Sitting of 6 July 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Salford Hundred Court of Record Bill—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th day of June last, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, namely:—
Salford Hundred Court of Record Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. Greater London Railway Bill,
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Oystermouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Sidmouth Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Aliens (Prevention of Crime) Bill,
Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
Westbury Estate Bill [lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of petitions for Private Bills.
Chambers Institution, Peebles, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

SEVERN FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (DURHAM, ETC.) Bill [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

STAR LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
LLOYD'S BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
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,
Thames Conservancy Bill,
Inverness Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
Dumbarton Churchyard Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Trustees of the Marriage Settlement of Agatha, Lady Westbury, to raise certain moneys out of the capital moneys subject to such Settlement and to use and apply the same in payment off and discharge of certain debts and mortgages of or created by her son the Honourable Richard Bethell, and to confirm and make valid a resettlement of the residue of such capital moneys; and for other purposes."[Westbury Estate Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Chambers Institution, Peebles. [Chambers Institution, Peebles, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, etc.). North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

NEW WRITS.
For County of Bedford (Southern or Luton Division), in the room of Thomas Gair Ashton, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Gulland.]
For County of Somerset (West or Wellington Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, baronet (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Balcarres.]

SOMERSET (WESTERN OR WELLINGTON DIVISION).
Lord BALCARRES: I beg to move "That Mr. Speaker do issue a warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Somerset, Western or Wellington Division, in the room of the right hon. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, who has accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds."
Mr. ESSEX: I wish to ask how long, to make efficient the issue of this warrant, the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds will have to be held by the incumbent, as both are being appointed concurrently to-day?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question I cannot answer.
Mr. ESSEX: I ask it seriously.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can put a question down to the First Lord. I believe the office is held until a successor is appointed.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Do you know, Sir, whether there are more than one Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds?
Mr. SPEAKER: That again is a question I cannot answer. There possibly may be.
Question put, and agreed to.
For county of Wicklow (East Wicklow Division) in the room of John Muldoon, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Patrick O'Brien.]

WICKLOW (WICKLOW EAST).
Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to move—"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Wicklow (Wicklow East), in the room of John Muldoon, Esq., who has accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds."
Captain CRAIG: May I ask, before the question is put to the House, whether it is in order for a Nationalist Member to accept an office of profit under the Crown?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question which I cannot answer.
Question put, and agreed to.
County of Cork (North-East Cork Division), in the room of Moreton Frewen, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. William O'Brien.]

NAVAL PRIZE [CONTRIBUTION].
Committee to consider of authorising the charge on the Consolidated Fund of any contribution towards the general expenses of the international Prize Court in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to consolidate, with Amendments, the Enactments relating to Naval Prize of War (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [GRATUITIES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Revenues of India of Gratuities in certain cases to the legal personal representatives of persons who have been on the establishment of the Secretary of State in Council of India (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1910, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 178, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Churchill]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Putumayo, Peru (Treatment of Natives).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give further information about the atrocities perpetrated on natives in the Putumayo district of Peru; and particularly whether any persons have been apprehended, charged, tried, or punished for these offences?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have nothing to add to the replies to the questions put on 31st May by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, and on 4th July by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the publication of the Consul's report upon this matter?
  Sir E. GREY: I answered two or three questions on that point the day before yesterday. I have nothing to add to the answers I then gave.

  Cornish Fisheries.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that on Sundays, when Cornish fishermen do not go to sea, French fisher-men, when they think they can do so without being seen, lift the crab-pots which are laid at Handeeps, near the Eddy-stone; whether he would cause inquiries to be made; and, if necessary, would he be prepared to take steps for the adequate protection of the Cornish fishermen.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the question, but I will make inquiries into the matter and, if necessary, consider what action can usefully be taken.

  Consul-Generalship of Egypt.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether Lord Kitchener is to be appointed Consul-General in Egypt, or to any other post of authority there; on what terms and conditions he has been appointed; whether his work there will involve an increase in the work done by or an increase on the salary received by the present holder of the post; and does the appointment of Lord Kitchener involve any change in the policy of this country towards either the Egyptian people or the Soudan?
  Sir E. GREY: I would take this opportunity of expressing the very great regret of His Majesty's Government that the serious illness of Sir Eldon Gorst prevents any chance of his being able to return to Egypt, and has made his resignation necessary. We are deeply sensible of the high value of the public service which he has rendered at Cairo, and of the great loss which his retirement entails. Beyond that, I cannot make any further announcement at the present moment.

  Great Britain and United States (International Arbitration).
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked whether, in view of the fact that an agreement of arbitration between Great Britain and the United States of America would require the deliberate and deciding sanction of Parliament, he will inform the House when such an agreement is likely to be ready for the sanction of Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: I believe the two Governments to be now in substantial agreement about the details of the draft Treaty, and that there is every prospect of its being signed very soon. It will then be presented to Parliament before ratification has taken place.

  Morocco.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked, with regard to the action of Germany in Morocco, whether, in view of the fact that under the Act of Algeciras, Article 8, the Inspector-General is to report to the diplomatic body as to effective measures for the security of persons and the property of foreigners, and under Article 9, in the event of complaints, the diplomatic body may request the Inspector-General to make an inquiry and draw up a report, whether the Power named has made such complaint?
  Sir E. GREY: We have not heard of any such complaint.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if no complaint has been made what justification there is for the action of Germany?
  Sir E. GREY: The whole question is of much too serious importance to be dealt with by question and answer on particular points. I understand that the Prime Minister will make an announcement later on in regard to the general question.

  Northern Albania.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is

  1309
  now in a position to make any further statement as to the situation in Northern Albania and any action taken or contemplated by the Powers in reference thereto?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to a question of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Norfolk on the 3rd instant. I am not in a position to make any further statement.

  Mixed Marriages (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford, speaking in St. John's Church, Waterford, on Sunday, 25th June, denounced a certain married couple as living sinful lives because, one of them being a Protestant, they had not been married in a Roman Catholic church; and whether he will consult his law officers as to whether the Roman Catholic bishop can be prosecuted for criminal libel for thus holding up to public contumely a man and woman who have been married according to the laws of the country?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): Since the hon. Gentleman's question was put on the Paper, I have seen a newspaper report, from which it appears that the bishop did, in the course of a sermon, on the occasion mentioned, expound the views of the Catholic Church, in relation to mixed marriages. The bishop made no reference whatever to the position of the parties in such cases under the civil law, and in no way impeached the validity of such marriages under the civil law. The law of criminal libel has no application whatever to such a statement.
  Captain CRAIG: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the Government to bring in some Bill into the House which would allow all marriages to have equal validity in Ireland, and so remove the power of the ministry in Ireland to make statements in Ireland about Protestants and Roman Catholics that they are living together in open sin?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The civil validity of this marriage is in no sense in question, and the bishop's references have concern with the view that Catholics take in such cases.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the fact that in Ireland a great deal of importance
  1310
  is attached to this matter, and how it is that Roman Catholic clergymen are permitted over and over again to say that the contracting parties, Roman Catholic and, Protestant, are living in open sin?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRYgave a reply which was inaudible.
  Mr. MOORE: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that, although the Prelate did not denounce these people for a contravention of the civil law he continually denounced this Protestant over whom he had no control and the Roman Catholic for living in open sin according to the Church canon law; and if that is not a grievous interference with the rights of the ordinary subjects of His Majesty to be denounced by any Prelate in the country in which he lives?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I cannot for the life of me see what objection there is to a Bishop of a Catholic church or any other church, stating his religious beliefs-and convictions in regard to any matter.
  Mr. MOORE: Does it not amount to an incitement by this rev. gentleman that his congregation are to consider this Protestant and Roman Catholic are living in open sin, and will they not be treated accordingly?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether this action of the Catholic Bishops differs in any respect from the action of the. Church of England, who have "made similar denunciations with regard to persons legally married to a deceased wife's sister?
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the intolerable wrong to this Protestant because he has married a Roman Catholic, whether it is the intention of the Government to place the liberties and whole interests of the Protestants at the disposal of the Roman Catholic prelates in the forthcoming legislation?
  Mr. REDDY: Keep that for the 12th July.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It is not all a question of the interests of Protestants; it is a question whether or not Catholics are to be entitled to claim freedom for their own religious beliefs.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not quite as well aware as everybody else

  1311
  in His Majesty's Government that questions like these are always agitated a week before the 12th July?
  Captain CRAIG: It is not because of the 12th July—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from the question.

  Alleged Boycott (Arran Island).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Colman M'Donagh was, until a few weeks ago, employed by the Congested Districts Board on board their ice boat at Arran Island, county Galway; that the Rev. Mr. Farragher, the president of the United Irish League in Arran Island, and the leader of the boycott against a certain family on the island, threatened M'Donagh that if he continued speaking to certain persons who were obnoxious to the League he would lose his job; that two days later M'Donagh received a telegram from the Board dismissing him, and that his position was given to the treasurer of the local branch of the United Irish League; and what steps he intends to take to have M'Donagh reinstated and to prevent the United Irish League interfering in the appointment and dismissal of the Congested Districts Board's officials?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: M'Donagh was employed by the Congested Districts Board during the spring mackerel fishing of 1910, but the Board did not renew his engagement in 1911. He was not dismissed. The Board have no knowledge of the threats said to have been used by Father Farragher. They cannot say whether the present caretaker is connected with the United Irish League, but that body had nothing to do with their decision not to re-employ M'Donagh.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask how it is when it suits His Majesty's Government to know occasionally when the United Irish League are at work in these matters they are able to inform the House of the fact, and when it does not suit them they know nothing about it?
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the difference between dismissing a man and not renewing his employment?
  Mr. DUFFY: Is there a shadow of foundation for the question by the hon. Gentleman in respect of the reverend gentleman, Father Farragher?
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask if there is a shadow of foundation—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to hon. Members that we have got over a hundred questions on the Paper.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: On the point of Order, may I ask whether you consider it is in order to put into a question such as this a serious charge against this reverend gentleman, that he is the leader of a boycott of a certain family, when there is no proof whatever to sustain it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have known serious charges put in questions not only above the Gangway but below the Gangway. When a question appears it is perfectly impossible to say whether the charge JS well founded or not. It is only when we get the answer that we are able to arrive at a judgment upon it.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask you very respectfully, on the point of Order, whether it is within the competence of any Member of this House, without any proof to sustain it, to place in a question a serious charge against any person, much less a reverend gentleman; and whether that charge is to remain on the Paper of the House until such time as it may be dispelled by the answer given by a Minister?
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask on that point of Order whether the very fact that this question is asked by me and appears in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim makes him responsible for the facts, and I accept full responsibility on his behalf for what appears on the Paper?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: You will not repeat it outside the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I give a similar answer. My business is to strike out every question that is improper, but it is impossible for me, until I have heard the answer, to know whether a charge is well founded or not.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: He will not repeat it outside the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would appeal to hon. Members to let us get on with the questions, as it is now ten minutes past Three o'clock.

  Labourers' Cottages, Enniskillen, County Fermanagh.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland has authorised the Enniskillen District council to erect sixty labourers' cottages; that the Enniskillen District Council gave the contract two years ago; and that, owing to a dispute between the contractor and his engineer, only eight of these sixty labourers' cottages have so far been built; and whether the Irish Local Government Board will authorise the cancelling of the contract by the Enniskillen District Council and its entrance upon a new contract that will enable the building of these cottages to proceed?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The facts are as stated, but the dispute was between the contractor and the council's engineer. On the 13th June the council decided to instruct their architect to give the contractor the legal notice required by his contract to proceed within seven days with the work where unnecessary delay has occurred. He was further directed to notify the council of every case of non-compliance, with a view to their taking over the works and procuring a new contractor. The sanction of the Local Government Board to this course is not necessary.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Will a new engineer be appointed?
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that James M'Aroe, labourer, of Ballylucas, county Fermanagh, whose dwelling had been condemned by the local sanitary authority as unfit for human habitation, was awarded a labourer's cottage by the Enniskillen Rural District Council over two and a-half years ago, and that the owner and occupier of the selected site and plot were paid compensation for the same two years ago; and will he state why the cottage has not yet been erected on the plot fenced off, and through whose neglect or default M'Aroe with his wife and six grown-up children are still obliged to live in a thatched hovel measuring 16 feet by 14 feet?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: James M'Aroe's house was condemned as stated, and the cottage authorised to replace it is one of those which has not yet been built owing to some friction between the contractor and the engineer of the Rural District Council. The Local Government
  1314
  Board are informed that the council have decided that if the work is not proceeded with at once they will, at their next meeting, take over the building from the contractor.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not the fact that the engineer is employed by the county surveyor at a yearly salary, and therefore how can he give his attention to the erection of sixty cottages?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I think the answer explains. The work is to be proceeded with at once. The council are to take the land over at the next meeting.

  Reinstatement Applications.
  The following appeared on the Order Paper:—
  "Mr. MULDOON: To ask the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners had received an application from Myles Byrne, son of Laurence Byrne, for reinstatement in his father's holding on the estate of the Earl of Meath, in the county of Wicklow, and whether this application has been refused; and why was it so refused, as it was entirely in order and the case was a bond fide case of eviction?"
  Mr. MOORE: Can a Gentleman who is not a Member of this House put a question. This Gentleman has accepted an office of profit with the Chiltern Hundreds?
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether the Estates Commissioners intend to take any steps to reinstate Mr. James Sheehy, of Buncurrig, Ballyheigue, in his farm at Ballygoughlan, Glin, county Limerick, which his father purchased in the year 1877 for £3,000; and whether the present occupant of the said farm, Mr. Lenehan, is willing to give up possession of the said farm on getting compensation?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The holding to which James Sheehy seeks reinstatement is in the occupation of a tenant who acquired it from the assignees in bankruptcy of Sheehy's father and has since purchased it under the Land Purchase Acts. The Estates Commissioners, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action in the matter of Sheehy's application for reinstatement.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon, and learned Gentleman make representations to the Estates Commissioners and ask

  1315
  them to deal with the case and give this man another farm, as the farm which was occupied by his father is no longer available?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I do not think that arises out of the question on the Paper. The question was confined to the farm which it appears has been sold under the Land Purchase Acts to the present holder.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether ho can say if the Congested Districts Board have communicated with Mr. W. T. Huggard, Denny Street, Tralee, who is the receiver on the J. P. Stock estate, at Mucknaugh, Lixnaw, North Kerry, with a view to purchase the estate, which is mainly composed of small holdings; and, if not, will they do so immediately, with the view of enlarging the uneconomic holdings on the estate by an addition of the cutaway bog on the property?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board have not communicated with Mr. Huggard regarding the estate referred to, but will do so now.

