and peace and concord, we cannot believe in this restoration of the Golden Age. We have too much experience of the bitterness of feeling which, unfortunately, still prevails in Ireland, and how recollection of past grievances, whether real or imaginary, rankles in the Irish mind. Then as to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, what security have we, even if that was accepted by the Nationalist Party, that it would be strictly enforced? Any difference of opinion between the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament would be strongly resented. Recollections of the struggles against the operation of Poyning's Act before the Union at the close of the eighteenth century would be invoked, the example then set would be followed, and turmoil and agitation would succeed. Is it not to be feared that the dread of agitation would again prevail and that the Government of the day would give way? We have every reason to believe that if such a state of things was accepted as an Irish Parliament under the supremacy of this Parliament, it would only be taken as an instalment to secure further power. The utterances of the leaders of the Party—not intended for consumption in England, but in America—show us that they cannot rely on the support of their followers unless they demand complete independence. As was said by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Weardale, there are several kinds of Home Rule; and he was not aware, any more than we are, what sort of Home Rule His Majesty's Government contemplate. But we believe that there is no half-way house between the present state of things and complete independence, and, as I said before, the interval between those two points would be filled up with turmoil and agitation. We therefore hail the subsection in this Amendment which provides that this question in which they are so vitally interested should in the last resort be submitted to the electors of the United Kingdom for decision. We look to the electors of the United Kingdom to see that we should not be made to suffer for our attachment to this country. We look to them for justice. It has as ever been the proud boast of Englishmen that no one appeals to their sense of justice in vain,
232
and it is before that tribunal that we wish our claims to be laid.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, when I read and consider the Amendment before the House and remember the speech with which it was introduced by the noble Marquess I say frankly I am surprised at the result. The Amendment was framed with infinite care, so as to secure in the most reasonable and moderate way that great topics that might legitimately, it was conceived, be excluded from the normal operation of the Parliament Bill should be reserved for further consideration by the nation. I thought it not unlikely that the noble Viscount opposite, although he might not feel at liberty to accept the whole of the Amendment, would at once have accepted the first part of it; and, for myself, speaking perfectly frankly as a man accustomed to look at problems from many sides, I cannot see at all why the noble Viscount should not accept the first part.
The first part of the Amendment says that any measure affecting the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession should not be dealt with under the normal operation of the Parliament Bill, but should be left for the whole nation to express an opinion upon by Referendum. Is it not commonsense that it would be a monstrous thing to change the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession without the nation having a frank and free voice in reference to the matter? I heard the Duke of Devonshire speak yesterday with great force and clearness on this point and I heard the reply of the noble Viscount and I am still unable to understand why such a reasonable and obvious proposal is not accepted by the Government. What was the answer that was given? That in the present House of Commons such a proposal was not likely to be made, and that if such a thing ever were done the Sovereign would have a remedy. I listened attentively to the noble Viscount, but I do not know what he has suggested as the Sovereign's remedy if a Bill were presented to him by the Prime Minister of the day affecting the existence of the Crown and the Protestant succession. What was to be done by the Sovereign in a case of that kind? I am at a loss to follow the meaning of the observations of the noble Viscount in reference to that matter, because the only course open to

233
the Sovereign would be to recur to the Veto, or else ask the Prime Minister of the day, "What am I to do to save the existence of the Crown and the Protestant succession from the consequences of the very Act which you present to me." Surely that is a ridiculous way to leave a great Constitutional question of the highest conceivable importance, and I honestly and sincerely say that I thought this part of the Amendment would be accepted mainly on the ground that it was just and in a lesser degree because there was no vestige of an answer to it.
A good many of the speeches have been necessarily addressed to the question of Home Rule. My noble friend behind me, who is entitled to speak with the highest authority on that question from his character and ability and from the part he has always taken in the counsels of Irish Peers, has dealt with the question, but to a certain extent we are in a difficulty in dealing with Home Rule now. If we had a Bill before us we should then know what the mind of the Government was on the matter. I do not believe they know themselves at present. It would be a great advantage to us if we could see the Bill, and if we could know—shall I say?—its enormities. I would like to see how the Government skate round the difficulties of the question. But we have not got the Bill, and therefore we can only say this, that we know enough of the question from its history and what has been said to see that it is a question which it is legitimate should be kept out of the ordinary ambit of such a Bill as this in order that the nation should have an opportunity of saying what they think in reference to it.
We know on the broad outlines that Home Rule must lead to disruption of the Empire. It breaks up at once the United Kingdom. That is a tremendous fact. It must lead to a great disturbance of the incidence of taxation and an enormous change in the expenditure of the two countries, and it will lead to much heart-burning as to what is to become of the poor Irish Members. As a general proposition, they are pretty well able to take care of themselves. As an Irishman I am the last person in the world to disparage the brains and intelligence of my own countrymen, but if you think you are going to get rid of Irish difficulties
234
by having a Home Rule something in Dublin you are mistaken. What is to become of the Irish Members? Are they to be kept here to look after Imperial concerns, and keep you in order? We know nothing about that except from speculation, and we can only speculate on the bearings of a Home Rule Bill in reference to Ireland. How is Ireland to get over the tremendous difficulties in regard to finance? You have a Committee sitting on the question, which is some guide that you yourselves recognise the obvious difficulties of the case.
Then there is the case of Ulster. No one can question that in a great part of Ulster—may I say Protestant Ulster?—there is a tremendous hatred of Home Rule, as there is in countless homesteads spread all over Ireland. That is the question of the Protestant minority. I only mention it as showing that it is one of those great subjects that necessarily attract the attention of every fair-minded man. This question of Home Rule is an exceptional one. It affects England tremendously, and it affects Ireland so seriously that you are bound in all fairness and justness not to treat it as an ordinary matter of legislation, but allow the free voice of the nation to express itself upon it. When you have the Bill drafted and ready you ought to submit your policy to the judgment of the people. There are vague sentences which deceive nobody. "Let the Irish manage their own affairs." Beautiful. But who are the Irish? Are we not one composite united people, springing from the same stock, the same race, and having the same instincts? When you talk of the Irish you do not mean a united people but a disunited people, some of whom seem strongly in favour of your plan whilst others believe that your plan is one of the wickedest ever invented to disturb a nation.
When you say "Let the Irish manage their own affairs," I ask, What affairs are they to manage? Are they to manage the affairs of the minority against their wish and determination? Are they to send a coterie over to manage your affairs? Are they to have the right to tax Ulster? That is a tremendous question. I have the greatest possible respect for the noble Viscount opposite. I had the honour of sitting, though not on the same side, with him in the House of Commons, and I

235
have had the privilege of reading many of his works. But I do not think he was quite fair to this House in indicating that this House could not be trusted to act fairly and reasonably in reference to Irish affairs owing to its past history. Where was his right to say that? Ireland, owing to the Acts of this Legislature and the cooperation of this House, has one of the widest systems for the purchase of land that any civilised country has ever seen, and the widest Land Acts. The noble Viscount knows that the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, two great achievements of Mr. Gladstone, were passed by this House, on the beneficent working of those Acts. Take the Local Government Act of Mr. Gerald Balfour, a man of whom we do not hear enough, passed by the Conservative Government. That Act gave as wide a measure of local government to Ireland as exists in England. Surely that is an immense thing, and my noble friend Lord Londonderry, in his speech last night, teeming with information, mentioned the present position of our savings bank, brought about by the thrift and possibility of saving of the people of Ireland, and that shows that prosperity has been able to grow up under the Union.
A predecessor of mine in the office both of Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. Law, who I am sure enjoyed the friendship of the noble Viscount opposite—he was an eminent lawyer and distinguished statesman—said, when prosecuting Mr. Parnell in the King's Bench in Dublin, that the Irish tenant had been made a cat's-paw to help on the Home Rule movement. Something else has been said here about the balance between the actions of both Parties with regard to Ireland. I will not go into that. I admit that each side acted according to what they honestly believed to be the requirements of Ireland at the respective times, and it is not fair, or just, or reasonable, to suggest that either Party acted otherwise than in an honest belief that they were doing their best to cope at the time with the difficulties of the position. I remember well some of Mr. Gladstone's sentences with regard to the crime that had occurred in Ireland, and when the Acts that had been passed did not achieve as rapidly as was hoped the results that were anticipated. One of them was, when some great crime had taken place in Ireland, "The resources of civilisation are
236
not yet exhausted." When Mr. Gladstone was asked what was to be done because improvement was not advancing rapidly enough, he said, "Do not let us weary of doing good." My Lords, each side must take responsibility for what has been done in Ireland, and you cannot blame Peers connected with Ireland if they raise their voices and testify to what they believe will be the results of legislation which they know is impending. It is essential for them to point out that this is one of the great measures which ought not legitimately and justly to be placed in the category of ordinary legislation. It is a measure which should be submitted for the free opinion of the nation, in order that the people may say, looking at the question of Home Rule fairly and all round, whether the measure is one that is called for by the requirements of Ireland.
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: My Lords, it is only natural that those who feel strongly on this subject should express themselves strongly, and it is only natural that those who have fears, perhaps I should be allowed to say legitimate fears, should give expression to those fears on such an occasion as this. I venture to say, and I am sure noble Lords on both sides of the House will forgive me if I am perfectly frank, that. I do not quite feel that it is a fair description of the conditions of the last Election to say that Home Rule was put very prominently before the electors. It is perfectly true that on one side there were those who were ready to warn the electors that probably Home Rule would follow, but I do not think that the voice which uttered those views spoke with authority so definite and distinct as to make it an absolute certainty to the people of this country that Home Rule was intended. If I remember rightly, when it was asserted on one side of the House that Home Rule was, as it were, the bogey behind the door, an answer was given more than once to the effect that it was merely a "red herring" that was being drawn across the track. If responsible members at that time were ready to retort that the idea of Home Rule was a red herring across the track, there must have been a large section of the Party who did not intend to put the Home Rule issue as a prominent matter before the people, and I venture to think it is quite legitimate on the part of those noble Lords who have done so to argue