  Untenanted Lands (Mount Henry, County Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say what is the cause of delay in completing the sale of the untenanted lands at Mount Henry, Coolcappa, in the county of Limerick, between Miss Delmege, the vendor, and the Estates Commissioners; and whether, in view of the necessity for betterment of the condition of a number of small holders and labourers in the district, they will without further delay complete the sale without waiting for a sale of the tenanted portion of the estate?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question by the hon. Member on this subject on the 19th April, 1910.

  Sale of Opium (Assam Tea Gardens).
  Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the existence of shops for the sale of opium to the coolies employed in certain of the tea gardens in Assam and of the growth of the opium habit among them, especially at the Dejoo Company's Garden, opposite
  1316
  Joyhing, and the gardens of the Jokia (Assam) Tea Company, Limited, at Pathahpam and Derpai; whether he is aware that a new opium shop has recently been opened at or close to Panitola; and whether, either upon the information he has or the result of any inquiries confirming the above matters, he will cause the Government of India to take speedy measures to deal with the subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no reason to believe that the opium habit is on the increase among the coolie population of the tea gardens in Assam. During the last four years the number of licences for retailing opium has been reduced from 632 to 381 in the five Assam Valley districts and the issue price of opium raised. The consumption of opium has also fallen. As regards the location of particular shops, the Secretary of State does not interfere with the discretion of the Local Government.
  Mr. NIELD: Has the hon. Gentleman not reason to know that the report of this particular company mentioned in the question shows a considerably increasing consumption of opium?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have given the hon. Member the information at my disposal, which I think completely answers his question.
  Mr. NIELD: Will he make inquiries?
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he has any knowledge of any harm ever done in this district from the sale and consumption of opium?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Of course, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, another and more deleterious plant grows wild in Assam and some other districts, and therefore the question of the restriction of the consumption of opium is a very difficult matter in these districts, and you have to proceed very cautiously.

  Arrests in India (Case of Charu Chunder Ghose).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of one Charu Chunder Ghose, who, although he was in a bad state of health, was arrested on 20th March, 1910, on the charge of being implicated in the Hourah gang case and detained in gaol, bail being refused; who-was released on bail on the report of the

  1317
  medical officer of the gaol on the 19th May; who was again taken into custody on the 20th July, but was released on bail by order of the High Court on the 24th September; who was placed on trial before the special tribunal of the High Court on the 2nd December; who was so ill during the trial that the judges, notwithstanding the objection of the counsel for the Crown, exempted him from personal attendance; who died on the 17th April, 1911, and regarding whom the Chief Justice, in a judgment recorded on the 19th April, stated that a very careful consideration of the evidence had led him to the clear conclusion that Ghose was innocent of the charge brought against him; and whether, having regard to these facts and the further fact that Charu Chunder Ghose was the bread-winner of his family and has left two young children and a mother who were dependent on him for support, he will take his case into favourable consideration and grant some compassionate allowance for the maintenance of his family?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is awaiting fuller papers from the Government of India, and has now telegraphed to expedite them. In the meantime I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to his question of the 18th May. The suggestion that the failure of a Crown prosecution imposes a duty on the State to compensate the person acquitted is, I think, a novel proposition.

  Indian Civil Service.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the fact that, owing to the increased cost of living in India, due to the rise of prices, wages, and house rent, the position of members of the Indian Civil Service has greatly deteriorated, and that this has been aggravated by block of promotion due to irregular recruitment; and whether, as the increased cost of living has rendered necessary an improvement in the pay of other services in India, e.g., the Army, the Public Works Department, the Police, and the Forest Department, the Secretary of State proposes to take any action to effect a corresponding improvement in the conditions of the Indian Civil Service?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State in Council accepted last year the conclusions at which the Government of India had arrived as the result of their second quinquennial examination of the
  1318
  state and prospects of the Indian Civil Service. They concluded that, on the whole, their present system of recruitment had, so far, proved satisfactory. In the case of two provinces they recommended certain improvements, which were sanctioned, and they have under consideration the case of a third. They have made no further proposal in the, direction suggested by the hon. Member.

  Indian Budget.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary for India if he can state the date when the Indian Budget is to be taken?
  Mr. MONTAGU: This question should be addressed to the Prime Minister, who replied on Tuesday to a similar question from the hon. Member for West Staffordshire.

  Indian Railways (Contracts and Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary for India whether he is aware that many of the workmen employed by Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold on the rail-bank at their Dowlais works in connection with the firm's contract with the India Office for rails for the Indian State railways are earning less than 20s. a week, some being paid as low as 1s. l0d. a day, whilst neighbouring competing firms pay wages from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. higher; and what action he proposes taking to compel this firm to pay fair wages to their workmen under the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend has been kind enough to supply me with the detailed information on which he bases his allegations, and inquiry will at once be made into the matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question next week.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Will the hon. Member ask the Secretary of State to send down an inspector to see all the persons concerned, as it is very difficult to get at the truth by correspondence, and we may be in the same position as we have been up to the present?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think something-more than correspondence will be necessary; but the Secretary of State has received very full information from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether he

  1319
  can explain the circumstances under which the firm of Guest, Keen, and Nettle-fold are allowed to stamp iron sleepers with the words: Indian State Railways; whether these sleepers are for the use of the Government of India, or for what purpose are they made? I do not propose to ask this question. I have received information that this contract is for a private firm, and not for the Government.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that the standards and rolls for turning out rails for the India Office rails contract with Guest, Keen and Nettlefold at their Dowlais works are made by moulders, and that without these the rails could not be made; whether, under these circumstances, he will insist upon the firm complying with the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause and pay their moulders 6s. per day, as is done by other works in the district for the same class of work; and (2) whether he is aware that the moulders now on strike at Dowlais, and who were employed at wages ranging from 2s. l1d. to 3s. 8d. per day, were performing work connected with the making of steel rails for the Indian Government; and whether he will inform the firm of Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold that unless the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause in respect to wages and conditions of employment are complied with he will have their name removed from the list of Government contractors?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Fair-Wages Resolution as interpreted by the Government Departments concerned does not extend to the manufacture of plant or tools used only partly in fulfilling Government contracts. If my hon. Friend dissents from this interpretation I will undertake to lay his contention before the Fair-Wages Committee.

  Kola Nuts (Duty in Southern Nigeria).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could now make any further statements as to the increase in the duty on kola nuts imported into Southern Nigeria?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I informed my hon. Friend on the 14th of June that there had been no recent increase in the duty, and I have no further statement to make.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the duty was not raised on January last; will he further explain his reply so as to cover that point?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that the duty was not raised in January last, nor at any time in the last two-and-a-half years.

  Ceylon (Garrison).
  Colonel YATEasked whether, in view of the increasing strategical importance of Ceylon and of the small proportion of its revenue at present contributed by that colony for defence, he would consider the advisability of taking steps to secure a substantial increase in the normal garrison of the island; and whether, in view of the rumours of reductions to be brought about in the Indian Army at an early date, the Imperial Government would consider whether any surplus of troops in India might, instead of being reduced, be made available, with advantage to both India and Ceylon, for increase in the Ceylon garrison?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The garrison of Ceylon is fixed and will be maintained at the strength which is considered necessary by the expert advisers of His Majesty s Government.

  Ceylon and India (Railways).
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the progress that is being made with the scheme for railway connection between Ceylon and India, and details of the estimated cost of construction, and the results anticipated from it as a commercial undertaking; and whether, in view of the strategical advantage to the Empire that would result from the connection by railway of the Ceylon harbours with the Indian mainland, the Imperial Government would consider the advisability of giving some financial assistance or guarantee, if needed to cover any anticipated loss from a commercial point of view during the first years after construction.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no detailed report, but I understand that very satisfactory progress has been made with the work and that the connection will probably be effected in the course of next year. The cost of the Ceylon works will be about 6½ million rupees. I have no information as to the cost of the Indian works. So far

  1321
  as Ceylon is concerned it is confidently expected that the line will pay its way from the first.

  British Dominions (Metric System).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether, in view of the opinions expressed by some of the representatives at the Imperial Conference, the Government propose to take steps and, if so, what steps to establish a decimal system of coinage and a metric system of weights and measures simultaneously in the United Kingdom and in His Majesty's Dominions overseas?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question so far as it relates to weights and measures. Some of the representatives of the Dominions expressed themselves as theoretically in favour of a change, but recognised the practical difficulties which would attend it, and the resolution put forward was withdrawn by its proposer. The Government do not propose to take any steps in the matter. As regards the question of coinage, perhaps the hon. Member will address the Treasury on the subject.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Department will bear the matter in mind?
  Mr. BUXTON: We had a discussion on the matter at the Imperial Conference which I attended and a Motion was moved. On behalf of my Department I made a general statement with regard to our conviction of what appeared to be the insuperable difficulties in the way. I will not say in consequence of my speech, but, after discussion of the matter, the resolution was withdrawn.

  Board of Education (Regulations for Retirement).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the existing regulations of the Board of Education governing the retirement of members of the staff?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I shall be happy to give my hon. Friend a copy, and to put one in the Library of the House.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will give the names of the persons of the staff of the Board of Education who have been retired since the appointment of the present permanent secretary before reaching the age of sixty-five or becoming qualified for the full pension of two-thirds of their salaries?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: My hon. Friend will find the information he asks for in both parts of his question in the details of Vote 1 of Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services annually published.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the President of the Board of Education what were the number of officials with expert knowledge employed in the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1907, and what is the number at present?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not know to what particular grades or types of officials the hon. Member is referring when he speaks of "officials with expert knowledge." Apart from the director and deputy-director the number of keepers, assistant Keepers, and assistants employed in 1907 and now are the same, except that one of these posts which became vacant a few weeks ago is not yet filled up. The number of technical assistants is one more than in 1907.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if it is intended to provide catalogues, such as are published in the British Museum, for the use of the public in the Victoria and Albert Museum, and, if so, when?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: In speaking of catalogues in his question, I imagine the hon. Member refers rather to handbooks and guides than to the exhaustive and expensive catalogues compiled mainly for students. In reply, I would refer him to the published list of the various publications of the Victoria and Albert Museum, of which I will send him a copy. These publications comprise various guides and handbooks both to the collections as a whole and to particular sections. It is hoped gradually to increase the number of these, but their compilation has of late years been somewhat hindered by the large amount of work involved in the complete rearrangement of the whole of the collections necessitated by the removal of the exhibits into the large new premises of the museum

  Finance Act (1909–10).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under Section 30, Subsection (2), of the Finance Act, 1910, any person interested for any purpose; whether statistical, commercial, or any other, in knowing the value of any land, will now be informed on application to the Commissioners the values fixed on by the valuers under the Act?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARYto the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The answer is in the negative. The right conferred by Section 30 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, does not extend to persons whose interest is merely academic.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the text-books on this Act, edited by competent lawyers, take the opposite view?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not responsible for the text-books, and I do not profess to be a competent lawyer.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of acting upon their legal advice?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir, I prefer to act upon the legal advice of our legal advisers.
  Sir HERBERT RAPHAEL: We have been informed on several occasions by representatives of the Government that the Government would consider the propriety of making that valuation public; are we to understand that that promise is withdrawn?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir, you are not to understand that. If my hon. Friend will look at the question he will see that it is not what may be in the future, but what is law at present.

  Customs and Excise Amalgamation (Report).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when the Committee on the Customs and Excise Amalgamation will report?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to my previous answer on the 16th ultimo.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee has been appointed something like two years and a-half, and will he expedite the Report?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have been giving a good deal of consideration myself to the Report, and the amalgamation of the various classes is extremely difficult, and cannot be dealt with hurriedly.

  Postage Stamps.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether, in accordance with the former practice, six months' stock of halfpenny and penny postage stamps is now held at Somerset House, including both old and new designs, or what period of consumption the total stock represents; and can he say for what period the existing stock of new George V. penny and halfpenny stamps is sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The stock of halfpenny and penny postage stamps now held represents about seven weeks' consumption. The existing stock of new George V. stamps is sufficient for the requirements of a few days.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether either Messrs. De la Rue or Messrs. Harrison object to a disclosure of the difference between their tenders for the manufacture of adhesive postage stamps; if so, will he approach them with a view to their assent being obtained to his informing the House as to the amount of the saving effected by giving the contract to Messrs. Harrison; or, if neither of these firms object, will he state on what grounds he does not feel justified in communicating this information to the House?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Objection is taken by both the firms to the disclosure of the figures of their tenders, though not for identical reasons.

  Trade Union (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister if he can state when it is proposed to proceed with the Committee stage of the Trade Union (No. 2) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not able to give a definite reply at present to the hon. Member. It will shortly be necessary for me to give an outline of the business that remains to be taken until the end of the Session.

  Magisterial Appointments.
  Mr. PRIMROSEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state definitely what time he can allot for the discussion of magisterial appointments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Friday the 14th being found to be an inconvenient day, I hope that we may be able to take the discusssion on Friday the 21st.

  Scottish Education Vote.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether the Scottish Education Estimates will be taken on an early day, so as to give an opportunity for discussing the action of the Department in withdrawing the scheme of superannuation, which has been published in fulfilment of the provisions of the Education Act of 1908?
  Sir ROBERT FINLAYasked the Lord Advocate when the Scottish Education Vote will be taken; and whether an early opportunity will be given for the discussion of the threatened postponement of the superannuation scheme for Scottish teachers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the hon. Member's request.

  Finance Bill (1911–12).
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER askedthe Prime Minister when he intends to proceed with the Finance Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to fix a date as yet.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks the taxation of the people is a proper subject to be relegated to the dog days?
  Sir R. BAKER: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that the business of the control of finance by this House is to become a purely secondary matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Is there any foundation for the rumour that the right hon. Gentleman intends to withdraw the Finance Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  Naval Prize Bill.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of discharging the order for committing the Naval Prize Bill to a Standing Committee and of taking the Bill in Committee of the whole House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Mr. HUNT: Have not the Government sent the Bill upstairs so that the people may not learn and realise their danger?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing of the kind. The proper moment to move to commit the Bill to the Whole House was when the Second Heading was taken. No Motion was made, and the ordinary consequences followed.
  Mr. HUNT: Cannot you do what we ask now?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  Education Vote.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Prime Minister if he will state when it is proposed to take the Education Vote?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am making my usual statement on business at the end of Questions, and I will then reply to my hon. Friend's question.

  Canada and the West Indies (Trade Relations).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Prime Minister if he can state what steps, if any, His Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Relations between Canada and the West Indies, issued in September, 1910?
  Mr. HARCOURT: His Majesty's Government have been in communication with the West Indian Colonies with regard to such of the recommendations of the Royal Commission as involve action to be taken by those Colonies. With one exception, the Legislatures of the Colonies directly concerned have passed resolutions indicating their adherence to the recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to reciprocity, and it will now be for His Majesty's Government to communicate the result to the Government of Canada for their consideration. As regards other matters dealt with by the Royal Commission, the decision of his Majesty's Government with regard to the Imperial Department of Agriculture has already been announced, and the hon. Member is no doubt aware of the action taken as regards the renewal of the contract providing for mail communication with the Antilles. I am not yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government in regard to telegraphic communication.

  Coronation (Street Barriers).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of

  1327
  wooden barriers erected across streets adjoining the route of the recent royal processions in London; how many of such barriers were closed on the days of the processions; and what was the total cost of their construction and erection?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Eighty-three wooden barriers were erected. Of these it was found necessary to close ten for a longer or shorter period. As the accounts have not yet been made up, it is not possible to specify the exact cost—but the cost of these gates is estimated not to exceed by much the amount (£6,276) expended on similar gates in 1902.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not a fact that the barriers were perfectly useless, and had the effect of frightening away a great many of the loyal inhabitants of London who wished to view the Coronation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They might not have been useless if they had not been there.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Were these barriers an innovation, or were similar barriers erected ten years ago in anticipation of the Coronation of King Edward?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, they were similar.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: How many were used? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Ten.
  Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman assured himself that he had legal warrant for the erection of these barriers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have not.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman do so?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, Sir, I am rather doubtful about the law.
  Mr. KINGrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Questions of that sort, involving some legal research, should be put down on the Paper.

  Workmen's Compensation Act (Medical Referees).
  Mr. HODGEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is becoming common for medical referees under the Workmen's
  1328
  Compensation Act to accept fees from and to appear as witnesses for insurance companies in cases arising in the courts to which such referees are attached; whether his attention has been drawn to a case at Gloucester, on the 20th of May last, where the judge stated that, although it was a case which he naturally would have referred to a medical referee of the court, he could not do so because the referee had given evidence, and there being no power to appoint another referee he would have to act as doctor himself; and whether he can take any steps to prevent a recurrence of such incidents and secure a more impartial standing on the part of the medical referees?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Home Office regulations forbid medical referees from acting for the employer or insurance company in any case in which the workman is receiving a weekly payment for compensation or which is otherwise likely to come before them as referees; and I believe these instructions are generally observed. In the Gloucester case, I find on inquiry that the workman was sent to the medical referee under a mistaken impression on the part of the applicant's solicitor that Stroud was outside his district. I will consider whether an additional referee should be appointed; but it is in the power of the judge in such a case to call in a medical referee from an adjoining district.
  Mr. GILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of the appointment of medical referees to devote the whole of their time to the duties, and may I ask whether he will make such appointments in accordance with the promise made by Lord Gladstone when he was Home Secretary?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not had the opportunity of studying the Reports of my predecessor, but I will take steps to look into the matter if the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper.

  Postal Service (Clerks' Remuneration).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General if he was aware that, owing to various revisions, nearly 30 per cent. of the present staff of third class clerks are now receiving less than they would be receiving if they had not successfully undergone the competitive examination for that grade; that they are refused permission to revert to their former division; and that the number of appointments open to third

  1329
  class clerks have been reduced by over 9 per cent.; will he explain why the new scale of remuneration for third class clerks, which restores the former minimum of £100 and gives increases of £7 10s. for four years and £10 annually thereafter, has been applied so that an officer with four years' service in the third class, who joined during the temporary minimum of £80 per annum, receives only £110 per annum, whereas the new scale provides that, when an officer has had four years' service in the class, he should receive £130; and will he consider the application of the new scale in such a way as to give all officers the position which they would have received if they had entered at the minimum salary which formerly existed and has now been restored, or otherwise give to each clerk such salary as he would have attained had the new scale been applicable to him when he commenced service in accordance with the principle recognised in the case of the second division clerks, or will he appoint a committee to investigate the claims of third class clerks?
  The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am aware that certain third class clerks employed in the different departments of the Post Office in London are in receipt for the time being of slightly lower salaries than they would be receiving if they had not obtained appointment to their present class, and if, remaining second division clerks, they had accepted the new scale of pay for second division clerks. They have, however, better prospects for the future than the members of that class. All officers who accept transfer to other classes, whether by competitive examination or by other means, are aware that in doing so they accept all the advantages and disadvantages of their new position. The part of the hon. Member's question dealing with the new scale of remuneration suggests that this scale should be made retrospective in the case of certain clerks. This would not be in accordance with the usual practice in the Civil Service, and I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion. In the case of the second-division clerks to which the hon. Member refers, the officers concerned were given the opportunity of exchanging a maximum of £350, with a slow rate of progress, for a maximum of £300 with a quicker rate of progress; and I cannot admit that the circumstances as regards the third class clerks, who have not had their maximum reduced, are such as to warrant analogous treatment. I have received a deputation
  1330
  from the staff on the subject, and the whole matter has received my most careful consideration. I do not deem it necessary or advisable to appoint a committee of investigation.

  Accountant-General's Department (Admiralty).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the inquiry into the organisation of the Accountant-General's department of the Admiralty, which was commenced in May, 1909, has been completed; and whether he is in a position to communicate to the House the result of the inquiry?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The matter is still under consideration between the Admiralty and the Treasury.

  Declaration of London (Attitude of Admiralty).
  Mr. HUNTasked (1) whether the Naval Prize Bill has ever been submitted for consideration to a full meeting of the Board of Admiralty; if so, was it approved at the full meeting, and what was the date; (2) whether Sir Francis Bridgeman, now Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet, was consulted at all regarding the Declaration of London; (3) what is the date, or what were the dates, of any full meeting, or full meetings, of the Board of Admiralty at which the Declaration of London was discussed and approved; (4) whether the Declaration of London was discussed and approved by any full meeting of the Board of Admiralty after its signature by Lord Desart; (5) if so, was such full meeting held prior to the signature of the Declaration by Lord Desart on the 26th of February, 1909; and (6) whether, on the occasion when the Declaration of London was approved by the Board of Admiralty, only two members of that Board were present; and, if so, were these two the First Lord of the Admiralty and one Sea Lord?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will answer the hon. Member's questions, Nos. 60 to 65, together. The Naval Prize Bill was not submitted for consideration to a full meeting of the Board of Admiralty. Sir Francis Bridgeman did not become Second Sea Lord till March, 1909, after the Declaration of London was signed. As Second Sea Lord, questions affecting the Declaration of London would not come before him in the ordinary course, except when acting for the First Sea Lord, and I am not aware

  1331
  that any important points came before him officially when so acting. The approval of the Declaration of London was given on the Papers circulated to those members of the Board to whom it appertained in the distribution of business.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many Naval Lords were at the meeting, and are we to understand that the Admiral chiefly responsible for the safety of the country from starvation and invasion has not approved the Declaration of London at all?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate, if I may say so, the point that in the distribution of business the question affecting the Declaration of London would come before the First Sea Lord for the time being, and, as I stated in my speech, both the First Sea Lords before whom the business came have approved the Declaration of London?
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that Admiral Bridgeman, who is responsible for the safety of the country, has not been consulted and does not approve?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The hon Member is not in the least entitled to understand anything of the sort. I explained, in answer to questions by the hon. Member, that Admiral Bridgeman was not at the Board of Admiralty at the time the Declaration of London was approved. I further remind him that all the matters the hon. Member has addressed to me in his questions have already been answered by mo some months ago.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: At the time the Declaration of London was considered by the Board of Admiralty was formal notice given to the members of the Board that the subject would be considered so that they could have an opportunity of attending?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. As I stated there was no formal Board meeting but every member of the Board had full knowledge of what occurred and every member of the Board has full opportunity of asking me to call a Board meeting on any subject.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Was any member asked to attend except the First Sea Lord and the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have explained more than once that the Sea Lord with whom
  1332
  the matter rests is the First Sea Lord; he came to me, and it was approved by the First Sea Lord and myself.

  Public Trust Office (Scotland).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether he will take steps to extend the benefits of the Public Trustee Office to Scotland?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative for the reasons stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow on the 2nd March.

  Trustees (Scotland).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether he will take steps to limit the liability of trustees to six years in Scotland, as was done in England by the Act of Victoria, 1888?
  Mr. URE: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

  Agricultural Labourers (Average Wages).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what is the average rate of remuneration of agricultural labourers throughout Great Britain; and, if so, whether such remuneration includes cottage accommodation and perquisites or not; also if he can state what is the average remuneration over the same area of. workmen other than agricultural labourers?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Report which gives information as to the average weekly earnings of agricultural labourers in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. No one figure can be given as representing the average earnings of all other workmen, but I can give the hon. Member information as to the average earnings in particular trades if he will be so good as to communicate with me.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is that a recent Return?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think so, but I have not got the date.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman circulate this information for the general use of the House? Many of us are interested.
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to consider in what way I should circulate it. If he puts a question down I will answer it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Was not this information available in the Vote Office at the time?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes; the Report -was issued, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted it in different form.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What Report is that?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Average Weekly Wages of Agricultural Labourers in. England, Ireland, and Scotland.

  Passenger Vessels (Deck Manning).
  Mr. BOWER MANasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that the R.M.S. "Viper" crossed from Belfast to Ardrossan on 26th June, 1911, with a full complement of passengers on board, and her deck crew consisted of two boys only; whether he will state how many competent hands constitute the deck manning of this passenger and mail steamer; and whether the Board of Trade surveyors of Glasgow are paying special attention to the manning of all passenger vessels, coast or otherwise, sailing from the port of Glasgow; and (2), if he is aware that there are passenger vessels sailing from Leith manned with incompetent crews and some of the vessels short-handed; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the manning of the passenger boats before they leave the port, and cause all vessels to be detained which have an inadequate or incompetent crew; whether he can state if he has any reports from the local officials as to the, manning of the passenger boats; and whether he will cause such reports; if any, to be laid on the Table of the House?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am making inquiries on the points raised by my hon. Friend, and will communicate the result to him.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked how many deck hands were signed on the passenger steamer "Minnewaska" on her last outward voyage from London to New York; how many of them were qualified A.B.'s; whether he can state how many men were signed as firemen and trimmers; how
  1334
  many had had previous sea service; and how many gave Leeds or other inland towns as their place of birth or residence?
  Mr. BUXTON: I find that twenty-seven deck hands were engaged on the s.s. "Minnewaska" on her last outward voyage from London to New York, of whom twelve were rated as "A.B." Seventy-five men were signed as firemen and trimmers. Of these forty-nine claimed to have had previous sea service. Thirty-four of the men gave their home address as Leeds or other inland town, but several of the men giving this address claimed to have had previous sea service.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked how many deck hands were signed on the passenger steamer "Minneapolis" on her last outward voyage from London to New York; how many of them were qualified A.B.'s; whether he can state how many men were signed as firemen and trimmers; how many had had previous sea service; and how many gave Leeds or other inland towns as their place of birth or residence?
  Mr. BUXTON: I find that twenty-eight deck hands were engaged on the S.S. "Minneapolis" on her last outward voyage, of whom fourteen were rated as A.B.s. The number of firemen and trimmers engaged in all was sixty-eight, of whom thirty-two claimed to have previous sea service. Thirty-four of the men gave their address as Leeds, but several of the men giving this address claimed to have previous sea service.

  Tropical Diseases Investigation.
  Dr. HILLIERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes increasing the grant to tropical diseases investigation; and, if so, by what amount?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Treasury have recently sanctioned the appointment of a special Commission, under Sir D. Bruce, and including at the outset the services of Professor Newstead, to make further investigations into trypanosome diseases, the cost of which, amounting for this year alone to about £5,000, will ultimately fall on the Exchequer. In view of this large provision of money, my right hon. Friend does not see his way to increase the amount of the grants provided in the Estimates for tropical diseases investigation, as Sir D. Bruce's Commission will be carrying out this very work with great prospects of successful results.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE.

    LIEUTENANTS AND OTHER OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether lieutenants, or other officers of the Army, in receipt of pay less than £160 per annum, will be subject to the compulsory provisions of the National Insurance Bill, in the same manner as the soldiers of the Regular Forces, who are provided for in Clause 36 of the Bill; and whether the contributions will be the same in both cases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second does not arise.

    APPRENTICES WITHOUT WAGES.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether, in the case of a boy apprenticed to a skilled trade who received no wages, the master will be compelled, under the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, to contribute 7d. weekly on his behalf?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether members of the advisory committee to be appointed under Clause 42 of the National Insurance Bill will receive a salary; whether they will be required to give their whole time to the service of the committee; and for what term they will be appointed?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The members of the advisory committee will be unpaid, and will not be required to give their whole time. The term of appointment will be a matter for the Insurance Commissioners to decide.

    MATERNITY PROVISIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it is intended by Clause 8 (6) of the National Insurance Bill to exclude a woman from every kind of benefit after a confinement during a period of four weeks although she is herself an employed contributor, and during such period may be suffering from some serious disease, such as small-pox, wholly unconnected with her confinement; and, if so, how such provision can be justified?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the effect of Clause 8 (6) might be interpreted in this way. We propose to make it clear that only benefits in respect of the disability arising from the confinement are referred to.

    EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether the expenses of administration authorised by Clauses 41, 42, and 43 of the National Insurance Bill, including the salaries of commissioners and other officers, are to be paid out of the funds provided under Clause 3, or out of moneys to be provided in addition by the taxpayer.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The expenses authorised by Clause 41 will be defrayed in accordance with that Clause from voted moneys and not out of moneys under Clause 3. No expenses are authorised by Clause 42. Expenses of local Health Committees under Clause 43 are provided for by Clause 45, dealing with the income of the committees.

    ACCUMULATING AND DIVIDING FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Viscount WOLMERasked how many accumulating and how many dividing friendly societies, registered and unregistered, there are whose membership is less than 5,000?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE:I fear that this information is not available.
    Viscount WOLMER: When will it be available?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think we can get it at all.
    Viscount WOLMER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised it in a few days?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will inquire about it.

    IRISH TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
    Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked if in the provisions of the National Insurance Bill ho has taken into consideration that, of the many thousands of young women employed in the textile industries in Ireland who will be obliged to contribute under compulsion at the age of fifteen years or over, at least 50 per cent. of these will get married before they attain to thirty years of age, and 20 per cent, additional will emigrate to Canada or the United States (in either of these cases, provided they have had no claim against the funds under the Government Bill); and will he make provision to return all or a portion of their contributions to the contributors, both employés and employers?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Without in any way admitting the accuracy of the figures cited in the question, so far as the position of

    1337
    women who on marriage cease to be employed is concerned, my right hon. Friend last night promised consideration of an Amendment dealing with them. The case of emigrants is dealt with in Clause 26 on a basis of reciprocity between this country and the British possession or foreign country to which the emigrant goes.

    MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES (COST IN GERMANY).
    Mr. COOPERasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, according to the statistics of the German Empire for 1908, Volume 229, the cost of medicines and appliances per insured person for that year averages 3.52 marks; and has he evidence that would lead to the conclusion that in this country the cost would be less under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figure given by the hon. Member is correct, but I would point out that the charge 3.52 marks includes family treatment where the rules of a sickness fund provide for it. Further, the charge assigned in the German statistics to "medicine and appliances" includes such items as milk, wine, baths, etc. For these reasons the figure quoted affords no guidance as to the probable cost of medicine under the National Insurance Bill.
    Mr. COOPER: Am I to understand that by family treatment the right hon. Gentleman means treatment for the family?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Family treatment generally.
    Mr. COOPERasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state under what arrangements drugs are dispensed under the German scheme of sickness insurance; and, if there is a schedule of prices, will he circulate a translation of it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the German sickness insurance system drugs are either dispensed by licensed chemists or obtained at unlicensed drug shops. There is an official schedule of maximum prices (uniform for all Germany) for such medicaments as may only be supplied by licenced chemists. As, however, the sickness funds commonly include special agreements with the local chemists' associations, the prices charged to these funds vary considerably, and no single schedule of prices could be regarded as representative.

    HEALTH COMMITTEES (PAYMENT FOR SERVICES).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether, in view of the work it is intended to impose on the health committees under the National Insurance Bill, the Government propose to pay members of those committees on the same principle as Members of Parliament?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the negative.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (SICK ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether, an agricultural labourer earning only 15s. a week, and entitled under the National Insurance Bill to 10s. a week during sickness, will, if he insures in a society for additional benefits to the extent of 8s. a week, with the object of procuring extra necessary nourishment, be deprived of 3s. per week under the Government scheme, so that he will not get more in all than 15s. a week?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the circumstances described the labourer would receive 7s. a week sick pay, and the extra 3s. to which, but for his double insurance, he would have been entitled, would remain in the hands of his society with other funds available for additional benefits.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are we to understand that under the proposed scheme these men will not receive any increase.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If they insure outside the Government scheme they will only get a total amount of 10s.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If a Member maintains his outside insurance the Government would not, in fact, pay him 10s.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: From one point of view that might be so. On the other hand, it will not be paid actually to him, but it will go towards the funds of the society to provide additional benefits either for him or for other members of the society.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: If the money goes to the benefit of the society the agricultural labourer will be kept out of the benefits entirely.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. If he is in an agricultural branch which is kept separate from the other branch of the society it will go to himself and the other members of that branch.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it not the case that half the surplus has to go up to the central fund?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Undoubtedly, half the funds are to go up in the case of any deficiency.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Then for every extra shilling over and above the Government grant he loses a shilling from the Government?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not see that that is so at all.

    Commuted Pensions.
    Colonel YATEasked whether it is still permissible for a Government pensioner to commute, for a lump sum of money down, the whole of the pension awarded to him; how much has thus been paid away, since the passing of the Act in 1871, in respect of pensions wholly commuted; and what profit or loss has accrued to the Exchequer on the rest of the transactions, namely, the pensions only partially commuted, bearing in mind that the five per cent, rate of interest charged to the commuter is higher than the rate at which Government can borrow the money?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Permission to commute the whole of the pension is now limited to civil servants who retire on account of the abolition or reorganisation of their offices, and to Naval and Military officers in receipt of pensions for wounds. The total amount paid for pensions wholly commuted since the passing of the Act of 1871 up to 31st December, 1910, is £4,496,256. It is not possible to state definitely the amount of profit which has accrued to the Exchequer in respect of pensions partially commuted, but from a partial investigation it is estimated that a balance in favour of the Exchequer of about £200,000 would result from the partial commutations.

    Valuation of Land (Cost).
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the cost of the valuation of land under the Finance Act of 1909–10?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: To the 30th ultimo the cost of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, which is engaged in the work of valuation not only for Land Values Duties, but also for Death Duties, etc., was approximately £226,000.

    Limited Liability Companies (Newly-created Capital).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the right hon. Gentleman the total value of newly-created capital in connection with companies with limited liability registered in the United Kingdom for the first half-year of 1910 and of 1911?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: During the first half-year of 1910 and of 1911 there were registered in the United Kingdom companies with a share capital of £209,971,849 and £88,128,472 respectively. These figures do not include loan capital.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Did the right hon. Gentleman say 1909. That is not the year mentioned. I asked for the first half-year of 1910 and 1911.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Those are the years I have given.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the serious diminution in the figures?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, very easily. There is a very large amount of money standing at the banks which in the ordinary circumstances would have been paid into the Exchequer, money due for Income Tax and other taxes, and this was employed in the flotation of companies by the banks and other company promoters.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (HOUNSLOW OUTBREAK).
Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) whether any further cases of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred at or in the neighbourhood of Hounslow, in Middlesex; (2) whether the cause of the present outbreak has been traced; whether any oats, straw, raw milk, or other produce imported from infected countries have been found on the premises; and (3) whether any steps other than those adopted on the occasion of the two previous outbreaks are being taken in the case of the present outbreak to ascertain its origin.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): I have received information since I came down to the House that foot-and-mouth disease has been confirmed in a cow belonging to Mr. John Arnold, Oak Farm, Isleworth. The

1341
premises are within 300 yards of the original outbreak. There are in all nine cows and one goat on Oak Farm. The Board have directed the slaughter of all these animals. The answer to the rest of the question is in the negative.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Does the hon. Baronet realise that unless the cause of these frequent outbreaks can be ascertained by the Board the very valuable export trade in pedigree cattle will be lost to this country?

MOROCCO.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister will redeem his promise and carry out what he led the House to believe he would be able to do to-day, that is make a statement to the House as to the present aspect of affairs in Morocco?
The PRIME MINISTER: Recent events are causing discussion between the Powers most interested in Morocco, and at this stage I can say little of the negotiations which are passing between them. But I wish it clearly to be understood that His Majesty's Government consider that a new situation has arisen in Morocco in which it is possible that future developments may affect British interests more directly than has hitherto been the case. I am confident that diplomatic discussion will find a solution, and in the part that we shall take in it we shall have due regard to the protection of those interests and to the fulfilment of our treaty obligations to France, which are well known to the House.

STRIKE IN MANCHESTER (DOCK LABOURERS AND CARRIERS).
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Can the Home Secretary say anything as to the condition of things in Manchester to-day, and will he be good enough to tell me by whose authority the military forces of the Crown have been sent there?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I have had a telephone message from the general who has assumed the direction of affairs there to say that the situation is hopeful to-day. I have no further information at all to give to the House, except that ample forces have been placed at the disposal of the authorities responsible for maintaining order.
Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to go down himself?

ROYAL VISIT TO DUBLIN.
Mr. GIN NELL: I venture to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland an urgent question, of which I have given him private notice. Since I sent that notice you, Sir, have struck out a portion of the question. You have decided that the last paragraph in the question must go on the Paper. It was not before your mind, I assume, that the question relates to matters occurring next Saturday in Dublin, and there is no time to put it on the Paper and get an answer. I therefore ask you to allow me to put the last paragraph of my question?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put the first paragraph. The part which I struck out contains very offensive suggestions with regard to a gentleman in Dublin, and what I said was I should like to see it in print before I passed it. Perhaps the hon. Member will begin with the first part of his question.
Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland for what purpose and on whose authority and by whose order the Dublin Metropolitan Police yesterday assaulted Alderman Kerry, Alderman Coffey, and other members of the Dublin Corporation on their way to the City Hall, Dublin, where they had a legal right to go?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I understand that there was a disorderly attempt made by a considerable body of persons to force their way into the Council Chamber, and the police action was confined to preserving as far as they could peace and order on the occasion.
Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on whose orders the police were there in force?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have no doubt they were there on the orders of their superiors in Dublin, but the duty to be exercised was one which is the primary duty of the police.
Mr. GINNELL: The concluding paragraph of the question contains nothing whatsoever offensive. You consented to it. going on the Paper, and it is urgent.
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but it does not. concern any Minister. It concerns a personage who is not in this House and upon. whom the whole decision rests.
Mr. GINNELL: If you will allow me to-read the question, I think you will see it is. in order. In view of the popular hostility

1343
to the proposed Royal visit to Dublin—[Hoy. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—and of the bloodshed to which it may lead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—whether—
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman will judge that I was wise in suggesting it should be printed.
Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the leave of the House to move the adjournment in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the violent assaults committed yesterday in Dublin by the police upon elected representatives of the people for having refused to present an Address to the King and the connivance of the Government in the said illegal conduct of the police?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that is hardly a serious proposal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister can now give us his forecast of Parliamentary business for next week.
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we shall proceed with the Committee Stage of the National Insurance Bill. On Thursday we shall take Supply, probably the Education Vote. With regard to Friday, I will make an announcement early next week.
Mr. BALFOUR: Do we take the Financial Resolution of this Bill to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, to-day.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did notify this to the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench at the time. It is necessary. We cannot get on without it.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask whether the Eleven o'clock Rule will be suspended on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday next?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider it.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange not to take the Financial Resolution after Eleven o'clock to-night, so that we may have a proper Debate?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We cannot get on with the Bill at all unless we get our Financial Resolution, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press that.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think what we should press for at this stage is that we should not be asked to sit late again to-night. Last night the House did not rise till One o'clock. We all consented to sit without protest in order to finish Clause 1. It is a wholly unusual procedure to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule the moment a Bill enters the Committee stage, and it would be intolerable to ask the House to sit night after night.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the request of the Government is unreasonable, having regard to the progress made yesterday. The first Clause occupies a whole page, and the second is nothing like so important as the first. Yesterday we disposed of the Instructions, and there was a whole page of a most important Clause. The second Clause is very short, and I think we ought to get on with the Financial Resolution at an early stage.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at all trying to forecast the progress we should make or to set the time. All I venture to urge is that if we are to be asked to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule it shall not be for the purpose of silting late, but in order that we may not be prevented from coining to a conclusion when we are on the verge of arriving at it.
The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.
Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill and the National Insurance [Money] Committee have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill and the National Insurance [Money] Committee, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 125.

Division No. 259.]

AYES.

[4.0 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Armitage, R.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Alden, Percy

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Adamson, William

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barnes, George N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Shee, James John

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Harwood, George

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Barton, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Beale, William Phipson

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Pearson, Weetman H. M.

Bentham, George Jackson

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Black, Arthur W.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Boland, John Pius

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Higham, John Sharp

Pointer, Joseph

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hodge, John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bryce, John Annan

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pringle, William M. R.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Radford, G. H.

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

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, William

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Reddy, Michael

Chancellor, Henry George

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Joyce, Michael

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Clancy, John Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Clough, William

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Robinson, Sidney

Cowan, W. H.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Crooks, William

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Crumley, Patrick

Leach, Charles

Rowntree, Arnold

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Logan, John William

Scanlan, Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lundon, Thomas

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Dawes, J. A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Delany, William

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sheehy, David

Devlin, Joseph

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Maclean, Donald

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Doris, William

Macpherson, James Ian

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Duffy, William J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

M'Callum, John M.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Meagher, Michael

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Summers, James Woolley

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

Elverston, Sir Harold

Millar, James Duncan

Sutton, John E.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Essex, Richard Walter

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Tennant, Harold John

Esslement, George Birnie

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Falconer, James

Mooney, John J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, George Hay

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ffrench, Peter

Morrell, Philip

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Fitzgibbon, John

Munro, Robert

Wadsworth, J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Walton, Sir Joseph

George, Rt. Hon D. Lloyd

Needham, Christopher T.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Gill, A. H.

Neilson, Francis

Wardie, George J.

Glanville, H. J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Goldstone, Frank

Nolan, Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Greenwood, Cranville G. (Peterborough)

Norman, Sir Henry

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wiles, Thomas

Hackett, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Hancock, John George

O'Dowd, John

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Ogden, Fred

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Malley, William

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Baldwin, Stanley

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Astor, Waldorf

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

Bigland, Alfred

Baird, John Lawrence

Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

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

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Balcarres, Lord

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

1346

1347

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Peto, Basil Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Pryce-Jones, Col. E, (Montgom'y B'ghs)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hunt, Rowland

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clyde, James Avon

Ingleby, Holcombe

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Jowett, Frederick William

Rothschild, Lionel de

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

Craik, Sir Henry

Kerr-Smiley. Peter Kerr

Snowden, Philip

Croft, Henry Page

Kimber, Sir Henry

Spear, Sir John Ward

Dairymple, Viscount

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Starkey, John Ralph

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Stewart, Gershom

Dixon, C. H.

Lansbury, George

Talbot, Lord E.

Doughty, Sir George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootie, Lancs.)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Falle, B. G.

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Valentia, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gardner, Ernest

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Gibbs, G. A.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Gilmour, Captain John

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goldman, C. S.

Malcolm, Ian

Wolmer, Viscount

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Martin, J.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moore, William

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Gretton, John

Morrison, Captain J. A.

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

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

Yate, Col. C. E.

Hall, O. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mount, William Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Newman, John R. P.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Newton, Harry Kottingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Dr. Hillier and Mr. Wheler

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Harris, Henry Percy

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

TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION BILL.
Mr. Harmood-Banner, Sir Henry Norman, and Mr. Herbert Samuel nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Telegraph Construction Bill, with two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—[Master of Elibank.]