237
that the Home Rule question was not so explicitly before the country so that anyone could say that the country had absolutely decided in favour of it.
I am in the unfortunate position of being one who cannot see eye to eye with the various partisans. I do not know under what category I should come if the descriptive political epithets were to be applied to me. I am afraid I should have to take my chance. I presume I should be called a speckled bird. In my judgment the only way to deal with questions which come before a great legislative assembly like this is to ask yourselves what is your best judgment; what is your honest opinion; and to express that opinion to the best of your power. I understand that the Referendum is the main issue of the debate at present. I venture to say, with all courtesy, that to my point of view there has been something of a discursive method of dealing with that issue, and it seems to me that Home Rule has loomed rather too largely in the discussion to the obscuring of the main issue before us, which is: Is the Referendum a wise and just method of dealing with present-day difficulties?
I confess I am not ready to yield to the noble Viscount who leads the House in the extreme aversion I have felt to the Referendum. I do not like the Referendum because the whole of my hypothesis of government is this, that I being an elector not having a wide experience concerning administrative action employ somebody else whom I believe to be wiser and better fitted than myself to take up the matter and deal with it. I take that attitude feeling that the members elected to the elective Assembly are better fitted to judge than those who send them there. That being so, it seems to me unwise that maters should be referred back from the better instructed to the less better instructed, and I venture to think that wherever that is done there is a confession of weakness in the Assembly that is driven to do it, because it seems to me to involve this admission, "We cannot make up our minds, we are in a difficulty, and you who are less instructed must form your opinion on the subject." That seems to me the real difficulty with regard to the Referendum.
For that reason the question presents itself to my mind in this way—Have
238
circumstances arisen which make it desirable that we should resort to the Referendum? I do not want to say a word which would disparage the position of any legislative Assembly, but a great deal has been said about the difficulties which exist in the House of Commons and the great congestion of business that exists there. I think it is but just and fair to admit that the House of Commons is in difficulty because of the enormous amount of work thrown upon it. I for one feel, when great and grave measures have to be discussed, that it is a very hard thing for the people of this country that discussion should be cut short on important measures because a whole host of minor measures are a waiting consideration. In the case of the affairs of a growing Empire such as ours, the complication of whose circumstances is increasing every day, which complication may lead to tremendous problems in the future, I do not think we are dealing justly with the great Imperial policy of this country if our representatives in Parliament are obliged to say "We have no time to discuss, consider, or deliberate on these matters as we should like." I blame nobody for it. I speak merely of I he facts of the case, but it does seem to me that it ought not to pass the wit of man to find some means of escape from such an intolerable position.
What has been the result? There is a symptom, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, of a decay in Parliamentary spirit. I do think, if we are to be perfectly frank in the matter, we must admit that. Everyone who looks at the method—I will not say the hurried method—by which sometimes Members are driven by circumstances to give a vote with which, according to their inmost convictions, they do not feel satisfied at all, must recognise the danger of the tendency. Party organisation has become extraordinarily perfect in these days. The machinery is as complete and as perfect as it can be made, but I must say I cannot bring myself to look at this machinery with anything approaching approval or satisfaction. It seems to me that in the end this mechanism is likely to destroy the reality of freedom and the real value and the moral effect of a legislative Assembly. My Lords, I have no axe to grind and no sort of leaning from a Party point of view, and I speak with frankness and freedom

239
as one who has formed as independent an opinion as I can. It is written in history that the idea creates the organisation, but the organisation often ends by destroying the idea; and I would ask: Are we not in danger lest the very perfection of our organisation may tend to kill the very idea which brought that organisation into existence?
What did Burke say concerning the position of the House of Commons? He said that the House of Commons was, in his view, an Assembly created to watch with due care the actions of the Executive. That is perfectly reasonable. I can go back in imagination to the days when the Executive had great power, and the House of Commons was bound to be on its guard lest there was any unwise or unfair exercise of power on the part of the Executive; and Burke's view was that the House of Commons must watch very jealously the action of the Executive, because the Executive had power to do things at variance with the will of the people. I recall a statement made by a noble Lord who said, speaking of the Executive of the country: "We have reversed by our administrative action Acts of Parliament which were passed before we came into office, and there was no one to come and say, 'That is very wrong.'" Where was the vigilance that ought to have been exercised at such a moment as that? Is there not every reason why the House of Commons should exercise extraordinary vigilance lest the Executive should exceed its powers? The perfecting of Party organisation has given to the Executive enormous power, and therefore there is tremendous danger of our falling under the tyranny of bureaucratic government. That being the case, it seems to me that every vigilance should be brought into play which will tend to prevent the invasion of the rights and the freedom of the people to judge and think for themselves without the Executive being tempted to go beyond its powers. I am afraid of what might happen if your Party organisations become so perfect that you were able to carry measures right through, having dragooned your followers into subjection—measures which really had never received the broad and wide sanction of the people of the country. I only put this forward as one who does see that there are certain dangers which threaten an invasion upon the rights and freedom of the people.
240
If I may I will give one illustration which occurred in my own experience. I was seated in my study one evening when I was told that a certain Member of Parliament desired to see me. I confess I did not feel very grateful for the interruption, because I was at that moment intent upon the preparation of my Sunday evening sermon. He said, "I want you to sign a petition." I said, "What is it?" He said, "It is a petition to keep that"—I will not repeat the adjective that he used—"gentleman, Mr. Bradlaugh, out of the House of Commons. It is a petition to the House of Lords to ask them to throw out the Affirmation Bill." I looked at him and said, "This is very extraordinary. If I remember rightly you are on the side of the House which has brought in that Bill." "Oh, yes," he said, "I am." "Well," I said, "I suppose you opposed it?" "Oh, no," he replied, "I went with my Party." Then I said to him, "You come to me and request me to sign a petition asking the House of Lords to undertake a responsibility you had not the courage to undertake for yourself. You can go away. I will have nothing to do with it." "As a matter of fact," I added, "I approve of the Affirmation Bill, but even if I agreed with you I would never dream of signing a petition to liberate you from responsibility when you had not the independence to settle it for yourself."
May I say also that I greatly deprecate what I may call the financial necessities of Party organisation. A man may be assisted into the House by contributions from Party funds. Is he allowed to give a free and independent vote always? I believe it is the duty of the Whips in the case of a man who has come under the auspices of the Party to see that he follows the Party lead. That is exactly what gives me courage to rise in your Lordships' House, because it seems to me that the House of Commons is in danger of ceasing to be what it was intended to be—an Assembly of free Englishmen gathered together to consider, debate, and decide on the great issues which affect the welfare of the country. In the present conditions I think that the Referendum is a step in the wrong direction, and that it is essentially and theoretically a blunder, because it is an appeal from the wise to the unwise in theory. Yet, seeing that you are withdrawing from the House of Commons a great deal of protective force which acted

241
as a shield to the freedom of the country, I cannot see that there is any alternative except, in some form or another, to take advantage of the opportunity offered to us of a Referendum to the people on all really great issues. Is it quite impossible to find a modus vivendi in this matter? Is it really to be said that we are going to stand out on a matter of this kind and say that there shall be no case in which there shall be this Referendum or appeal to the country? My noble friend Lord Sheffield desired that there should be opportunities, under certain conditions, of consulting the people, and the Referendum is a method for doing it. I ask whether it is not possible, even at this late hour, to find some mode by which both Parties could agree with regard to it.
I gathered, from what the noble Viscount said, that he did recognise that there might be Constitutional questions which it would be desirable under certain circumstances to refer to the people. Nobody wants to make this a usual expedient. All we want is that there should be certain special cases referred on matters touching the Constitution. It has been said that a Government which comes in by the will of the people is elected to carry certain measures, and that to refer those measures back to the people again is a superfluous thing. If I thought that I should say, By all means go on as you are. But that is not always the case, and I think I am right hi saying that some Bills have become Acts which did not bear quite the same complexion as when first introduced. Indeed, some Bills remind me of a scene in the "Inferno," where a serpent attacked a man and penetrated the man through the middle so effectually that by and by the man became the serpent and the serpent became the man. Therefore it does seem to me, after due deliberation, that there are exceptional cases—I do not attempt to define them—where the use of the Referendum might be advisable, and I make an earnest and humble appeal to His Majesty's Ministers to-day, putting whatever restrictions they like upon it, to see if they cannot at least give the people of this country an opportunity of expressing their opinion on those great issues which must inevitably affect their welfare and their prosperity.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I have not ventured up till now to
242
interpose in this debate, but I should like to ask your Lordships to allow me to offer a few remarks this evening, not because I have any hope of being able to say anything that is new, but because I do look upon the present situation as one of a most serious and grave character. I should like to endorse the appeal made by the right rev. Prelate in his most eloquent speech. Personally I support the Amendment that has been moved by the noble Marquess, because I believe that if it was accepted a great deal, in fact almost all, of our objections to this Bill would be done away with; and it seems to me that if there is any real desire for compromise a means of compromise is to be found in this Amendment.
I would, in the first place, say that in supporting this Amendment there is no desire on my part to in any way reflect upon the House of Commons. I have been myself elected to that House on no less than six occasions, and I look back to my connection with it as the most notable portion of my life. There is no desire on our part to reflect upon or to express distrust of the House of Commons. What we do distrust is the disproportionate representation. The noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, following the line set by a good many noble Lords opposite, referred to the subject of plural voting—a question which has been before your Lordships on many occasions. Hut I would ask any noble Lord who is in favour of the abolition of the plural vote to take a short journey to the Library of your Lordships' House, where he will find an ingenious plan, prepared by Major Morrison-Bell, which I think will convince him that there is something more important than the question of plural voting—and that is the question of representation in the House of Commons. He will find a very elaborate plan, giving the proportional representation of every constituency. And it may be interesting to noble Lords to know that the defeated Unionist candidate in Romford, which is the most prominent of all the constituencies set out in the plan, polled more votes than were polled by Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Sir E. Grey, and Mr. Haldane combined. That suggests that the reconstitution of the House of Commons is far more necessary than the reconstitution of the House of Lords. If the object of the franchise is to give fair representation to the electors I would suggest that the present Government should introduce a

243
Redistribution Bill, and that when they have reconstituted the House of Commons it will be time enough for them to attempt to deal with the House of Lords. The reasons I am in favour of the Amendment are, in the first place, that I see a possibility of compromise, and, in the second place, it differentiates the character of the measures that would come before Parliament and gives an opportunity of appeal to the country.
We have heard a good deal to-night about the Referendum. It seems to me that those who object to it have occupied their time in finding out bits of this Referendum and bits of the other Referendum that do not suit us. Very likely. I believe America worked out a scheme of Referendum that would suit itself without regard to what suited other countries; and if it becomes necessary, as I believe it will under this Bill, that some appeal should be made to the people of the country before these questions of great importance are passed over our heads, some such consideration will become necessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, mentioned subjects which be considered unsuitable for Referendum. But surely that is a matter that can be easily arranged. Lord Crewe last year, when dealing with the question of the Referendum, said that the issue which was referred ought to be a simple issue and one that would materially affect those who were called upon to vote. I think we all agree with that. And while so many questions that are unsuitable have been suggested to your Lordships, I should like to suggest one that, in my opinion, is absolutely suitable—namely, Payment of Members. I suggest that that would be a very easy question to submit to a Referendum. It is a simple issue, and one that materially affects the people who are called upon to vote in respect to it; and it seems to me that the common-sense action to take would be to allow those who have to pay the money, not those who are to receive it, to say whether payment is necessary. I undertake to say that if that question were put to the country very few constituencies would estimate the value of the services of their respective representatives at £400 a year.
The right rev. Prelate quoted an eloquent passage from Burke with which I fully agree. One of the principal objections to this Bill is that it reverses what are the
244
proper functions of Parliament. We have a more recent example than Burke. On November 21 last year Lord Crewe gave a definition of Parliament, and what it ought to do. He said that Parliament was not an end in itself; it was a means of doing certain things for the nation; and he went on to explain that it was a machine with three principal objects—first, to keep in check the Executive; second, to raise money; and, third, and not the primary one, to pass legislation. I venture to say that in this Bill that position is entirely reversed. This Bill is apparently framed and brought before you for the one purpose of forcing through Parliament legislation, Party legislation. We have already had it explained to us, and we know from our own experience, that at the present moment the Executive, on which Parliament ought to keep a check, is supreme, and that Parliament has no power of instituting such a check. We have also heard a good deal about the questions that were raised at the last two elections, and we have had it apparently generally accepted that this particular Bill was fully discussed during the last election. Those who make that statement apparently ignore a speech that was made by the Prime Minister at Oxford on March 18 of last year, after the January election. He said—
"This absolute Veto upon legislation must go. That was the issue submitted to the electorate. We believe they intended to answer it, and did answer it, in the affirmative, and this will become clear when the matter is submitted as it will be submitted the week after next, to the House of Commons."
He was referring to the Veto Resolutions on which the House of Commons were about to decide, and it will be borne in mind that those Veto Resolutions were passed under the guillotine on the distinct understanding that the Bill framed on those Resolutions should have full discussion when it came up. The Prime Minister went on to say that the matter, of course, could not rest there, and that the judgment of the House of Lords must also be obtained, but that he did not know what that judgment would be, although he had his suspicions. Now is it credible, after that speech of the Prime Minister, that that Bill, for which full discussion had been promised, should have been withdrawn from the House of Commons before the House of Commons had an opportunity of discussing it on Second Reading? And had it not been for the insistence of the

245
noble Marquess the Bill would never have been brought before your Lordships at all. I maintain there was no idea at that time of any second election.
It is rather interesting to consider what were the causes that produced the second election. At elections various questions are raised, and the difficulty really is, not in getting the support of the country to a particular proposal, but in putting the platform cry into an Act of Parliament. For instance, you are in favour of education; so are we. You are in favour of temperance; so are we. But when the one side or the other come to put their licensing or their education proposals into a Bill, then arises the difficulty. There was no real reason for a second election at all. I have quoted the words of the Prime Minister, and I think it was Lord Crewe, at Newmarket, who said that the Liberal Party did not want the election, and that it was forced upon them. An interrupter said, "By the Irish Party," and the answer was, "No, by the House of Lords." I challenge any noble Lord opposite to show in what way your Lordships forced that second election. The real reason was given by the Master of Elibank, a very important person on the other side. Addressing the London Liberal Open-air Speakers' League on February 24, he said that when he was asked as Chief Liberal Whip what would be the best time for a General Election he replied, "At once," and he added that be staked his soul upon London, because he had heard of the work that had been carried on by Liberals at street corners. We were, therefore, put to all the expense of a General Election because of the work done by Liberal orators at street corners.
Have we ever had fair play from the other side? The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, comes here and pays us compliments, but it is no good his telling us what fine fellows we are because we already know it. If he would go and pay us the same compliments on public platforms there might be something in it. What did he say the other day? He said he wanted a Second Chamber, but not one like the House of Lords, which "hunted Liberal measures like a terrier hunts rats." It would have been more fair, instead of making that remark, had he told his audience that on no single occasion had the Veto of the House of Lords been put in operation between the January and December elections. What we did was to suspend our
246
Standing Orders in order to pass the Budget in a single day, after the many months of what we thought rather discreditable manœuvring before the other Chamber was able to pass it.
The present Postmaster-General said, in the January election, that the Liberal Party claimed that the last word was not with the House of Lords but with the House of Commons. We claim that the last word is neither with the House of Lords nor with the House of Commons, but with the people. It is because I believe that by this Amendment we shall secure the last word being with the people that I shall give it my most strenuous support; and I venture once again to remind your Lordships of the definition of an ideal Second Chamber given by the Prime Minister in 1904 and quoted with excellent effect by the late Lord Cawdor during the Budget debate—that a real Second Chamber was a revising authority over tile details of legislation, that when a doubt existed as to whether the House of Lords or the House of Commons more accurately interpreted the wishes of the people, the Veto should be introduced in order teat that doubt might be effectively solved. That is all we have ever asked for, and that is all we ask for now.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes to eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, commenced his speech by finding fault with the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, for making what he considered an address appropriate for the Second Reading of a Home Rule Bill. With all the deference that is due to a man of great distinction like Lord Courtney, I venture most emphatically to join issue with him on this matter. Speaking as a life-long and an unrepentant Liberal, though not a supporter of his Majesty's present Government, I believe not only that we should never have heard of a Home Rule Bill at this juncture had His Majesty's Government not been dependent on the Nationalists for their majority, but that we should have heard very little, if at all, of thee Parliament Bill.
There is another reason which makes the debate on this particular Amendment

247
a debate upon Home Rule in disguise, and why we, particularly those who come from Ireland, should discuss Home Rule. That reason is the fact that, as was so amply and ably proved in yesterday's debate, Home Rule was never before the country as a controversial measure at a the last General Election; and this important debate is one of the few occasions open to us on which we can bring the question of Home Rule, not only before the people of England, but, what is equally important, before the province of Ulster. It is most essential that this purpose should be fulfilled, because up to now the province of Ulster has not realised the imminence of the danger of Home Rule which now threatens it.
Speaking, as I said just now, as a Liberal, I cannot help wondering whether the Party which I followed so faithfully and so long are entirely wise in having supported Home Rule so enthusiastically during this controversy. I confess that in many ways I have great sympathy with my old Party, and I confess also that during the debate of the last two days, when I have listened to the arguments on both sides, the Liberal Party have had my deepest sympathy in regard to the outcome of the fight. But I repeat that I wonder whether they are wise, for their own purposes, in supporting Home Rule as strongly as they are doing at the present time. We do not know in the least what measure of Home Rule is to be proposed. It is said that Home Rule has been before the country; but I would remind His Majesty's Government that no indication of the kind of Home Rule which they propose to introduce has yet been elicited by any question put from the Unionist side of the House. The Government have still to realise that the question of Home Rule has at some time or another to be considered by the country.
I do not believe, whatever anybody may say, that Home Rule is popular in England. The experience I gained when speaking years ago on Liberal platforms showed me that it is impossible to work up any great enthusiasm on the subject of Home Rule, but that it is very easy indeed to arouse enthusiasm in support of the Union after a fortnight's campaign. Although I know that the Nationalists are in a position, if they choose, to inflict a defeat on the Government in the Lobby of the House of
248
Commons, I do not think if they were pressed to do so that the Nationalists would carry matters to that extreme point for they would have to face a General Election fought on the subject of Home Rule. I know that other methods of passing the Parliament Bill have been in the minds of many people of late. There has been laid before us in the Press—I do not know whether it has been threatened officially by His Majesty's Government—a proposal for the creation of sufficient Peers to swamp the Conservative and Unionist majority in this House in order to carry a measure of Home Rule, the Parliament Bill, or anything else that might be required by supporters of the Government. I confess I shall believe in these 500 Peers only when I see them actually created. An anonymous friend the other day sent me a copy of a Liberal newspaper, though I do not know if it is a Government organ—I refer to Reynolds' Newspaper. In that paper was published what purported to be a list of the names of those people who were to be the first stalwarts to support the Liberal policy in the House of Lords by sacrificing themselves and becoming Peers of the Realm. I confess, on looking through those names and considering the stake the people there mentioned hold in the country, that it appeared to me that the title to which they might lay the greatest, almost the only, claim would be that of their telephone numbers. I wondered whether those 250 new Peers—for that was the number of names published—would, when the time came for asserting the opinions for which they were created and giving definite support to Home Rule, be found in the proper Lobby.
Again I say, taking all these questions into consideration, I wonder whether the Liberal Party have been entirely wise in placing so much faith and so much confidence in the necessity for passing Home Rule in order to remain in the position in which they now hold office. My reason for saying this is that the Nationalist Party are, as your Lordships will admit very shrewd politicians, and t hey will consider their own position carefully before they force a General Election on this unpopular subject. The Nationalist Members have a great deal to count on from a Liberal Government while it remains in office—far more than they could count on from a Unionist Government if it should