EAST CORK ELECTION.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Cork, East Cork Division, in the room of Captain Anthony John Charles Donelan, whose election for the said county has been declared void."—[Mr. Patrick O'Brien.]
Mr. MOORE: I think that the House before it passes this Motion for the issue of a new Writ for East Cork sub silentio, should have some idea of what happened at the election there, as a result of which the judges declared the election void. It throws a very interesting sidelight on the manner in which elections are worked in Ireland by hon. Members below the Gangway, and by societies, some of which, I believe, are to be approved societies in Ireland under the National Insurance Bill.
1348
In December last there was a contest in which Captain Donelan was returned by a majority of 1,300 odd votes. I think I may be allowed to say, on my own behalf, as well as on behalf of my Unionist colleagues, that we very much regret that this fate should have fallen upon one so uniformly courteous, honourable, and straightforward in all his dealings with our party as Captain Donelan proved himself to be. It will not be suggested, therefore, that what I am saying now is directed against him personally. I ought perhaps to apologise to the House for not having asked Mr. Speaker to have the evidence printed in this case. We had it printed in the case of the North Louth petition, and it threw a very instructive light on the methods pursued there. But the Government majority having toed the line in conformity with the Nationalist Whip and having declined to stop the issue of the Writ for North Louth, in spite of the intimidation there disclosed, and the organised and set attack on Protestant voters, it would obviously be useless to expect them to take a stronger course in the case of East Cork.
Personally, I should not be so interested in East Cork were it not for the share-played in that election by the United Irish League. I do not pretend to say that there was any attack, as in North Louth, on Protestant voters. It was a fight be-

1349
tween two phases of Nationalist opinion. It was a fight in which the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien), who sits below the Gangway, put forward a programme, one plank of which was conciliation with Protestants. That of itself was quite sufficient to draw down upon him the acute animosity of the Roman Catholic priesthood and of National League agitators. Captain Donelan allowed himself to be used as a decoy duck for Protestants in the South of Ireland. The rank and file supported him, but it was clear from the wire pullers' action that they wore against the policy of conciliation. The election showed indeed what reception conciliation will meet with from hon. Members below the Gangway, and it bodes very ill for the future if, as they hope, they get things in Ireland entirely in their own hands. But although the evidence has not been printed there are some facts which stand out beyond dispute. In the first place the United Irish League spent £1,000 by its own agents in the Constituency. It appears to have expended the money in loading up special trains to bring physical forces from the city of Cork and in the use of methods known as peaceful persuasion, although sticks and other missiles were the weapons used against the supporters of the hon. Member for Cork. When it is found that agencies of this sort are imported into a Division, that £l,000 is expended by the agent, it surely is only a right and proper thing that the matter should be investigated by election judges. Remember this was the action of an association which identified itself with the candidate and made itself his agent. That was proved beyond dispute.
When an investigation was ordered into the expenditure of the £l,000, the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) attended on subpœna and was asked for the books of the United Irish League. The answer he gave on oath, which, of course, we accept, was that those books had been burnt the day after the election. Here we have the fact of an organisation coming into the Division, acting as agent for the candidate, and immediately after the election burning its books. Yet the House is asked sub silentio, and without further inquiry, to issue a new writ as if nothing unusual had happened. It was nothing unusual, according to the evidence of the hon. Member for West Belfast, for he told the Court it was the usual custom of the United Irish League to burn their books immediately after an election.
1350
Had that been known beforehand, had the parties been aware that the books would not be produced, bank clerks and various other people might have been summoned and examined as to matters connected with the election. But it was not possible to do that under the circumstances. I say that it is the duty of the House, in view of these facts and as the guardian of purity of elections, to see that a matter like this should be more carefully considered. It would have been considered had we had a Committee of the House sitting, as in former days, and reporting more directly to the House than the election judges can do. Another matter is is that this £1,000 seems to have been spent in an extraordinary way. In addition to these excursion trains and the higher blackguardism of Cork brought in to intimidate the electors, it was spent in providing motor cars, and these motor cars presumably all ran according to law. When a motor-car was hired in Dublin it was at once registered in the name of a local solicitor. He became the owner of it in the county council register, and he remained the owner of it for a week. I think there were half-a-dozen, or perhaps a dozen, of these cars, and at the end of the week, as soon as the election was over, there was another change in the registration, and the motors were re-transferred to their proper owners, which is very slim election tactics, but does not make for the purity of elections as conducted in any part of the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland. This expenditure by the United Irish League was not disclosed in the candidate's return. The judges—and I quite concur—acquitted Captain Donelan of impropriety in not disclosing this £1,000 in his return. He was advised by counsel that it was not necessary for him to make the return, and he took the responsibility of acting on counsel's advice. It is true his own agent said he ought to disclose it, and another solicitor said the same thing, but, at any rate, he had the protection of acting under counsel's advice and he was personally acquitted of any misconduct. But who was his counsel? It was the same gentleman who gave this advice, which was one of the grounds for his being unseated—the judges said he ought to have disclosed this—and by whose action the election in North Louth was also set aside. Mr. McSweeney, in North Louth, through a libellous pamphlet which he circulated there, procured that election to be set aside. The advice in this division that the accounts should not be dis-

1351
closed—how it was arrived at I do not know—caused that election to be set aside. Mr. McSweeney is, of course, connected with the "Freeman's Journal." The Government have always delighted to honour him, and he was appointed by the Attorney-General Chief Crown Prosecutor for county Cork.
Mr. MOONEY: I wish to ask, on a point of Order, if it is not a fact that when a question was put the other day it was stated by the principal law officer of the Crown in Ireland that Mr. McSweeney was exonerated from dishonourable action. Is it in order for another member of the Irish Bar to attack him?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me to settle, it is a question for the authority who controls the Bar in Ireland.
Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to ask if in your experience it is the usual practice in this House for a representative of the legal profession to attack another Member who is not in the House, especially when the man who is attacked has a very extensive practice and the attacker has none.
Mr. SPEAKER: If there were not attacks by one hon. Member on another there would not be very much said in the House.
Mr. MOORE: I made no personal attack on Mr. McSweeney, and I stick to every word I said. I said that on the ground of Mr. McSweeney's action the judges voided the North Louth election, and the report is there. I said that his action voided the Cork election, and the report is there; and further than that I say no more. I did not say the judges exonerated or attacked Mr. McSweeney, but when that man is found by two judges to have been the principal actor in having two elections voided I think the Attorney-General for Ireland ought to consider whether he is a fit man to continue as Crown Prosecutor.
Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not seem to me to be relevant.
Mr. MOORE: I only referred to it as one of the grounds on which in East Cork, as well as in North Louth, they declared the election void. I think the House would not be fulfilling its duties as guardians of the purity of election if there was not a fuller investigation into the whole circumstances of this election. If the issue of this writ is not delayed, even until the evidence
1352
be printed, I at least feel that my hon. Friend and I will have done our duty in calling attention to this as a typical case of an Irish election carried on under the domination of the United Irish League, under which no subject of His Majesty who does not belong to it has the least chance of fair play or free rights unaffected by intimidation and other practices with which supporters of hon. Members below the Gangway are so familiar in Ireland.
Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has discharged the functions for which he rose. It is certainly an experience to a layman like myself to find Members who are supposed to be guided by a judicial spirit deliver a tirade of the character to which we have just listened. There has not been a single accurate statement from beginning to end of the hon. and learned Member's speech. It is not a judicial statement, but a statement made by an orator who is not judicial. The hon. and learned Gentleman would have treated the House fairly if he had read the judgment. I lake it that when he objects to this writ being issued on the ground of the judgment of the judges, it would have been only fair to the judges, as well as to this House, apart altogether from other considerations, that he should have read the written Judgment. As he has not' done so, I shall:—
"No corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the said respondent, Anthony Donelan. … Whereas charges were made in the said petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said election we in further pursuance of the said Act report first that no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the said respondent, Captain Donelan; second, that an illegal practice was proved to have been committed by and with the knowledge and consent of Captain Donelan, that is to say a breach of Section 28 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, … Save as aforesaid no illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of Captain Donelan."
It is therefore clearly shown that there was no corrupt practice and no intimidation and that the judges practically exonerated Captain Donelan from all the charges made against him.
"We report that corrupt or illegal practices did not prevail extensively in the constituency, and that there is no reason to believe that such corrupt or illegal practices so prevailed."
It would have been only fair for the hon. and learned Gentleman to have read that paragraph in the report. The other day a writ was moved for an election in Hull. There was no objection taken to the issue of that writ, but the decision of the judges was that—

1353
"The corrupt practice of bribery was proved to have been committed by the said Sir Henry Seymour King, who was the candidate at the said election. With the exception of the corrupt practice of bribery committed by the said Sir Henry Seymour King as aforesaid, no corrupt or illegal practice was committed."
The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman is not the purity of elections. It is not for the purpose of seeing that fair play is carried out in East Cork but rather that he may have an opportunity of attacking my colleague and myself, who, I am glad to say, are here to-day to defend ourselves. In the first place he has stated that this was a manifestation of intolerance on the part of the Catholics of East Cork in relation to a certain candidate, whereas the fact is that our candidate was a Protestant, and that he was supported by the Catholic priests of the Constituency. I may recall the words used by the hon. and learned Gentleman on one occasion when he attacked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) as being the "apostle of the rotten policy of conciliation." As a matter of fact. Captain Donelan did not receive £l,000 from the United Irish League. That was another inaccurate statement.
Mr. MOORE: I did not say he did. I said it was spent on him.
Mr. DEVLIN: There was not £l,000 spent on him and he did not receive very much more than £500 from the United Irish League, but in that constituency Captain Donelan was face to face with a propaganda which was paid for out of the inexhaustible funds of the Tariff Reform League in this country. I am told that over £5,000 was spent on that election by the Tariff Reform League.
Mr. GOULDING: That statement is absolutely false. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] As an official of the Tariff Reform League.
Mr. DEVLIN: I allow for the irritation of the hon. Gentleman.
Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG rose to a point of Order.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Belfast should be allowed to conclude his sentence.
Mr. DEVLIN: I am about to prove what I say. Is it true or is it not, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman who has replied to me so violently, that Lord Dunraven, who was the president of the Tariff Reform League of Ireland, subscribed £500 to the propaganda against the Irish party?
Mr. GOULDING: The hon. Gentleman made the statement that £5,000 was spent by the Tariff Reform League for the campaign in Ireland. I say that is absolutely false. Not a penny was granted from that League. I am the chairman of that organisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is no wonder it failed then."]
Mr. DEVLIN: I am quite certain the hon. Member is angry because he got so bad a bargain for his money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should now leave the Tariff Reform League alone. It has not anything to do with the matter before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. DEVLIN: I am not going to be intimidated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), who is a member of the Tariff Reform League, has made the statement that it is not a fact that £5,000 was subscribed by the Tariff Reform League for this particular election. The hon. Member for West Belfast, I have no doubt, will accept that statement, and that, I venture to suggest, should conclude the incident.
Mr. DEVLIN: I have made a statement that has been pretty universally accepted in Ireland.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—Is the hon. Member for Worcester president of the Secret Department that scatters these funds about at elections?
Mr. GOULDING: You said the Tariff Reform League.
Mr. DEVLIN: The Tariff Reform League through some channel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members need not go on crying "Withdraw." There is nothing to withdraw. No unparliamentary expression has been used. The hon. Member for West Belfast made a statement, and the hon. Member for Worcester, who is in a position to know the facts, got up and said that the statement was incorrect. The usual custom among hon. Members is that when a Member makes a statement of that kind it is at once accepted. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will follow the usual practice.
Mr. DEVLIN: You have asked me to leave the Tariff Reform League alone, but I must ask the Tariff Reform League not to interfere in our elections in Ireland.
Mr. MOORE Mr. MOORE made a remark which was inaudible.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Armagh is unnecessarily excited. I hope he will allow the hon. Member for West Belfast to proceed.
Mr. BONAR LAW: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for West Belfast has made a definite statement which the hon. Member for Worcester and I also know to be absolutely untrue. He refuses to withdraw his statement. Under these circumstances are we not entitled to ask that he should withdraw it?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary for him to withdraw it. The hon. Member for Worcester has made a statement and the hon. Member for West Belfast will no doubt accept that statement. He has accepted it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, Sir, I definitely accept the statement, and I change the word "league" to the word "reformers." It is not that these vast sums which are used to fight us at elections come from the coffers of the league as such, but my charge is that out of the inexhaustible resources of the Tariff Reform party tariff reformers send over there large sums of money to enable them to split up our party and to break up our movement. I have given one name—the name of Lord Dunraven, President of the Tariff Reform League, who subscribed for this propaganda which the Irish party have to fight. One of the most striking of the electoral conflicts was this election in East Cork. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore) tried to turn this election in East Cork into an election where on one side Catholics were trying to persecute Protestants. What is the fact? Our candidate was a Protestant.
Mr. MOORE: I ought not to be misrepresented.
Mr. SPEAKER: Do allow the hon. Member to proceed. The hon. Member for North Armagh was not interrupted a single time.
Mr. MOORE: I am certainly sorry that I have been guilty of any discourtesy, but I cannot sit by and have put into my mouth words which I did not use. What
1356
I said was that Protestants had very little to say in this election. I said it was a fight between two sections of Nationalists.
Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member distinctly introduced the name "priests." He said that they were active for the purpose of putting in Captain Donelan, and that the other candidate represented toleration. My answer to him is this: Our candidate represented toleration, and these priests and laymen who stood at the back of Captain Donelan and Mr. William Abraham were actuated by the desire that men who were honest Protestants should obtain positions of a representative character. The two who went down to county Cork in the interest of Tariff Reformers and so-called Conciliation were maintained there by those who charge us with bigotry in this House. I come now to one of the allegations which the hon. and learned Gentleman made against myself. He said that when I was examined on subpœna I stated that the books of the United Irish League were burned, and he further said that the reason why they were burned was because if they had been produced some sinister aspect would have been put on the whole situation there. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Member if he would be prepared after an election is over to produce all the books of the Orange Organisation? With regard to elections which are long since passed, all books are destroyed. When Mr. Healy threatened to petition in regard to the contest in North Louth the first instruction given was that all books which could give any information to the judges were to be retained and brought into court when the hearing of the petition took place. There was no word about a petition in East Cork until three weeks after the election took place, and until the books were destroyed in the ordinary way. I think that shows that there was no desire to keep any information whatever from the judges. These books were destroyed, as are the books of every political organisation when they have performed the work they had to perform. There was neither corruption nor intimidation, and practically only one case of treating in the whole election. There were 127 charges made against Captain Donelan, and only two or three of these charges were sustained. I venture to say that there is not an election in the whole of Great Britain which could have been made the subject of inquiry before any tribunal where the respondent and the petitioner could have come out with such spotless reputations,

1357
or where the constituency could have emerged with such electoral dignity as in this case of East Cork. It was also stated that the purpose for which the books were burned was to prevent the amount spent during the election being known. As a matter of fact the accounts were produced. The cheque books were produced, and there was no information as to the financial conduct of the election which the judges had not before them. There is not a charge which the hon. Gentleman made which has been sustained. It is the old policy of coming here and endeavouring to use all those things which do not count in England at all. There would not have been a petition if this had been an English constituency instead of an Irish constituency. There is more corruption in one English election than in twenty Irish elections. I think that has been proven in the various petitions which have been tried before the judges. In Nottingham and in Hull, where the candidate himself has been adjudged guilty of bribery by the judges—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Captain MORRISON: The hon. Member accused me of bribery.
Mr. DEVLIN: I meant Hull, and I repeat Hull. I say that there were charges made of a character far worse in Nottingham than in this constituency. [Interruption.] It is pretty difficult to pursue an argument of this sort when a number of Tariff Reformers are yelling and screeching on the benches around me. I repeat again that this election petition was really made for the purpose of enabling the hon. and learned Gentleman to come here and make another attack upon his own country. He himself should be the last to talk about intimidation in any election. At his own election some months ago the voice of his opponent was never heard throughout the election from its commencement until the finish. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was no opponent."] At the election in December last year he had an opponent.
Mr. MOORE Mr. MOORE made a remark which was inaudible.
Mr. DEVLIN: His conduct at that election was of such a character that no opponent would ever come into the field again against him. He threatened his opponents with a blackthorn stick, and when the blackthorn stick ceased to have any efficacy he took off his coat and faced
1358
his opponents in his shirt-sleeves. It is a good method of dealing with the arguments of your opponents. We do not conduct elections in Ireland with blackthorn sticks, and our candidates do not take off their coats and fight their battles in their shirt-sleeves.
Mr. MOORE: They have no shirts.
Mr. DEVLIN: At all events, if they have no shirts they are decent. It takes a shirt to cover the indecency of the hon. Gentleman. I leave that aspect of it to a gentleman who nearly wrecked the Tory Government because he was not made a Law Officer of the Crown. This is the Gentleman of whom I was told the other day by a Liberal, "You have only to keep quiet in the House of Commons, and the Member for North Armagh will carry Home Rule for you by his speeches in Ulster." I trust whether he makes his speeches in his shirt sleeves or with blackthorn sticks in his hands that he will long retain his seat in this House. He is the best asset that Home Rule has, and I venture to say that when every Nationalist Member in Ireland remains dumb we have only to send the hon. and learned Gentleman to make anti-Home Rule speeches and the cause will ultimately become triumphant. That is the feeling we have in regard to him. We are not afraid to hear him in this House or elsewhere. He has come here again to slander his own country and to denounce his own countrymen, but we, at all events, are willing to leave him to the judgment of this House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Following the practice in this House, I desire to call to the attention of the House the way this matter stands. The Petition which was presented, and which led to the voidance of this election has resulted in the Member for North Armagh opposing the motion for the issue of a writ by his speech, which I must say gave absolutely no ground whatever for suggesting that this writ should not issue. It is contrary to the practice of this House to discuss what has taken place on the report of a judge in any case in which there is no foundation for asking this House to disfranchise the constituency. What the hon. Member for North Armagh is asking this House to do by opposing the Writ is to disfranchise this constituency of East Cork because the judges have found that the election was to be voided on the ground of illegal practices and not on the ground of corrupt practices, and in