249
be returned to power. Therefore I believe, and I think I shall find many to agree with me, that they would consider their position very carefully before they went to the length of forcing the Government into a difficult or almost impossible situation. I venture to lay these remarks and considerations before His Majesty's Government in the earnest hope that they may be willing to consider them.
There is another reason why I think there are great difficulties before his Majesty's Government. There is the difficulty of the Nonconformists. People have said lately that Nonconformists in England no longer care one way or the other, as they did on previous occasions when the subject was before the country, on the question of Home Rule, and that they view with equanimity the possibilities of injustice to their co-religionists in. Ireland. I confess I was beginning to hold that opinion myself until I read an extract from the British Weekly, which reflects the opinions of English Nonconformity as in a mirror. On April 27 last that paper referred to this subject, and I will read this remarkable extract—
"That Home Rule in the old Gladstonian sense will ever be curried, or ever proposed, we do not believe."
I confess it appears to me, after reading such an opinion, that if Ulster and the loyalists and Protestants in Ireland make the same forcible objections to Home Rule as they did in 1886 and in 1893 the knell of Gladstonian Home Rule will have sounded, and with it the knell of His Majesty's present Government. I do not suppose for one moment that the Government will be much influenced by what I say, but although I am a staunch opponent of Home Rule and absolutely against the policy of disruption, I also consider myself a Liberal. I do most earnestly venture to hope, therefore, that the Government will pay heed to the breakers which lie ahead of them.
Many people say that the objection to Home Rule in Ireland is beginning to diminish. I understand that such a belief is hugged by many Liberals, on the principle, no doubt, of the wish being father to the thought. I confess that in the South and West of Ireland the objections heard against Home Rule are no longer as loud as they were fifteen or twenty-five years ago. But under the rule of a Liberal Government during the last five or six
250
years the local Camorra, whether it be the United Irish League or the Ancient Order of Hibernians, has gained such a hold that no small local Unionist would dare to air his opinions. In the North of Ireland, however, things are entirely different. I am deeply interested in this subject, and I have been making inquiries lately as to time possible chances of any Home Rule Bill being successful in the state of public opinion existing in Ireland at the present moment. I confess that the result of my inquiries has not been very promising. The lower classes of Nationalist opinion at this moment believe that Home Rule is inevitable. They are now beginning to say what they think, because they believe that Home Rule cannot be stopped. Certainly the result of my inquiries is that the feeling which existed in 1893 has again begun to assert itself—namely, that Home Rule means the millennium, when all loyalists are to be put aside from their property, and their liberties, even their lives, are to be the sport of the public. I could give examples, but I understand that many of your Lordships think that enough has been said about Home Rule in this debate, and therefore I will curtail my remarks as far as possible on this subject.
I must touch, however, on the question of the North of Ireland, because the North is only now beginning to realise how immediate the danger of Home Rule is. There are many people who believe that a separate Ulster Parliament would be a solution of the difficulties of Home Rule, and I confess myself that when one first looks at it it would seem, as far as England is concerned, an easy way out of the difficulties which lie before us. I believe the idea was mooted to the Ulster leaders, but with the exception of a few weaklings it was at once refused even consideration by those whose influence counts in Ulster. All over Ireland the Protestants and the loyalists have for years married and inter-married. The ties of blood are very strong, and Ulster Unionists believe strongly that "United we stand, divided we fall," and that to accept an Ulster Parliament at the expense of the remainder of Ireland would be a gross act of betrayal of which they would never be guilty.
Now we come to another question which His Majesty's Government will have to consider; that is, the action Ulster will take if Home Rule is forced upon Ireland

251
without the consent of the predominant partner. Are we to believe that Ulster will accept it peacefully? I do not think so, and I do not think either that we ought to imagine that Ulster should reasonably consent to be placed under the Nationalist yoke.
Ulster has not yet properly awakened to the fact that Home Rule is upon her. Is it wonderful that she has not clone so? I would remind your Lordships of something which occurred during the South African war. There were battles fought which ended in disaster to the British arms. During those battles English, Scottish, and Irish soldiers were dying on the veldt, and English, Scottish, and Irish homes were rendered desolate by the bereavements which fell upon them. While these things were happening the chosen representatives of Ireland cheered the news of English reverses. Is it wonderful that Ulster is slow to realise that for the sake of political advancement, as some of us believe, the British Government is willing to hand over the lives and liberties of Irish loyalists to the very men who cheered the tidings of English disasters? Some people say that the idea of resistance by Ireland—of armed resistance shall we call it?—would be impossible, and that it would be suppressed at once by the forces of the Crown. There are others who believe that by such suppression Ulster would gain, from the fact that in her defeat she would secure the very object for which she fought. This question has been asked, I believe, in another place, and I only hope we may get a serious answer to it. If Ulster does resist, what are His Majesty's Government going to do? Are they going to send British troops to shoot down loyalists and Protestants in Ireland for the sake of men who cheered our defeats in South Africa? I do not think so. I do not think any Government would dare to do that. It would send them into the wilderness, from which they would not return for many a long day; because I am convinced that the people of England would not sit quietly by and see their fellow loyalists in Ireland shot down merely in order to gratify the wishes of men such as I have described.
I think your Lordships must be almost tired of the question of Home Rule, and therefore I will cut short my remaining remarks. In conclusion, I would ask you
252
who belong to the Unionist Party to remember that noble Lords from Ireland are among the few existing Parliamentary representatives of Irish Unionism and Irish loyalty. We have our duty before us. It is a duty that we cannot and will not betray. Through every argument and every Division right up to the end we will fight this matter. We will fight the question of Home Rule until it has been decided by the opinion of the predominant partner. We turn to the Unionist Party, not only with hope, but with confidence, for the name of the Unionist Party explains the reason for its existence; and we believe that because of the reason for its existence the Unionist Party is in honour bound to fight Home Rule to the very end.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, in rising to support the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition I shall, in view of the discussions which have already taken place, confine my remarks to what I conceive to be the main object of this Amendment. The Amendment provides the only means of securing under the Parliament Bill that the will of the people shall prevail. I know that the Parliament Bill professes to be based on the same principle—on the desire to give effect to the wishes of the people. It had its birth in the Resolution which was brought forward in the House of Commons by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1907, in which great stress was laid on this question of giving effect to the will of the people. But the Parliament Bill is not a Bill to give effect to the will of the people. It is not even a Bill to give effect to the will of the House of Commons. It is merely and solely a Bill to give effect to the will of the Cabinet of the day, a small body not directly elected by the House of Commons or by the electors of the country. This was indirectly admitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, this evening when he got up I think principally with the view of suppressing the insurrection which was inclined to break out on the Benches behind him. Some noble Lords opposite, showing an independence of spirit not very pleasant to noble Lords on the Front Bench, manifested a great desire to express themselves in strong terms in favour of the Referendum as an absolutely democratic necessity under the provisions of this Bill.

253
It is true that the noble Viscount denied, as he was bound to do as a Party man, that the Government were introducing single-Chamber government. But did he adduce a single argument in support of that bare statement? He admitted that the independence of the private Member in the House of Commons was disappearing every day. I might point out that the independence of the private Member will disappear a great deal quicker when members of the House of Commons are paid an annual salary. In saying this I am not casting any reflection on the character of any member of the House of Commons, because my remark would apply just as much under the same circumstances to your Lordships' House or any other House. The noble Viscount did admit that the independence of the private Member was fast disappearing and that the power of the Executive was daily increasing—in fact, that the Cabinet, commanded the votes of its supporters. If that is admitted, and if this House under the Parliament Bill has not the power to refer a single measure to the people of this country, then I ask, How on earth can anybody say that His Majesty's Government are not introducing single Chamber government?
Now, under the Amendment of the noble Marquess the electors of the country may be called in to give their decision upon legislation affecting their interests, and that really is what the Government take exception to. The Prime Minister mainly bases his case on the assumption that the House of Commons represents the electorate at any rate during the first two or three years of its existence. If so, why did Radicals, including Mr. Asquith himself, only a few years ago go all over the country denouncing the Unionist, Government for proceeding with the Education Bill of 1902? I am not going to discuss that Bill or to argue either in its favour or against it, but I desire to point out to your Lordships that that Bill was introduced within two years of the General Election which placed a Unionist Government in power. Therefore it would appear that when a Unionist Government is in power the House of Commons does not, even during its first two years, represent the will of the people. Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill whether he wishes the House
254
to understand that the representation of the will of the people is confined to those periods when a Liberal Government happens to be in power. At any rate, I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that nothing gave rise to more bitter complaint on the part of the Radicals than the passing of the Education Bill in 1902.
Perhaps I might ask the noble Viscount whether he has considered this fact, that had the Parliament Bill, with the Amendment now under consideration incorporated in it, been in force in 1902, the Education Bill of the Unionist Government would without any doubt have been submitted to the electors of the country by means of the Referendum. The noble Viscount will hardly dispute that statement. By the Amendment of the noble Marquess, in fact by the whole proceedings of the Opposition during the discussions on this Constitutional question, I claim that we have shown a real desire to give the people that say in the legislation of the country to which they are entitled. When the Government speak of the will of the country they speak merely of the will of the Radical Government, subject, perhaps, at the present moment, to the will of Mr. Redmond. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ripon this evening asked whether no modus vivendi could be brought about. It is very simple. This Amendment of the noble Marquess does not interfere in any way with the objects with which this Bill was avowedly brought forward. The noble Marquess assents to the Government's proposals so long as some real provision is made for securing that the will of the people shall prevail.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW: My Lords, I feel the greatest reluctance in venturing to address your Lordships, because you have already listened with great patience to many speeches on this subject, and it seems almost impossible that anything new can be left to be said. A great number of the speeches which have been made have come from noble friends of mine from Ireland, and I think you may perhaps have heard nearly enough about the Irish part of this question. But with your kind indulgence I should like to say one or two words in support of this Amendment, because although I am not very much in love with the principle of the Referendum I recognise in the proposals of the noble

255
Marquess an attempt to rid this Bill of some at any rate of its most objectionable features.
It has always seemed to me that His Majesty's Government, in trying to make out that they have been compelled to introduce this Bill by the attitude which they say your Lordships have adopted towards Liberal legislation, do not correctly represent the circumstances of the situation. As a matter of fact that is not so much a reason for their action as an excuse. I cannot believe that His Majesty's Government, in their heart of hearts, are really in favour of these extraordinarily revolutionary proposals. I think they are propelled by a force which they have not the strength to resist. We have heard the boast that His Majesty's Government would be made to toe the line, and your Lordships now have the opportunity of seeing with what dexterity they are able to perform that not very dignified evolution. There can be very little doubt in anybody's mind that this Bill has been introduced at the bidding of Mr. John Redmond and in order to secure for His Majesty's Government the votes of his army of supporters in another place. I have been very much strengthened in this opinion by the remarks which fell from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, and I have heard nothing whatever from noble Lords opposite which tends in any way to remove from my mind that impression.
The noble Viscount expressed himself as most indignant at the idea that your Lordships should venture to interfere in any way with a proposal to give a measure of Home Rule to Ireland I am not in the least surprised at the noble Viscount's indignation. I am very sympathetic with his feelings in this matter, because it would be dreadful for the noble Viscount and for his colleagues if your Lordships were to succeed by any means in preventing the Government from carrying out instructions which they have doubtless received from the dictator of their policy. I would like your Lordships to consider for a moment what manner of men these Irish Nationalists are for whom it appears this tremendous Constitutional change is to be taken in hand. The Irish Nationalist Party is that Party which, as your Lordships have been reminded, openly rejoiced during the South African War at British reverses. It is that Party whose leaders stood by when
256
outrages were taking place all over Ireland, or in many parts of Ireland, and did not lift a finger in protest, although I believe if they had said the word that disgraceful state of things would have been brought to an end. These are the men whose national aspirations noble Lords opposite seem so anxious to further, and at whose word your Lordships and the people of this country are asked to believe that by granting Home Rule to Ireland that country will be transformed into the most contented, prosperous, and loyal portion of His Majesty's Dominions. I have lived all my life in Ireland and my home is there. I have not been what the noble Viscount calls an absentee, and I am quite certain that I and many like me, if we could think for one moment that Home Rule was likely to have such a result, would be Home Rulers to-morrow, and would leave no stone unturned to bring about so desirable a result. But we are convinced that Home Rule would have no such result, but would plunge our unfortunate country into bankruptcy and into the hands of a corrupt and probably tyrannous Government.
It seems to me that noble Lords opposite, in common with many eminent, honourable, and patriotic gentlemen in this country, base their view on this question upon a total misapprehension of the motive power which is behind the Home Rule movement. It must be borne in mind that among the people of Ireland a very large proportion are not only not in favour of, but are most bitterly opposed to, Home Rule in any shape or form. And is it by any means certain that all those who call themselves Nationalists are in their heart of hearts in favour of setting up a National Parliament in Dublin I think not. Your Lordships will be able to decide that there is grave doubt whether they are so keen on Home Rule by the speeches which you have heard delivered by my noble friends from Ireland. If we want to arrive at the mainspring of the Home Rule movement we must look, not to Ireland, but to where the money comes from which supports the Irish Nationalist Party. We must look to the avowed enemies of England abroad, and to those men, or the descendants of those men, who emigrated from Ireland at a time when there was some cause to complain of British misrule in that country, and who no doubt took with them into exile a bitter and rancorous hatred of

257
England and everything English. Those men are, I think, ready and willing to give their moral and financial support to any movement which may lead to the humiliation of England and the disintegration of the Empire. And surely they have not got far to look for such a movement. It must be clear to them that if they can bring about the passage into law of a Home Rule Bill they will have inserted the thin end of the wedge of separation; and if they can bring about the separation of Ireland from England they will have driven the first nail into the coffin of the British Empire. I know this is a view which has often been looked upon as an extreme one—as the view of an alarmist. But it is my conviction, and I think I am not alone in holding that the Irish Home Rule movement is the outward and visible sign of a secret but none the less real conspiracy against this Empire, and of a danger which it behaves your Lordships and the people of this country to take into the most careful consideration.
It can never be sufficiently regretted that no compromise on this great Constitutional issue could be arrived at. I do not know whether it is now too late, but I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord who said that he believed it might not be too late even at the eleventh hour. Even now, if His Majesty's Government would honestly give their great collective ability to the consideration of this problem, I believe they would not fail to arrive at some scheme of compromise which would be acceptable to both great Parties in the State, and which might lay the foundation of a permanent settlement of this great controversy. If they brought about that settlement they would deserve not only the gratitude of the whole nation but of generations of Englishmen yet unborn. On the other hand, my Lords, it may be, and I daresay it is, in their power to force the passage into law of every letter of this Bill, if they decide to take that course, to bang and bolt the door on compromise and turn a deaf ear to all arguments which may be addressed to them, to insist on their pound of flesh and on paving the way to the Home Rule Bill which I believe they have in contemplation, they will most likely be remembered in history as the Government which were so fond of power and so afraid of losing their offices and emoluments that they sold the Constitution of their country to their country's most bitter foes.
LORD ASHTOWN: My Lords, I was not in the House last night and can only gather what was said from the Press, so that if I repeat facts which have been already stated I hope I shall be forgiven. As regards the Amendment we are discussing, there are two points with which I do not agree. I should prefer that Home Rule was in a separate Amendment, so that the people could understand that it was an Amendment against Home Rule for Ireland pure and simple. Secondly, I am not entirely in favour of referring matters of State to a Joint Committee. I think it would be reasonable enough to appeal to the country without the assistance of any Joint Committee. As an Irish Peer I speak freely on Home Rule, and I hope your Lordships will not be bored too much. It is very difficult for people not living in Ireland to understand Ireland, and I think a great many of your Lordships know very little about that country.
First of all, in considering Ireland we have to remember that there are three forces in that country. There is the United. Irish League, backed up by some secret societies which are really the driving force behind it; the Catholic Church; and the English Government, which I am sorry to say is the weakest of all in enforcing its power. That is where the misfortune of Ireland lies. The majority of the people of Ireland, I believe, do not want Home Rule, but unless you live among them and know the tyranny of the League you cannot understand why they call themselves Home Rulers. It is simply and solely because they are in fear of their lives, of outrage and of tyranny, that they have declared for Home Rule. In their heart of hearts I am sure they do not want it. Twenty per cent. drive the rest. That is one thing to be considered. Another thing is, Who are these Irish Members who are forcing Home Rule on the English Parliament? They are the nominees, first, of the United Irish League, who press them forward, and, secondly, of the Irish Americans, who pay down the money.
As an Trish Unionist who has lived constantly in the country, who has had a great experience of living in it, I should like to say why we do not like the idea of Home Rule. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, is not here to-night.

259
From a report of his speech yesterday I understand that he said that there was no disloyal majority, and that we heard too much of the loyal minority. To a certain extent I am with him there. The large majority of the people who pretend to be disloyal have to do so because they are compelled. It is like it is on the question of Home Rule; they are driven by about twenty per cent., perhaps less, of the population, who are led by the agitators and hacked by the League and secret societies. To a certain extent, therefore, there is not the disloyal majority you hear about, but the unfortunate thing is that these people have not the backbone to stand out against the agitators.
I have referred to the forces in Ireland. The League is undoubtedly the chief force in Ireland. Another is the Catholic Church. I do not wish to touch on religion, but the Catholic Church is a force which cannot be ignored. I am not sure whether Lord MacDonnell said there was no intolerance, or whether there would be no intolerance under Home Rule. Anyone who looks into the matter will see that there is both political and religious intolerance. I will take first political intolerance. I have here the figures as well as I can get them. In 1900 the county councils outside Ulster returned 131 Unionists. I have not got the figures for 1903, but in 1906 they returned only 23 Unionists instead of 131, and in 1909 they returned only 16 Unionists. That does not look as if intolerance was disappearing, but rather the opposite. I have not the figures of the last election, but I have the figures of the Kildare County Council. In County Kildare there are 54,000 Roman Catholics and 8,700 Protestants. What is the representation? There are 27 Nationalists, 2 of whom are Protestants but they are Protestant Home Rulers, and there is 1 Conservative whose religion is not stated. Then look at the sub-committees of the county council. On the county infirmary committee there are 7 Catholic laymen, 1 Bishop, and 3 priests, but not a single Protestant. On the education committee there are 4 Catholic laymen and 2 priests.
I now come to what we may describe as religious intolerance. There is a certain organisation of which I am not a member and of which I do not altogether approve called the All-for-Ireland League, which
260
aims at uniting Protestants and Roman Catholics-in fact, at conciliation. What was said by Father Lillis on June 19 in discussing this question? He said—
"Unless Mr. O'Brien is suffering from some extraordinary delusion he must know in his heart that all this loud-sounding talk about conciliation, the weeding out of the Old Guard, the creation of a new Heaven and a new earth, is the merest rant … He tells us that he wants Home Rule, and wants conciliation—two things that are absolutely incompatible, that will not coalesce any more than oil with water. If he wants to have conciliation he cannot have Home Rule. If lie wants Home Rule, he must let conciliation go by the Board. He can only be either one thing or the other. He cannot by any possibility be both."
That is what we must expect if we get Home Rule. I have other speeches here but I do not wish to quote more than I need to your Lordships.
I am afraid I shall differ a little from the Unionist Front Bench, but I cannot help it for I must say what I think. This is an occasion for every noble Lord to say what he thinks whether his own Front Bench likes it or not. To my mind this question of Home Rule has largely been kept up by both Front Benches trying to conciliate the other Party, and I must say I blame the Unionists rather the more of the two. I dare say my fellow Irish Peers do not agree with me, but I see what is going on in Ireland. What did the Unionist Government do in order to conciliate Ireland? They gave local government. The result is that the Unionists are put out of place altogether, and immense strength has been given to the Nationalists. Local government has greatly helped them to break the law. The chairmen of the county councils have all become magistrates. Under the Land Purchase Act, with which I do not altogether agree, landlord magistrates are leaving the country and the Benches are being packed up to the hilt by Nationalist magistrates who are there simply and solely not to enforce the law. Indeed, many of those magistrates are there for no other reason than that they have broken the law. I have sat on a Bench with men who have been tried for murder. One man I know went to America because he had embezzled money; when he came back he was promptly made chairman of a local authority and sits on the Bench to-day. How is the law to be enforced when you have Benches like that? It is almost impossible to get men sent to