1359
the face of the distinct and definite report by the judges that corrupt or illegal practices did not prevail extensively in the constituencies, and that there was no reason to believe that either corrupt or illegal practices so prevailed. I am within the knowledge certainly of most of the Members of this House when I say that there is no case on record in which this House has refused the issue of a writ where there has been a report that corrupt or illegal practices have not prevailed extensively in the constituency. The reason for it is not far to seek. The attack which the hon. and learned Member is making is clearly an attack on the constituency. It is not a question of attacking the Member who then sat. in opposing the issue of the writ he is attacking the constituency, and in order to succeed it must be established that practices so corrupt and so illegal prevailed that this House ought not to allow another Member to be returned for this constituency. I look in vain for some shadow of evidence to justify such a charge as the hon. and learned Member is seeking to make. I would remind the House that when the judges do report that corrupt practices do prevail, then means are afforded to this House by a joint address of both Houses to the Sovereign to appoint a commission to inquire into the charges, so that the constituency has an opportunity of being heard in its defence. But this House never resorts to the course which is suggested by the hon. and learned Member without at least, first of all, asking that such a Commission should be appointed.
Lord HUGH CECIL: What about Worcester?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In Worcester there was such a report by a commission of three lawyers who were sent down there to prosecute inquiries. They were there for some weeks—I forget exactly for how long. They thereupon made their report to this House; but that proves the very point I am seeking to establish. In the Worcester case that commission had to be appointed, and it was only pending the appointment of that commission and their report to this House that this House did not proceed with the issue of the writ in order that they might know whether or not on the report of the commission the constituency ought to be disfranchised. I might point out further to the Noble Lord in corroboration of what I am just saying that in that case the judges did report that there were
1360
corrupt practices prevailing in the constituency, and it was in consequence of that that the commission issued. It is, therefore, the very opposite to the present case. I agree entirely with the Noble Lord that if you had facts of the kind there would be ground for the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. But the House will remember that not so very long ago we discussed here the North Louth petition where the facts certainly were very much stronger in favour of refusing the Writ than in the present case, and I then quoted to the House the views of every law officer from the present Lord Chancellor downwards, to the effect that there ought never to be a refusal of the issue of the Writ unless you have a clear report by the judges that in the constituency corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, and then there must be the commission, and the House will see to the matter. In this particular case I have been looking into the precedents very carefully to find some possible ground on which the Member for North Armagh could ask the House to refuse leave to issue the Writ. But I confess I have been unable to find even a shadow of justification for this opposition. We are not concerned in any way with disputes which may arise between the hon. and learned Member and hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. But the House is really concerned with this, that it shall never refuse to issue the Writ and thus disfranchise the constituency unless it is satisfied that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. When you have the report of the judges that no such corrupt practices prevailed, when the hon. and learned Member himself cannot suggest that they prevailed upon the evidence, I do submit that this House ought not for one moment to consider the opposition and that the Writ should be issued.
Captain CRAIG: I hope that after what has occurred my hon. and learned Friend will not trouble the House to take a Division on this matter, because I think that undoubtedly the object that he had in view has been fully attained in drawing a statement from the hon. Member for West Belfast as to the action of the United Irish League in the East Cork election, and if there is a moral which the House may draw from it, I hope they will bear it carefully in mind, that later on when they come to closer quarters with it they will understand the antipathy which we have to-Nationalist methods, and they will under-

1361
stand why we say in the north of Ireland, we are not going to have Home Rule, we are not going to sit under Members like the hon. Member for West Belfast.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Exemptions.)
(1) Where any person employed within the meaning of this part of this Act proves that he is not as a rule employed for more than thirty-nine weeks in a year and is either—

(a) in receipt of any pension or income of the annual value of twenty-six pounds or upwards not dependent upon his personal exertions; or

(b) ordinarily dependent upon some other person,

he shall be entitled to a certificate exempting him from the liability to become or to continue to be insured under this part of this Act.
(2) All claims for exemption shall be made to, and certificates of exemption granted by, the Insurance Commissioners in the prescribed manner: Provided that the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners may provide for claims under this section being made to and certificates granted by approved societies and local Health Committees hereinafter constituted.
Mr. BALFOUR: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a general question on the possibility of exemption. I am very anxious to raise the point as to whether certain persons ought not to be exempt from paying if they live alone. For instance, certain people in the category of Scotch agricultural labourers and domestic servants?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The only question is whether they should be cut out altogether. I do not think that anybody suggests that either these farm servants or domestic servants should be cut out altogether from all benefits. All that can be raised later on. That does not arise here.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "proves,"
1362
to insert the words "either that he is a member of a specially exempted society or."
To carry out that Amendment it will be necessary to move lower down the words on top of page 50 of the Paper:
"A society shall be entitled to obtain special exemption for the purposes of this Section if it satisfies the chief registrar of friendly societies that it is able to secure to its members benefits not less on the whole than those provided in this Act, and any duly authenticated certificate of membership of such a society shall be deemed to be a certificate of exemption for the purposes of this Section."
5.0 P.M.
I move this primarily on behalf of the United Friendly Societies Council of Sheffield, although, of course, it will affect many others, and many others will share their views. This is a body representing the friendly society members of Sheffield in a number of different areas. The council for which I speak has unanimously asked me to move this Amendment on behalf of 42,000 members of the different friendly societies they represent. I will take the position of one or two of them. There is the Foresters in Sheffield, having 3,600 members and thirty-three courts. They are in a strong position financially, because their last valuation showed a position of 21s. 7d. in the £, a surplus well above the solvency limit. The benefits they give to their ordinary members are these—a contribution of 4¼d. per week for entrance at sixteen produces in benefit 10s. for the first twenty-six weeks, 7s. 6d. for the next twenty-six weeks, and after that 5s. as disablement permanent benefit. Besides that there is £10 funeral benefit. A contribution rather higher, of 5½d,, produces the same benefits, and in addition an old age pension for sick or well after sixty-five. I do not want to lay special stress on the contribution for reasons I shall presently give.
It will be seen that anyone entering one of these courts of the Foresters in the Sheffield district will get a considerably greater benefit in sick pay up to the date-when the disablement benefit sets in, and from that moment disablement benefit will be the same. It works out that at the date the sick pay benefit ceases and disablement benefit begins a member will get £22 15s. against the Government's £5 10s., a difference of £16 5s. The way in which it has been put to me by a member

1363
of the society is this: that it is better to have the very likely chance of getting the £16 5s. than on the off-chance of getting consumption. Again, as to funeral benefit. They say it is better to get the certainty of £10 if you are buried, than the off-chance of having six babies and two-thirds, which is what the sum represents in maternity benefit.
Next I will take the Druids. Every 6d. a week for members entering between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four will produce for the first ten weeks 12s., for the second ten weeks 8s., and for the third ten weeks 6s. That is £13 in all, or double the sick benefit under the Government scheme. A contribution of 7½d. produces in the same circumstances £19 10s., with 7s. 6d. disablement benefit to follow. There is a reduction, of course, from these figures where payment is made under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of sickness arising from accidents. As against that for total disablement there is a grant of no less than £100. The Fitz-William Society, a small society which has accumulated large reserves worth £60 to each member, gives 6s. a week at seventy. For a contribution of 1s. 6d. a month, of course it gives larger benefits than is possible under the Government scheme. Take the Northern Clerks. They have proved from documents they have sent round that their benefits are greater than could be got under the Government scheme. The right hon. Gentleman may say: "But what about the contributions; you have only taken into account members who have entered when they are young, while our scheme gives benefit to those who enter much later." In relation to all that I would say that the actual sum of the contribution does not matter to my argument. I might, of course, say that the greater part of the employers' contributions will, in fact, be borne by the workers. That is highly probable as regards 2d. out of 3d. But I do not take that into account. I say if the benefit is as good or greater that ought to be enough. I take it that what the Government aim at is to see that everybody is properly insured against the accidents of life. If certain members, for the sake of tradition, for the sake of the club or social life of their society, choose to pay a greater sum in contributions, provided that they will get their benefit—an equal or a greater benefit—on a sound basis, the matter of their contributions is entirely one for themselves.
1364
I will take the analogy of education. When the Government stepped in in 1870 to supplement voluntary agencies Members like the right hon. Gentleman said that the voluntary agencies could not supply a good education, and attacked those who differed with them on that matter, saying that we were advocating a system of cheap and bad education. Here have been voluntary agencies supplying the benefits of the insurance, and all I say is that if the benefits they have supplied are as good as those under the Government scheme, I submit that they ought to be let alone if the societies prefer to remain outside.
The right hon. Gentleman may say, "But what about the extra benefits under the scheme? Have you taken those into account?" These extra benefits are not as large as are generally supposed. Mr. Watson's report at the Manchester Unity Conference deals with this very point. He alluded to the opinion that the employers' 3d. and the Government's 2d. represent a joint subsidy of 5d. a week to the members of friendly societies which they can take out in increased benefits or reduction of contributions.
"This," he says, ''is quite erroneous. Some of the benefits and some of the incidental charges represent liabilities for which the friendly societies have no counterpart, and in respect of which they will not be relieved."
For example, he estimates maternity benefit at id., sanatorium and incidentals at ½d., more expensive medical service at ½d., extra for management 1d., and capitalised future surplus at 1d., leaving l½d. for increase of benefits or reduction of contributions. Whatever the figure be, it depends on Clause 55. Those who have spoken to me on this matter in and about Sheffield distinctly say they would rather forego the extra benefits than submit to the terms of Clause 55. They have the greatest dread of that Clause. They have to perform under it a very difficult and complicated operation something like hara-kiri or self-vivisection. They have to cut all their assets to pieces under Clause 55. They fear it will lead to a forced realisation of much of their property, which will entail great loss, and that the short time given for the preparation of this great number of schemes will result in the scheme being badly drawn. Apparently they fear that the scheme will be irrevocable, and that once they have committed themselves to the provisions of this scheme, in which of course they are in the hands of the Insurance Commissioners, they will not be

1365
able to get out of it. Finally, they fear that the working of the Clause will prevent their accumulations in future. They fear also that under the powers given to the Commissioners in Clause V their independence will be in danger and that all their own old ways of working will be interfered with. They also say they will not get the safe handling of their money. They fear restrictions in regard to their powers of investment which they have prudently and profitably exercised. They fear that between the Commissioners on the one hand and the public health committees on the other, the vital life of the societies will be crushed out. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not let them stand out. I think he will say they represent the best lives and that if he gives them up the actuarial basis of this scheme will be disturbed. I am not quite sure whether that position can be sustained. As I understand the matter apart from the deposit contributor, the right hon. Gentleman has based all his calculations on the actual friendly society experience. I presume that these societies do not represent on the whole lives substantially better from the actuarial point of view than those of the Manchester Unity or the existing friendly societies on which the right hon. Gentleman has based his calculations.
Admittedly under the scheme at present there is a great element of speculation. There is speculation as to the number of voluntary contributors and under Part II. of the Bill there is admittedly the greatest speculation. I submit that the basis could not be seriously or radically changed if he left out these societies who wish to go. Even if the basis had to be altered I suggest that it would be better that the matter should be adjourned than that grave risk of injury to the society which wished to go out should be brought about. I ask him whether he cannot—I do not say accept the Amendment right out—but consider whether it would not be possible to give a certain breathing time in which the societies can review their position and then at a future date announce to him whether they wish to come in or not. After all the risk is on the societies, not upon the right hon. Gentleman. If he is right in saying that the working would be substantially the same as before, and that the financial position of these societies is greatly improved, then they will lose. They are aware of this and are willing to take the risk. But if, on the contrary, they are right, surely they might have the
1366
benefit of taking their chance, which in many cases they are quite prepared to do. These societies, after all, represent, I suppose, what is the finest constructive effort in our social organism. They were started without any countenance from the authorities, without any help from the State, and in many cases against the views of what was authoritative in the life of the country at that time. They have built up a magnificent edifice of thrift, and many fear that by this scheme of the right hon. Gentleman that edifice will be endangered. After all the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is a speculation—generous and sincere speculation, no doubt, but speculation none the less. The work that the societies are doing is a work of certain and proved good, and should not be injured for the sake of an off-chance of better things.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I really thought I understood this Amendment, but after the speech of the hon. Gentleman I am not very clear now what it means. As I read his proposal it is that members of friendly societies should be allowed to stand outside of the scheme altogether. If you allow individual Members to stand out what is the effect on the friendly society as a whole? I cannot imagine anything that would dislocate the machinery of a friendly society more than to allow 50 per cent. of its members to stand outside and the rest to remain inside, and one-half would get the benefit of the great balances accumulated by the society. The Oddfellows get under this Bill, it is calculated, about £3,500,000.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: It is not the action of the individual members: it depends on the society getting the special exemption from the registrar of friendly societies. It is quite true that I put my Amendment in this form merely for drafting reasons. I put it on the Paper yesterday in a different form. It had to come in here, and, therefore, I had to begin by exempting members. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Amendment he will see what the machinery of the society will be in practice.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Amendment was fairly intelligible until the hon. Member started to explain it. Now I understand that the proposal is that a friendly society should be allowed by the majority to claim exemption for their members. Let us see what that means. It means that