261
trial, and if they are convicted the fines are ridiculous. I do not wish to say too much against my own Party, but this is what has happened and it ought to be considered.
I must touch on land purchase. No doubt in many cases people who bought their farms are settling down, but in a great many cases they are doing nothing of the sort. If you read the local papers, as I do regularly, you will find that many have sold their farms before paying the Government a sou. Yesterday I actually came across a case where a man signed an agreement, departed for America, and left his address for the money to be sent to New York. I do not think that is the object of the Act. It has also broken up a large number of the grass farms of Ireland, which are not tilled at all and could not possibly be tilled. The people who rush for the grass farms are simply turning them into cash and going away with the money. There is another thing which you must remember—it was referred to tonight. The Irish people are not of one race. They are of a very mixed race indeed. They are partly Teutonic, and the others are Celtic, and the grievance comes from the Celts, simply because they cannot live up to the standard of the Teutons. Is it right that the descendants of the Teutons who settled there under the English Government should be threatened because they have been loyal to the Crown? You have no right to lower the highest of the population down to the level of the lowest. You cannot do it unless you want to ruin the country. I do not consider that the present House of Commons represents the British electorate. Without a redistribution of seats it is not fair to say that the English people have expressed themselves in favour of Home Rule passing into law. If after a redistribution of seats the question is put to the country we shall have to take our chance.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships with a speech. I only wish to refer to one or two points which have arisen in the debate and of which I have made notes, because it seems to me they have been overlooked in the replies which have been made. First of all, I should like to make some answer to my noble friend Lord Weardale, whose frank and courageous speech
262
appealed to me as a Liberal of the old school and a believer in those principles which he so eloquently set forth. But it seems to me that my noble friend fell into a very serious error, and I think it important to refer to it because it is an error which has been repeated in many authoritative quarters and into Which I think my noble friend was betrayed by the example of his political leaders. He said that we were discussing this Constitutional question because, for the first time in its history, the House of Lords rejected a Budget. That, my Lords, to say the least of it, is chronologically incorrect. This Veto policy on which the Parliament Bill is founded was conceived and submitted to Parliament long before there was any question of the Budget of 1909—long before that Budget had even germinated in the brain of its author. How, then, can my noble friend say that it is on account of our rejection of that Budget that we are now discussing this Veto policy when this policy was based on the Resolutions of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and we have been told over and over again in this House that it is of still more ancient origin?
There are other errors underlying that statement to which I think it worth while to refer, because a very similar statement has been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and no doubt it is intended that it should be repeated all over the country. The suggestion is that during the 800 years of its existence the House of Lords has never rejected a Budget until 1909. Your Lordships know, but a very large number of people in the country do not know, that Budgets have only existed for fifty years or so. Before that time there were only Money Bills, and this House has not only rejected but amended Money Bills. If you fall short of a statement to that effect I say you are not putting the case fairly before any audience in the country. That is all I wish to say in answer to my noble friend, unless I may venture to refer to this remark which he made. He said he believed that the people of this country had made up their minds absolutely—and he used the word "absolutely" with great emphasis—that the control of finance should rest entirely in the hands of the popular Chamber. I do not believe, if I may express my own opinion as he did his, that the people of this country have made up their minds any

263
more absolutely on that question than they have on ally other. The whole essence of our political life is change. The people of this country have often changed their minds on this or on that question, and so I do not think it is a very safe thing to say that the people of this country have made up their minds absolutely.
The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War paid me the compliment of singling me out for a derisive remark when I ventured, among others, to smile at one of the more humorous portions of the lecture on political science with which he favoured this House, so perhaps I may say a word in reply to him. He told us that you cannot submit a Bill to the people, the suggestion being that the people are not capable of forming an opinion on a single measure. I hope I did not misunderstand him. But almost in the same breath he described to us, in picturesque and interesting language, how Members of Parliament belonging to the political Party which is in power go down to their constituencies with Bills in their pockets which they discuss and explain, as he seemed to suggest., in a homely kind of manner to their constituents, clause by clause. They thus obtain general approval for the principles of those measures and a mandate to carry them out in the House of Commons. Surely those two statements are rather inconsistent. If the people can form an opinion which is worth taking in discussing several Bills with their candidates or Members of Parliament, surely it is hardly fair to say that they would not be able to do so in regard to any one measure which might be submitted to them by some system of reference to the people. But I dare say if I pressed the noble Viscount we should find he was still further inconsistent in this matter. No doubt he claims—I am sure he will not deny it—that the people of this country have approved of this Parliament Bill which we are discussing. Is that so? Silence they tell me signifies assent. The noble Viscount evidently does claim that the people of this country approve the Veto Bill. Then why in the name of fortune does he say they will not be able in future to approve similarly of any particular measure which may be referred to them?
I come now to the actual Amendment which we are discussing, and as there is such a paucity of speakers on the other side
264
it is very difficult to find material for criticism and repartee. I am therefore obliged, very reluctantly, to address myself to so formidable an opponent as the Leader of the House, Lord Morley. He said that this Amendment was no Amendment at all; that it was a direct and plain traverse of the Bill. I must confess that that criticism greatly astonished me. From our point of view, and I believe I can speak for others in this respect, the position is this. The Government in their Bill have made a rule as to the manner in which legislation is to be dealt with. We on this side of the House say, "You have the power to force this upon us, but we suggest to you that there should be an exception to your rule, or that there should be a certain class of exceptions. "It is a homely saying that exception proves the rule. There are very few rules which do not admit of an exception, and I think it is in accordance with the whole spirit of popular opinion in this country that in all our institutions there should be reasonable exceptions, and that is all we are asking His Majesty's Government to do in this respect.
The noble Viscount, having in that somewhat unsatisfactory manner disposed of the Amendment, proceeded to describe the principle of the Bill. I hope I shall not be misquoting the noble Viscount, but I understood him to say that after two years of discussion the opinion of the House of Commons does represent and may be presumed to represent the will of the people. Would the noble Viscount adhere to that theory in all circumstances? Would he be willing that it should be put to any test? Take one of the most recent cases. The House of Commons by a majority of three to one, after discussion for more than two years, approved of the principle of female suffrage. Does he maintain that that decision represents and may be presumed to represent the will of the people at the present time? It would, I think, require a great deal of courage to say so.
Then the noble Viscount went on to say that the mere fact that we endeavoured to discharge our ordinary legislative functions by proposing Amendments to this Bill implied distrust of the House of Commons, and he said it in a tone and manner which would really lead one to believe that lie regarded distrust of the House of Commons as a sort of sacrilege. Does he trust the House of

265
Commons in all circumstances? Does he trust the House of Commons when a Unionist Government is in power? Trust and confidence surely must be reciprocal. It is impossible as between Governments and bodies of men to trust those who obstinately refuse to come to any arrangement. There must be a system of mutual confidence and reciprocal trust. It seemed to me that what the noble Viscount was driving at was to assert some sort of new theory of the Divine right of the House of Commons. He did not, of course, say so in so many words, but the whole tendency of his remarks led one to believe that that was the sort of idea he had in his mind. Any such theory would, I believe, be as abhorrent to the people of this country as was in former days the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. But what struck me most, not only on this but also on other occasions, was that the attitude of the noble Viscount in asserting what I venture to think is his theory was exactly the same as the attitude of those who, in days gone by, asserted for their own ends the Divine Right of individual Monarchs, for it is clear that in his heart he has no great veneration for the object for which he pays the lip-service of servile adulation. He told us only a few days ago that there is nobody whom he can trust in the 'House of Commons to express an independent opinion, except possibly a few "cranks." He brands them as partisans and as puppets. There is an extreme inconsistency about this contempt for the House of Commons as a collection of individuals, and almost in the same breath this extreme adoration of it as an institution and this assertion of its Divine Right.
I can well understand and sympathise with the feelings of the noble Viscount as a Commons man and as one who has had almost an unequalled experience of that House, an experience of which, unfortunately, I have not had even a small share. I can understand his sticking up for that House in every way and thinking there is nothing like it. But now that he has left the House of Commons and accepted a seat in your Lordships' House, and, more than that, since on him has devolved the leadership of this House, I say that he does owe something to this House as an ancient institution which has been for eight centuries an integral part of the Constitution and of Parliament. There is, however, no trace of such respect in his language. He is always saying that
266
we must not criticise or distrust but show unquestioning respect to the House of Commons, but there is no corresponding exhortation in regard to this House. It is difficult to resist the impression that he despises this House even more than he does the House of Commons so far as independence and that sort of thing is concerned. We on this side of the House do not believe in the Divine right of individual Monarchs or of any Assembly. If we believe in any Divine right at all or in anything which could be called a Divine right, it is the Divine right of the people, and it is that which we are endeavouring to assert; but it is not a term we ourselves would use, it is not an idea which should tinge or influence anything we say.
What we feel is that the House of Commons no less than the House of Lords is the servant of the people, and it is the people who in the end must decide. But what is the good of Parliament for national purposes if there is to be no effective debate, and if debate is to have no result? Yet it seems it is that to which we have come. I will not venture to comment on the changes which have taken place in another place, but here we are arguing until we are all exhausted and it would seem we cannot make the slightest impression. His Majesty's Ministers do not seem to be susceptible to argument. They do not seem to think it is reasonable that they should give way in the slightest degree, and I must say it is that more than anything else which fills many of us with despair as to the ultimate solution of this extremely grave, difficult and anxious problem.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I would ask leave to make two preliminary observations before passing to the consideration of this Amendment or to the clause to which it refers. We have had a number of speeches from noble Lords on the other side of the House to support the Government, but not one of those speeches supported this Bill without some reservation. The reservation differed in degree. But there was not one single noble Lord who spoke from the Back Benches opposite who accepted this Bill without some reservation. The next observation I would make, and I make it with sincere respect and concern, is upon the absence of the Lord Chancellor from to-night's debate. The Lord Chancellor

267
is not only one of the most distinguished Members of his Majesty's Government; he is not only one of the ablest debaters who has ever spoken in this House, but even on this side of the House, I may say, he is cherished by the whole of us as a possession of this House, and not of his own Party alone. But here, on the most critical night of the most critical debate of the most critical Bill that has ever been before Parliament, the Lord Chancellor is absent the whole evening. I can only attribute it to the fact that he is not well. If that is so, I can only say that his indisposition will be a matter of sincere and real concern to all of us on this side of the House.
No one can have listened to the debate to-day without feeling that the Referendum has come to stay in British politics. Some noble Lords opposite laugh, but I repeat that. It has been accepted with reluctance by my noble friend Lord Curzon. There are still many noble Lords who do not like it, but the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for War, every single one of them, after criticising the Referendum have been careful to make a reservation and say there are circumstances, or there may be circumstances, in which this would be an appropriate instrument to introduce into our Constitution. We hear no more of the difficulty of the machinery and of its application. The only question is the authority by which it may be invoked, the occasions on winch it is appropriate, and the circumstances by which its use should be safeguarded. That being so, I must say I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War with amazement. I very frequently have the misfortune to differ from him, but I never listen to a speech of his without feeling that he is illuminating the subject; that he has mastered it, and thoroughly understands the subject he is discussing. He will not, I trust, think I am impertinent when I say that to-night he left the impression on my mind that he had never studied the Referendum at all or the circumstances under which it is used. If he had done, most of his opinions might have been wholly changed and he would not have made the speech which he made to-night.
The noble Viscount asked, as if it clinched the whole matter, what precedent is there
268
in civilised countries for introducing the use of the Referendum into representative institutions? I will answer that question presently. I will ask him another one now. What precedent is there in the Constitution of civilised countries for making the existence of one Chamber wholly dependent upon the will of another? I think the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War will find it much more difficult to answer that question than I shall find it to answer his. I hope your Lordships will pardon me, but I do desire to endeavour to remove the impression that Lord Haldane meant to create to-night—that there really is no experience in civilised countries and great communities of a popular nature for the use of a Referendum. I would begin with the smallest and least important instance of its use that I know of. It was used in Natal, a very small British community, to decide whether Natal would accept the complicated Constitution which now is the Constitution of the Union of South Africa, but so thoroughly was that complicated document understood by the limited electorate of Natal that the majority voted in its favour in every constituency in Natal. Then, again, the Referendum has been used in South Australia and in Queensland, not as part of the Constitution, but to settle special difficulties which had perplexed the public mind for a series of years. In each case that difficulty was our old friend religious education. That question was settled by a Referendum ad hoc, both in South Australia and in Queensland.
I pass on to the greatest of all the peoples of the earth in point of view of population and of wealth, and where no one can pretend that democracy is not the political idol of the people. I allude to the United States of America. The Referendum is no part of the Federal Constitution of America. As the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, knows quite well, each State of the American Union has an elaborate Constitution of its own, just as the United States has its Federal Constitution. The Referendum is an integral part of the Constitution of no fewer than 46 out of the 47 American States. In forty six of these States no change of any sort or kind can be made in the Constitution except after the will of the people has been signified at a Referendum. The use of the Referendum is not confined to Constitutional cases in some States. In a

269
large number the Constitution has been enlarged so that other questions which approach more to our ordinary domestic problems at home must also be referred to the people in the form of a Referendum. I will give two instances—the prohibition of liquor, and woman suffrage. In many States those and kindred subjects have to be dealt with by means of the Referendum.
Then we come to what is the most remarkable case of all, and that is the case of Australia. Here the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, will forgive me for saying that obviously he has not looked up the Commonwealth Constitution lately. The Referendum in the Commonwealth is confined to one class of cases. No change can take place in the Constitution, even if both Houses of Parliament have agreed upon it, until it has been referred to the people in a Referendum. I will tell your Lordships how that has worked, and worked quite recently. Part of the original Constitution of Australia involved the distribution of revenue between the Commonwealth Government and the State. It was known as the Braddon Clause, and was a compromise which was to last ten years. The period of ten years has just elapsed. Just before it elapsed, Mr. Deakin, when Prime Minister brought in an amendment to the Constitution, according to which the Commonwealth was to pay to the State 25 s. per head in permanent composition of the revenue they lost for ever. That proposal went through both Houses of the Australian Parliament; it went to the people, and the people rejected it on the ground that this was an arrangement "for ever," and therefore was settling the matter too quickly. A Labour Ministry came into power, and "Mr. Fisher, the present Prime Minister, who is now in England, brought in the same proposal, but limited it to ten years. That went to the Referendum and the people passed it.
But the most extraordinary case occurred the other day. Your Lordships know that the Government of Australia is a Labour Government with very strong and clear views on the functions of the State in the social evolution of the people. As part of its programme it brought in a measure which I may roughly describe as giving power to the Commonwealth to nationalise
270
all monopolies. I express no sort of opinion on the merits of the measure, but; your Lordships will recognise from that description that it was of a very far-reaching and important character. That proposal passed through both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament, and then it had to go to the Referendum because it involved an alteration of the Constitution. That measure was thrown out by 240,000 votes, and so far from the people of Australia not understanding the question or taking an interest in it—and, mind you, this Referendum was wholly divorced from a General Election and stood entirely by itself, the voters going to the poll on no other question—out of just over four and a half millions of persons in Australia quite two millions of voters went to the poll. Your Lordships will pardon me for having given this answer to the speech of the noble Viscount, but what does it prove? What I have endeavoured to explain does not prove that the exact proposals that suit an American State or that suit Australia will suit us, but it does prove that the Referendum is a flexible instrument of democratic government which can be adapted in different countries to different conditions, without impairing either the true spirit of democracy or the man features of representative government. What we are endeavouring to do is not blindly to imitate somebody else's example, but to borrow a democratic weapon that they have found useful in Constitutional difficulties and apply it mutatis mutandis to the difficulties with which we find ourselves confronted.
Before I pass on I wish to remind your Lordships of what has been from the beginning the whole basis and foundation of the case of the Government and the Liberal Party against the House of Lords. They have said that when the Liberals were in, power the will of the people was liable to be thwarted by the House of Lords. It is that contention that we have had mainly in mind, and our proposals have been drawn up with a view to removing that grievance. Your Lordships may or may not like the method, but it is quite obvious that if there is the power to send to the people a measure which has been rejected by this House it cannot be said that this House has prevented the will of the people from being fulfilled. But what I would point out is that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his very strong desire to show the people of this

271
country that no pride of House, of spirit, or of Party was going to stand between him and a national settlement, if such were possible, has gone far beyond that position and has told you in no uncertain terms that if you thought that by his proposals the balance was unfairly drawn between the two Parties he was willing and anxious to consider proposals for redressing that balance. I draw your Lordships' attention to that fact, because I do not think it can be too clearly explained to our fellow-countrymen. That being so, who can doubt that if the Liberal Party were willing a national settlement of this question is still possible? But, I say it in no spirit of Party malice but with deep and sincere regret, the Liberal Party are out, if possible, for a Party triumph. Under those circumstances it is incumbent upon us to restate our position quite clearly.
There are two questions to be considered—the permanent solution and the solution in connection with what I may call the transitional period. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne has shown quite clearly that we are prepared to unite with the Party opposite in a reconstruction of this House in a manner fair to both Parties. For such a House he has claimed those powers which are the attributes of Second Chambers all the world over. He has expressed in the clearest terms our willingness by way of Conference, Joint. Sessions, and, in exceptional cases, by Referendum, to make deadlocks between the two Houses impossible. But now about the transitional period, the period during which this Bill is to operate unamended and before any reconstruction has taken place in your Lordships' House. It is in relation to that transitional period that we are discussing Lord Lansdowne's Amendment to-night. The terms of it, the conditions of it, have been so thoroughly and completely debated that I should be only wasting time if I repeated them. The answer of noble Lords opposite is really this. I am talking of the Front Bench. They say that the Referendum in any shape or form is not compatible with representative institutions. We say that it is compatible. That is a matter of opinion; but I ask this House, and I ask the country, Is it not better that representative institutions should be somewhat modified, so as to admit into the Constitutional practice of this country the occasional working of the Referendum, rather than that the country should be liable for an indefinite period to the passing
272
of measures which the majority of the electors do not desire to see become law? That is the danger, and the Government have evaded it. They have pooh-poohed it. They have never faced that position like statesmen. And what is the indictment made by their own supporters? It is that under this Bill as it stands measures may be passed and our institutions destroyed against the wishes of the majority of the people.
Noble Lords opposite have over and over again protested that the House of Commons has frequently passed measures which the country did not desire. But when we ask them whether it is not true that the House of Commons under this Bill could destroy this House or perpetuate its own tenure of life, all they say is, "Is it really possible that these things could happen? Do you think that we who sit on this Bench would ever connive at such an abuse of authority"? I do not think that either the noble Viscount or the Lord Chancellor would do the one thing or the other. But I ask them, Do they know who are going to sit on those Benches and on the corresponding Benches in the House of Commons in the years to come? How are they going to answer for the future? It is as trustees that they should deal with this remodelling of the Constitution. If in their private capacity as trustees they handed over an unlimited series of blank cheques to the servants of the trust, on the ground that they knew their present character and had implicit confidence in them, the law would call that fraudulent trusteeship. How can the same practice be right on the part of statesmen who are occupying the greatest positions that the world offers to private individuals? They do not know who are going to sit on the Government Benches in the future; and yet they propose to put into the hands of unknown men in the future powers that will lend themselves to the grossest abuse. I have said with complete sincerity what I feel about noble Lords who are here to-night. But there are men amongst us even now whom I would not trust with these powers, no, not the length of their own modesty. If democracy is capable of being abused to the extent to which I have suggested, then I submit it is no longer a form of government to be respected. It becomes only an organised hypocrisy. Democracy means the rule of the majority. This Bill puts it in the power of the minority to coerce the majority. That is our indictment against this Bill.