1367
6,000,000 of people could gain exemption to the extent of disqualifying their societies from receiving something like £10,000,000 from the State scheme. They say we do not want the 3d. from the employer, and we do not want the 2d. from the State. Let us assume for a moment that the friendly societies deliberately come to that conclusion. There is not a penny of this money that the State handles: it goes, every farthing of it, to the society itself.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Credited, not necessarily handled.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Handled, every penny of it, by the society, except with regard to investments. The money itself, the extra 5d., is entirely at the disposal of these friendly societies. The hon. Gentleman says there are societies who do not want the 5d. What does that mean? That means that the employer will see whether a man is a member of a friendly society or not. If the man is a member of a friendly society the employer does not pay his 3d., and he would give preference to one particular worker as against another. He might form a shop club, and it would be to the interest of every works to form a society and practically to bring pressure to bear upon every workman who joined it to get a resolution from those workmen that they did not want to come inside our scheme. That would save every employer 3d. in respect of every workman, who belonged to the particular club. I say it is an unfair inducement to an employer to raise a question of this kind. It is perfectly obvious that this is not in the interest of any society to reject this big boon; they would not do it unless there were pressure of that kind, and I do not think that any employer ought to have any great pecuniary inducement to exercise pressure of that kind. This is a national scheme of insurance. The hon. Gentleman said that the members of the societies to which he referred could be better provided for outside than inside. Why should they? I cannot imagine why they should be better provided for with 4d. than with 9d. If they could, I wonder why they do not do it now. The whole of the 9d. is there, and they can get their benefits out of this scheme; they can get them now. It is purely the calculation of our actuaries that this is the best that can be done and, if the societies could so arrange that they could make the 9d. go further, then they can do it.
1368
The number of members of friendly societies affected is about 250,000, and in the course of ten years the amount would run up to £2,250,000, and in twenty years to £5,000,000. Most of the people of this country belonging to the industrial classes are members of societies of this kind. The society sees that a man pays his subscription, and if he does not, they have to notify him. I wonder whether the hon. Member has considered that point. Take the Hearts of Oak; the collection of subscriptions is once in three months. Does the hon. Gentleman really imagine that if a man is in arrear a notice goes immediately from the Hearts of Oak. It is inconceivable. They allow their members a certain latitude now, and they would allow the same latitude again. A man might go for four or five months without any subscription being paid at all. He certainly might go three months without being discovered, and he might go four or five months without any notification being received. The Insurance Commissioners would have to find out the employer, and to give notice to the employer to deduct. That would take some time. Who is to make up all that deficiency in respect of 250,000 members each year. It is a thoroughly bad plan, it is an expensive plan, and it involves really keeping up an army of officials to see the thing is carried out. This is a perfectly simple plan which is proposed in the Bill, and why friendly societies should want to increase the burden of collection, when the collection is done for them, and when they themselves get the money, is a thing I am unable to understand. I do hope that the Committee will not agree to the present Amendment, because the proposal, in the first place, would be a direct pecuniary incentive to employers to form shop clubs merely in order to get rid of the extra 3d., and, in the second glace, it would inevitably break down in practice.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not quite understood the purport of this Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend, who proposed it for cases where the benefits given by the society as it exists, and in the opinion of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are greater than those that any member of that society would get under the conditions of the Bill. The answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives is that he does not think any such case exists. I want to give him an illustration of the friendly society of which I

1369
have been a manager for more than thirty years, and it is just one of the illustrations where the present Bill in its present form would, in my opinion, inflict considerable hardship. A benefit society in an agricultural district has all the management expenses defrayed from outside, and the members insured get the entire benefit of their contributions. In the agricultural districts you have a very high level of health, therefore there are obtained results which are much better than you would get under a system of flat insurance. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: Take the case of an agricultural society where, under the present conditions far higher benefits or considerably higher benefits are given than can be got under the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For 4d.?
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: For 4d. As I said, the expenses of management are paid by outside contributors, which is constantly done in the case of agricultural societies. Consequently, the level of health in agricultural districts is very high, particularly as regards some of the societies. I may mention one which is among the earliest of these societies, where there has been great care that only members should be admitted who have what I may call a high level of expectation as regards either death or sickness. That may be a right principle, or it may not, but people who at present subscribe get the benefit of it. I do not think that anywhere in the Bill the position of the agricultural labourer is properly considered. I do not want to deal with the whole question now. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to this? Take an agricultural society where, owing to the conditions of management and of health, the benefit is greater than will be conferred under the Bill. Why under those circumstances compel the members of that society, who would substantially pay the same in future as they had pai the past by way of contribution, every individual paying 4d. either in one case or another, to accept less benefit? Several of these agricultural societies have been the real pioneers of the movement as regards these friendly societies.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that these societies in future can do better for 4d. than for 9d.?
Sir A. CRIPPS: I will answer that. I do, and for this reason. We may assume
1370
that the proposal of the Bill is for flat insurance. That is to say, agricultural labourers and people who are working at unhealthy occupations in our large towns, will have to pay at the same rate for insurance. That is the principle of the Bill. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer can appreciate this, that if you bring the healthy agricultural district societies under the flat insurance principle it makes them pay, as it were, for the societies in the town districts, and it may well be that the ultimate results will not really favour what I call the agricultural society, as an actuarial matter.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is quite contrary to the usual practice. The hon. Gentleman is under the impression that we are going to pool the whole of these contributions and that the agricultural labourer will have to take his luck and his lot with the towns. On the contrary, in the case of those agricultural societies they will get the benefit of the extra 5d., and if they can produce the benefits mentioned by the Bill for 4d. then the whole of the 5d. will be available for additional benefits.
Sir A. CRIPPS: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right. I have not gone through the Bill in that sense, and it is rather a complicated Bill. If I may put my case, I am interested particularly in an agricultural society of which I have been manager for at any rate thirty years. At the present time that society has got a surplus of something like £20,000, and is in an extremely sound position. And as far as I can trace under the Bill it is only in this case that the Amendment would apply at all, and the conditions will be less favourable than they are now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer is that that is impossible. If it is impossible I agree that the Amendment would not apply because it is only to apply when the conditions are more favourable. I accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, but as I had construed the Bill the conditions in the case I have given him might be less favourable than we would get out of the terms of the Bill. If the Chancellor says that whatever the nature of the society, whatever its prosperity, I mean the particular society under the Bill, it must ex necessitate be better off than now, of course that would be an answer in substance to the Amendment. If it is true universally I agree at once it makes the difficulty which I have suggested.
Mr. JAMES THOMAS: The mover of the Amendment has, I am sure, with all other Members received a request to move in this particular direction. Although I am a member of some of the orders petitioning in favour of this Amendment, I feel I could render no worse service to them than to support this particular Amendment. The illustration given by the mover of the Amendment was this. Here is a presumably rich society, and I am assuming now it meets all the other requirements, which can pay and is paying better benefits than it could get under the provisions of this Bill. That is not true for two reasons. Assume for a moment that this Amendment was carried, that would mean that the voluntary organisations which for years have made sacrifices and built up funds and made provisions for their members would not be able in the future to compete on equal terms for the reason that they would be dependent wholly on the contributions of their members, and they would have to compete against another class of society that was being subsidised by the employer and the State. I submit that that would be an injustice to the friendly societies. Take the very case raised as to the agricultural labourer. Let us assume that the contribution in that case is 4d. per week, or to put it in another way. I pay at present 7d. per week to a friendly society and for that 7d. per week I get 15s. per week sick pay, death benefit, and certain other benefits. On the face of it that is a higher benefit than I would get under this State scheme. If I vote for the Amendment I am voting to say that because I get higher benefits now I want to be exempted because of the provision that I have already made.
The particular object of the Amendment is to exempt those who have already made provision. But instead of doing that what happens? Because at the present moment I get 15s. per week sick pay on a contribution of 7d. per week there will be nothing to prevent my society meeting all the requirements of the State scheme, and by the additional 5d. which they will get from the State and the employer to give me even larger benefits than I get to-day. That is exactly the position that happens under the Bill. Let us assume on the other hand that this society and all other societies are to be exempted what would that mean? Although we have an open field now and can go to any man outside the friendly society and say, "here are certain benefits we are prepared to give
1372
you and we want you to join"—if this Amendment was carried we would not be able to go because those societies that were approved societies would be able to come along and say, "in addition to your contribution we get 5d. more for you." Therefore I do submit that it is not fair to raise by this particular Amendment the side issues that are raised by Clause 55. Let us remember also that under the present Clause as it stands friendly societies will compete on equal footing, while if this Amendment was carried I do submit that they will be in an unfair position.
Viscount WOLMER: I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is it not a fact that under this Bill an approved society would not be able to reject members merely for their age. Therefore, take the case of a small agricultural society where there is a high standard of health, and we can well conceive the case where the reserve of such a society is materially lowered by the society being forced to take into its midst comparatively elderly members whose life is not so good, and who thereby reduce the general amount of benefits that are at the disposal of the society. The second point is with regard to the half-surplus which is to be divided when the small friendly societies are affiliated. I cannot find in the Bill any provision as to the exact manner in which that affiliation is to be carried out. I should like to ask the Chancellor what security have we that agricultural societies will not be obliged to affiliate with urban societies. It seems to me that it will be very unfair to agricultural societies whose members earn a very low wage and can therefore ill afford the premiums that are demanded of them, and whose health is superior to the health of those who live in the towns, and who, therefore, can expect greater benefits. I think it would be very unfair for such a small agricultural society to be forced to affiliate with an urban society. We should be grateful if we could have some assurance on this point. I am sure many hon. Members feel that the agricultural part of the community is not being dealt with as fairly as perhaps it might be. We are, therefore, very jealous to see that their health is not sponged upon by their richer and less healthy brethren in the towns.
Mr. J. W. HILLS: I rise to ask a question as to procedure. Assume this Amendment is voted upon, and assume it is nega-

1373
tived, I take it that it is still open to us to raise the whole question of exemption of certain classes of friendly societies on the second part of the first Schedule. I may have to ask for the exemption of a large friendly society which is limited to certain classes of employés. I do not want to discuss the matter now, but I take it in the case of the special society I have in mind, the Midland Railway Friendly Society, that if I want to raise the question of exemption that it would come in under the Second part of the First Schedule, and that I shall not be precluded by the vote on this Amendment. I raise the point as a matter of precaution, as I want to keep the door open.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I suggest that if the Amendment is negatived it will not be possible to go for Amendments under the Schedule for exemption of particular societies as otherwise Amendments might be moved for the thousands of societies in the country, and there would be no end to it. I submit that the whole question of the exemption of friendly societies is raised now and will have to be disposed of.
Mr. HILLS: May I say that this is an exceptional case. We do not ask for exemption of a certain society qua society, but only ask that that society should be exempted on the ground that it includes a certain class of employés. I do suggest for your consideration that the case I am on now is very similar to the case of municipal employés under paragraph (b) of Part II. of the Schedule, and it might be that a very few words of Amendment to that paragraph would bring in the employés of statutory companies. But I merely want to keep the door open to discuss this very important question. I am not prepared or authorised to decide the question now, but it certainly ought to be discussed at some time, and I hope a convenient time will be found to do so.
Mr. FALCONER: There is a large class of farm labourers who at the present moment as part of their wages are in the enjoyment of very large benefits, sickness benefit, and medical benefit. I feel that they will have an unanswerable case to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. I have been assuming that when we come to the Schedule, unless special provision is made, it will be open to me to exempt them from the provisions of the Bill. I raise the point now in order that I shall
1374
not be precluded subsequently for not having raised it at the present time.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That I understand is not the case of a society at all, but a question as to individuals and the terms of their employment. That does not arise on the Amendment we are now considering, which deals with specially exempted societies. But an Amendment has been handed in on that particular subject which I will deal with when this is disposed of.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On the original point of Order, I think the most important case of all is the form of exemption of a person who may be a member of a society or insured in a fund. Is it your ruling that such a person could not be exempted on the Schedule?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is dealing with the second question that was raised. I was dealing with the Amendment on the Paper. The point at issue is whether societies, such as railway benefit societies, are to be dealt with in the Schedule, or whether that point is raised by this Amendment? In my judgment, it is raised by this Amendment, and if this Amendment is negatived it could not be subsequently raised upon the Schedule. This Amendment, with the consequential one on the next page, provides that any special society giving benefits on the whole of not less than those provided by the Act shall be exempted from the section. That is the Amendment now before the Committee.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Also on the point of Order, I want to make it quite clear in regard not to a small society, but to cases which may be dealt with in Part II. of the First Schedule, which refers to a public authority or company where the terms of employment provide as good terms as those of this scheme, such, for instance, as in the case of the clerks, or where the terms of employment provide sufficient benefits. It is perfectly clear that that will not be covered by this Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is the same point which has just been raised and decided. I said an Amendment that had been handed in would raise this point, and when that comes on it can be disposed of. When these various points come on they can be disposed of. I prefer not to deal with these questions until they are actually raised.
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to have your ruling on this point, as to whether the discussion of this Amendment will prevent the further discussion of an Amendment later on, dealing with the case of a society which does not become an approved society under the Act. There would be specified terms, and it may be that these terms will not allow it to become an approved society. Can an Amendment be moved afterwards exempting the members of societies which do not secure approval under this Bill?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that point arises now. The present point is whether a society which presumably gives greater benefits than the Act provides should be entitled to exemption.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Member opposite has rather misunderstood the Amendment of my hon. Friend. He has argued as if these provisions' related to societies, which were different from those to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of argument, and we are still on a point of Order. I thought you were upon the point of Order.
Mr. PETO: On the point of Order. As I understand the case is not the case of a society in the ordinary sense, but it is one of employer's funds, and that is dealt with by a special Clause in this Bill. May I ask whether the ruling you have already given with regard to the Amendment applies to Clause 19, dealing with employer's fund, and the exemption of employers' funds?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the question of exemption is raised in the form of individuals receiving certain benefits, they will not be dealt with at this moment. They will come on later.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask you, Sir, to look at Clause 19, which deals with special provisions for members of certain societies. I presume that no Amendment which is germane to that Clause would be excluded as the effect of the decision of the House upon the present Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think that is so.
Mr. NEILSON: As that Clause has reference to individuals and the Amendment refers to individuals, would it be possible to allow other individuals, who now have
1376
to conform to the provisions of the Act to be exempted, or would they have compulsorily to insure?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point also may arise later. We are now solely dealing with the question of societies which have greater benefits than are given under the Act, and whether they should be entitled to exemption as societies. The Member for Durham asked whether he could raise the case of a railway society. My answer was "Yes, you can go on."
Mr. HILLS: Your decision, Sir, places me in a rather difficult position. I do not know yet the wishes in a complete form of the Midland Railway Friendly Society, but I should like to tell the Committee certain facts which show the size of the question involved, and I wish also to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep the door open for such a discussion. I quite agree we cannot discuss fully now the question of these societies. This particular society has a life of twenty years behind it. It has 34,000 members, and it has funds invested amounting to nearly £1,000,000. It rests very largely on the principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill. The railway company contribute a sum of 12s. 6d. per year for each man, and each member pays on a varying rate, according to age of entry, and it averages about 7¾d. per week. Supposing the society comes in under Clause 19 as an approved society, all it will get will be the extra 2d. per week. We do not get the whole of the 3d. per week which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made so much play with. In the case of other societies, supposing they come in as approved societies, the full 5d. per week will be paid to them, but in the case of the Midland Railway Friendly Society the employer's 3d. is already paid within a few shillings. It is a difference between 12s. 6d. and 13s.; so that it is practically the same, and therefore all the gain to the society would be the 2d. per week. I do not want to argue the question now, but it is quite arguable, if they only receive that 2d. a week, and they have to invest their funds at a lower rate of interest and submit to more expensive management, whether they could afford to give on the 2d. per week the extra benefits which the scheme would impose upon them. The present benefits are extremely generous. In all cases they are more than those of the Government scheme, and they include a death benefit of £12 on the death of a member and £5 on the death of his wife.