273
We have been told over and over again from the Benches opposite, and we shall be told in the country, that the electors have approved of this clause and of this Bill. We do not admit that. We say it is not sufficient merely to print and publish a Bill in order that the electors may understand it. I desire no better explanation of the way they should understand it than that given by the noble Viscount opposite. A Bill must not only be printed and published but it must be discussed in Parliament and in the Press; and this Bill was not discussed for one single day in the House of Commons before the electors were asked to pronounce upon it. That is our view. It is not the view of noble Lords opposite. They think the Bill was sufficiently before the electors. I would take them for one moment on their own ground, and I would test it. They say that the electors had this Bill before them and approved it, but this Bill has on it the stamp from cover to cover of a temporary measure. If the electors did approve of it, they approved of a temporary measure, pending the time when His Majesty's Government remodelled this House and put on a fresh basis, and permanently, the relations between the two Houses. Is there the slightest chance of the Government doing anything of the kind? The noble Lord, Lord Weardale, in his speech to-night only said what we have all thought for a long time past—that whatever the intentions of the Prime Minister and the Government may be, the majority of his Party in the House of commons do not intend to see this Bill touched again if it once becomes law.
Apart from that, I wish to draw attention to the, from my point of view, sinister observations that fell from Lord Morley and from Lord Haldane. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, spoke of this Bill as stereotyping the unwritten permanent tradition of the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. That means that even if this House is reconstructed the relations between the two Houses are to remain the same as they are defined in this Bill. What is the use of reconstructing this House? Any House will do with the powers you leave us by this Bill. That position is not consistent with the spirit of the Bill as printed. The other noble Viscount, Lord Morley, when alluding to this subject—I hope I am not mis-
274
representing him—said that there might be some slight modification in this Bill resulting from the reconstruction of the House of Lords by the Liberal Party. I see that I have not altogether failed to represent his attitude. Therefore I say that, even supposing the electors approved of this Bill, they approved of a Bill which purported to commence a policy which the Government have no power, even if they had the intention, to fulfil.
There is another argument in this connection of which I would remind your Lordships. According to the contention of noble Lords opposite, this Bill has been approved by the people because of the majority which their Party commands in, the House of Commons. What is the moral force behind that majority to carry out this movement? Go to the Library of your Lordships' House and look at the model there of the constituencies. What a paradox of democracy and representative government the distribution of seats is! You see an Irish constituency of 1,500 and an English one of 50,000. We are entitled, with the knowledge of the extraordinary accident which has favoured the Government in their majority, to go behind the returns to the House of Commons in this great national movement that has stirred the heart of the people on both sides and see how the votes were distributed. If we do that, the fact remains and cannot be controverted that half the electors, roughly speaking, support this side of the House. The position, therefore, is that you are endeavouring to change the whole Constitution of this country, not at the demand, or with the willing assent, of the great majority of the electors; but one half of the people of this country are trying to force their conception of the Constitution upon the other half. That fact absolutely denudes the proposals of the Government of any moral force.
I wish to point out what this clause does as between the great powers of the United Kingdom, because in doing so I am showing at the same time the reasons for the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I think I shall be carrying all noble Lords opposite with me when I say that we are agreed that the sovereign power of government in this country resides in the Crown and in the people.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Crown and Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the Crown and the people.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Crown and Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That really is the essence of the dispute between us. Lord Morley says that the power of government in this country rests with the Crown and Parliament. I say the Crown and the people. Parliament is the representative and servant of the people; the House of Commons, which is far more important, far greater in authority and procedure, than the House of Lords—the House of Commons itself is nothing except as the servant of the people. That is our position.
Now what is the effect of this clause on these several powers? The position of the Crown is made more precarious because it is deprived of the possible effective support of the House of Lords if a crisis ever arose such as noble Lords opposite no less than ourselves hope will never arise. The position of the House of Lords is made as precarious as it is possible for the position of any House of Parliament in the world to be made, because it could be treated in any manner which the House of Commons thought fit, or it could be abolished altogether by the action of the House of Commons alone, repeated three times in two years. The position of the electors, of the people, is also made precarious, not to the same extent, but for the first time since Parliamentary government has existed in this country, except with the sinister instance of the Long Parliament, it would be possible for the House of Commons to regulate the length of its own existence without any reference to the people at large. Therefore the influence of the people is rendered more precarious by this clause.
And what about the House of Commons? I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that if this Bill becomes law the House of Commons will become the most unchecked, the most untrammelled, authority in the
276
whole world. I make no exception of Emperors or of any rulers of any sort or kind. In the whole of the civilised world I do not believe there will be any authority, single man or Chamber, so unchecked, so untrammelled, so absolutely autocratic if it chooses to exercise its powers as the position of the House of Commons will be under this Bill. That is what we call single-Chamber government. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, protests against that. He will not admit that that is a fair description of the effect of this Bill. I will, however, use another simile. I ask Lord Morley's special leave to make this simile, because I think it is a true one. I say that the House of Lords in future, if this Bill becomes law, will bear just as much resemblance to a true Second Chamber as the waxwork effigy of Lord Morley in Madame Tussaud's does to his own vigorous, intellectual, and charming personality.
About this settlement of the Government there is nothing great, nothing national, nothing lasting. They have erected the Constitutional settlement as an idol, but the feet of that idol are of clay. That idol will not last. It will not stand. Our case is so strong, the case of the Government is so weak, that in the end our contention must prevail. If the Government for the moment succeed in erecting their idol it is the people of the country who will shatter it, and will shatter it in the early lifetime of many members of this House. We have endeavoured to show in this great crisis that we are not thinking only of Party. We have done all that men could to show the Party opposite that if they would meet us we would join in a national settlement. We have also tried to be absolutely straight with the electors of the country. Have the Government?
The LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is, in page 2, line 33, after "sessions," to insert the words proposed by Lord Lansdowne.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 253; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Roberts, E.

Churston, L.

Bedford, D.

Rosslyn, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Devonshire, D.

Rothes, E.

Manchester, D.

Saint Germans, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Marlborough, D.

Sandwich, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Portland, D.

Scarbrough, E.

Clinton, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Selborne, E.

Clinton, L.

Somerset, D.

Shrewsbury, E.

Colchester, L.

Sutherland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Wellington, D.

Stradbroke, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Temple, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Abergavenny, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

De Freyne, L.

Bath, M.

Verulam, E.

De Mauley, L.

Bristol, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

De Ramsey, L.

Camden, M.

Westmeath, E.

Desborough, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Exeter, M.

Wicklow, E.

Digby, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Wilton, E.

Dinevor, L.

Normanby, M.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Dunleath, L.

Salisbury, M.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Winchester, M.

Bridport, V.

Egerton, L.

Zetland, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Cobham, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Abingdon, E.

Cross, V.

Faber, L.

Albemarle, E.

De Vesci, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Amherst, E.

Falkland, V.

Farnham, L.

Bandon, E.

Goschen, V.

Farquhar, L.

Bathurst, M.

Halifax, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Cadogan, E.

Hampden, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Camperdown, E.

Hardinge, V.

Forester, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Clarendon, E.

Hood, V.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Cottenham, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Coventry, E.

Greville, L.

Cromer, E.

Llandaff, V.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Peel, V.

Gwydir, L.

Darnley, E.

Portman, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Dartrey, E.

Harlech, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Derby, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Hastings, L.

Devon, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Hawke, L.

Eldon, E.

Heneage, L.

Essex, E.

Abinger, L.

Hindlip, L.

Guilford, E.

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Haddington, E.

Aldenham, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Alington, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Hardwicke, E.

Allerton, L.

Kensington, L.

Harewood, E.

Alverstone, L.

Kenyon, L.

Harrowby, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Howe, E.

Armstrong, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Kilmorey, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashtown, L.

Langford, L.

Leicester, E.

Atkinson, L.

Lawrence, L.

Lindsey, E.

Bagot, L.

Leconfield, L.

Londesborough, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Lovat, L.

Lovelace, E.

Barnard, L.

Lurgan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Barrymore, L.

Manners, L.

Manvers, E.

Basing, L.

Massy, L.

Mar, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Belper, L.

Middleton, L.

Mayo, E.

Blythswood, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Minto, E.

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

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Morley, E.

Monson, L.

Morton, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Mostyn, L.

Munster, E.

Brabourne, L.

Mowbray, L.

Northbrook, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Muncaster, L.

Plymouth, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Muskerry, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newton, L.

Powis, E.

Camoys, L.

North, L.

Radnor, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Northcote, L.

278

279

O'Hagan, L.

St. Oswald, L.

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

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Saltoun, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Sanderson, L.

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

Penrhyn, L.

Sandys, L.

Playfair, L.

Savile, L.

Sudeley, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Scarsdale, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Seaton, L.

Tennyson, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Sempill, L.

Teynham, L.

Rathmore, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Ravensworth, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Rayleigh, L.

Sinclair, L.

Vivian, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Wandsworth, L.

Rothschild, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Wolverton, L.

Sackville, L.

Southampton, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

St. Levan, L.

Stanmore, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Lyveden, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

MacDonnell, L.

Marchamley, L.

Allendale, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Armitstead, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Blyth, L.

Pentland, L.

Spencer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Brassey, L.

Pirrie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Robson, L.

Carrington, E.

Eversley, L.

Rotherham, L.

Craven, E.

Farrer, L.

St. Davids, L.

Durham, E.

Glantawe, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Granville, E.

Glenconner, L.

Shaw, L.

Kimberley, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Southwark, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Haversham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Russell, E.

Hemphill, L.

Herschell, L.

Swaythling, L.

Ilkeston, L.

Welby, L.

Haldane, V.

Lucas, L.

Willingdon, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow. The Committee to have
280
precedence over the other Orders of the Day
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.