1377
They also include a pension of 8s. per week, beginning at the age of sixty-five. Now the men have a scheme of this size which gives them very substantial benefits, as well as a larger sick pay than the Government scheme does, and for a longer period than the Government scheme does. The sick pay is 12s. a week, against 10s. per week on the Government scheme, and it is for twenty-six weeks against thirteen weeks. Therefore, in all these respects, the benefits are more generous than those of the Government, and if we assume that we have to invest our money at 3 per cent. instead of 4 per cent., and that the management is more expensive, it would be easy to argue that it would be wise not to attempt this on the extra 2d. per week. I do not want to argue the question now, but I do not want it shut down altogether. I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the way in which it has been sprung upon us and also in view of the very great importance of the question, whether he should not give us a chance of fully discussing it. I have no doubt the Midland Railway Friendly Society does not stand alone, and that there are other societies in the same position; and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not want to preclude discussion of so important a question.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is no fault of mine that the question has been raised at this stage. I think it is a great mistake to raise it on this point. It can be raised at a later stage. I certainly do not want to keep the matter in the background at all.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the House to be precluded from discussing this question at a later stage of the Bill.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I say it is not my fault if it has to be discussed now.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Like any Minister who has charge of a Bill, the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have an exhaustive discussion now and to repeat the same discussion at a later stage, but I gather that he is of the same opinion as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) that it would be unfortunate in the interests of the Bill if at this stage a final and definite decision was taken upon this important subject, which would preclude discussion later on. I understand that a later opportunity may come on the Schedule.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a rather difficult thing to decide owing to the draughtsmanship of the Bill. There are partly exemptions here and partly in the Schedule, and when one wishes to raise a further exemption it is difficult to know where to put it down, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be unfortunate to come to a decision now and preclude the raising of this question at a later stage. I was going to suggest now some understanding on which we might have a discussion at a later stage, and my hon. Friend should not press his Amendment now.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be far better we should discuss this question after we know what shape the benefits will take in this scheme. I assume the Bill as it stands is not in the final shape in which it will emerge. It is quite possible that some societies which are now accepted may be rejected and some the other way. I think the same observation applies to a similar question which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If it is raised now and disposed of we will then be done with it. But I think it would be far better when the scheme is settled that he should move the exemption of that class altogether, if he then thinks that the benefits which are suggested will not quite suit the conditions which he has in his mind. It would be much better to move the exemption of the class when we come to the Schedule. If he raises it now I think I am entitled to submit to the Chair that he cannot have the same question debated twice over.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not want to suggest that we should do anything inconvenient to the general course of the discussion. On that possibly the best judge is the Minister in charge of the Bill. I do not propose to go into the merits of the Amendment to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred. It would be most improper to do so. But I propose, as an Amendment, to insert after the word "proves" these words, "either that he obtains in terms of his employment advantages which in the opinion of the Registrar of Friendly Societies are, on the whole, equal to, or greater than, those secured under this Act." The Committee will see that there is a different point here—closely analogous to, but quite different

1379
from, that raised by the friendly societies. The leading case, no doubt, is that of the agricultural labourers in Scotland. I am not at all sure that that is the only case. I do not think, therefore, that the object which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer has would necessarily be fully accomplished by the exclusion legislatively of any particular class by name.
A more general description seems more logical, and it carries the reason with it. I think it is quite possible that my words may not be very well suited for their object. The hon. Member, who privately I have had a little conversation with on the other side of the House, is not quite satisfied that my words meet the case. It will be a pity if we had a premature discussion, and the Committee came to a premature decision, and that we should find after that we were precluded from reopening the matter. All I desire is to know exactly what the Chancellor means by the phrase he used just now: "Try to weave into the fabric of the Bill"? Is it to be something which meets this case, and then, if we fail, is there to be moved specific exceptions in the Schedule? If the right hon. Gentleman sees his way—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. BALFOUR: Then perhaps I may put myself and my case in charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he will make himself responsible that we should have either our general view satisfied, or if he cannot satisfy it at all events give us a fair opportunity of adequately arguing and discussing it, then I should not be disposed to find fault.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Again by leave of the House, and subject to the ruling of the Chair, I should like to say a word or two, not in order to lead Debate, but rather by way of answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is a case to be met, as suggested by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not merely the agricultural labourer, but in regard to the domestic servants, and the nurses in the hospitals, that there is a case to be met. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the seaman."] That is another case. The difficulty is this—and that is why I oppose discussing these exemptions at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that in none of these cases is there provision for permanent disability. That is the difficulty. It is true that the domestic servant gets not merely her board and lodging,
1380
but a doctor as long as she serves the particular employer with whom she is, but that particular employer does not enter into a contract to provide against the time when she is broken down and aged, or, at all events, middle-aged.
Therefore if you cut them out altogether you cut them out of provision for permanent disability. That would be a great misfortune. Therefore I think it is possible to weave into the Bill—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it that I am suggesting anything final—I am merely considering the best way of doing the thing—I am considering the question as to whether it is possible to deduct out of the charge an actuarial equivalent—which means present sickness—and simply charge what is enough to provide for permanent disability. That, of course, will reduce the charge in these cases, but that is not an exemption. I think that can be woven into the permanent fabric of the Bill later. That is why I seriously deprecate raising these questions of exemptions at the present stage, because it does preclude the Government from meeting a real grievance in these cases. I am in process of consulting the actuaries with a view of meeting the case raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the point of which I frankly admit, and which is not met in the Bill at present.
Mr. BALFOUR: I am entirely convinced by what my right hon. Friend says.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I gather from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will have no objection to having my Amendment withdrawn without any further discussion. If that be so, I shall be extremely glad to meet my right hon. Friend, and I ask leave to withdraw. But I would just say that I put down this Amendment for the exemption of certain societies on the very day of the Second Reading. No representation was made to me by anybody that discussion would be inconvenient now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: Of course that also applies to the suggested Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "he is not, as a rule, employed for more than thirty-nine weeks in a year, and."
It is true that when I put down this particular Amendment I had in mind certain

1381
exemptions which, if these words were in the Bill, it would be quite impossible to move at this time. I think the words that I propose to omit in Clause 2 are really, if I may venture to say so, so far as I can understand them, wholly unnecessary and rather confusing. Presently I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain why they are necessary to the Bill. The, first exemption in the Clause is the case of a person who has an income or pension of the annual value of £26 a year. I take it that that is in the opinion of those responsible for the Bill sufficient to prove that that person does not need to come in under this Bill. He has outside sources and provision that makes him independent. Then we have got a proviso in the words I propose to omit. Even if the person has £26 a year, or an annuity, quite independent, or he is, as in the case of (b), "ordinarily dependent upon some other person," and therefore need not come under this scheme at all, he must be able to show that he is not as a rule employed for more than thirty-nine weeks a year. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be a very difficult thing to show whether persons are as a rule employed thirty-nine weeks in the year or not. It is quite possible that a person in possession of an annuity of 10s. a week or £26 a year may have been in the habit for some years of not working for more than thirty-nine weeks in the year. He might when the Bill comes into force be a person who, as a rule, has not worked for more than thirty-nine weeks, and he may wish to do so, and therefore he does not want to come in under the Bill. Something might happen in his life. Apart from the annuity he might be exceedingly unwilling to continue to work for only thirty-nine weeks in the year. He might have the grave misfortune of sickness in his family. He might even become the father of several more children. Things of this sort might happen and he might desire to work as hard as he could for fifty-two weeks in the year; he might say that he wants to come in under the scheme.
In that case how are you going to recover all those back years' contribution, and to place him in the position he would have been in if he had been in not so favourable a position financially? It seems to me that it is very difficult. Also you will have to see that the average of thirty-nine weeks continues in the future. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer another reason why these words should be omitted. There
1382
is no question that under a great deal of recent legislation—I do not want to say anything hard—it has become necessary to make inquisition into the private affairs of all sorts of people—of people of very little means and of people of very great means. No one is exempt from this sort of policy of prying into his own individual affairs. I do think that you have got two definite cases here. Either a person must show that he has got £26 a year, an annuity, or a pension, or something from independent sources, or that he is dependent upon somebody else, and therefore need not be dependent upon the National Insurance scheme. It is quite sufficient that he shall be able to prove one of these cases. It is hardly necessary. It is going out of your way—and encouraging inquisition—there is no object served by asking a man to prove that he has not as a rule worked more than thirty-nine weeks a year. I shall listen with great interest to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I hope, tell us, as to why it is absolutely necessary that a person who has worked forty-eight weeks in the year should be a contributor, and that a person who has only worked thirty-eight on an average should not contribute to it? Until I get that explanation I shall consider that the Bill will be a better Bill, and the operation of it better, if these words are withdrawn.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Frankly I have no special objection to this Amendment, but I should like to hear the view of the House upon it. I will just, however, put to the Committee the difficulty in my mind in accepting it. I agree there is not a case for making provision at the expense of the State for a man who has private means which come to £26 a year. For this, after all, is a very considerable income in the class for which we are providing. I do not think we should miss that point, and that the Committee should fully realise it before they come to a decision. But there are quite an appreciable number of people, old pensioners and others, who are receiving over 10s. a week—persons in the Navy, perhaps in the Army. In this case there would be no compulsory contribution either from the employer or the people employed, and to that extent it would be undoubtedly an inducement for the employer to give preference to pensioners rather than to persons who had not got an income of that amount. I think it is a serious thing to exempt pensioners

1383
because of that inducement to give preference to them.
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I think if the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Sub-section 5, Clause 4, he will see he is wrong. It is not giving any preference to the employer, because whether the man is insured or not the employer has to make the contribution. The point the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes the Committee not to make a difference in favour of this class of people, and giving them a better chance of getting employment than others. That argument seems to me to go by the board, because, as the employer is bound to pay, whether the employed persons get the insurance or not, if he is one of those "exempts." That is provided under Clause 4, and a little later on it is provided that the money which the employer contributes is to be carried to such account and dealt with in such a way as the Chancellor may hereinafterwards determine, or as may be prescribed. There is another point. If men come out of friendly societies it affects the remaining members, and it is a matter for consideration as to which advantage is the greater, keeping men in the friendly societies or allowing them to come out.
Mr. PETO: My Amendment is not to leave out "these exempts" at all. It is merely to leave it perfectly open.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not understand the hon. Member's Amendment was in that form, and, if so, I have personally no objection.
Mr. CASSEL: I hope these words will not be omitted, but that instead the word "and" will be converted into "or."
The CHAIRMAN: That is a separate Amendment and I have saved it.
Mr. CASSEL: If I understand that Amendment is saved and these words are not at once to go out—
The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order now.
Mr. CASSEL: Then my observations will come in later.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask a question arising out of Sub-section (1) and (a). Is it optional on the part of the insured person himself to prove whether he claims exemption or not, or would it be possible for the employer to prove that the
1384
man is in receipt of an income of £26 a year. We have a very large number of thrifty workmen who are owners of one, two or three cottages and who are employed—
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that arises. This Amendment is to leave out from "he" to "is."
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I thought it came in in connection with this Clause. What I want to know is this: Whether it is optional on the part of the insured person or whether the employer himself is to prove that the man is in receipt of £26?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that arises now.
Mr. PEEL: I call the attention of the Committee to the form of the words as. they stand now and I submit that they are rather vague. The Clause says, "who is. not, as a rule, employed more than thirty-nine weeks in the year." As a definition that is exceedingly vague.
Mr. HOHLER: I appreciate the very great importance of the reference the Chancellor made with regard to soldiers and sailors and I ask him to consider how exactly it would operate. I do not quite follow why the thirty-nine weeks was put in at all. Under Clause 36 of the Bill, if I rightly understand, men in receipt of pensions are exempt from contribution at all. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer give me some information how this will operate in regard to soldiers and sailors who have been discharged on pensions. Such a man may have been in the position of one who is not a member of an approved society and if he was compelled to contribute he might be merely a Post Office contributor. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether in the interests of men of this class who are-employed in His Majesty's dockyards and who are employed as commissionaires and in other capacities it would be not better to exempt them entirely from the thirty-nine weeks. I suggest that it would be better to accept the Amendment wholly omitting the thirty-nine weeks, having regard to the position in which soldiers and sailors who have pensions are pledged.
Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment. If a man is otherwise well-to-do, what does it matter if he is employed thirty-nine weeks or a whole year. The whole point is whether it is necessary

1385
to compel such a man to come into the scheme. If a man enjoys £26 a year there is no necessity to bring him in, and it is quite unnecessary to make an exemption if he is only employed for a certain number of weeks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out if exemption is given under these terms employers will engage pensioners so as to escape payment. But my hon. Friend showed that is not so, and it is perfectly clear from Sub-section (5) of Clause 4 that the employer would gain nothing by doing that. Under these circumstances I hope that the Chancellor will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it is perfectly and clearly understood that the contribution will be paid by the employer, I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment.
Mr. O'SHEE: I know the case of Ireland comes up under Clause 29, but how will this affect the migratory labourer. He comes to England and Scotland to work for a considerable portion of the year.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Amendment does not raise that case at all.
Mr. O'SHEE: Of course, I know that upon Clause 29 the special circumstances with regard to Irish labourers and employment can be dealt with. But if this Clause is not amended as well as Clause 29 it will affect the position of the Irish migratory labourer, and he would have to pay the contribution both as employer and employed for the months of the year that he resides in Ireland in order that he might get any benefit from the payment he has made when employed in England.
Mr. PEEL: If these words are left out, will not out workers who only work seven or eight months of the year be forced to come in under the scheme? I am not now thinking so much of the employer, but I want to know what will be the position of those people and how are they to pay during the whole year. They will be in a perpetual position of arrears.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All these things will have to be considered very carefully, but they cannot properly be raised here. They will arise later on when we come to deal with the casual labourer. I agree we should accept the Amendment and consider these questions later on.
Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman promised to accept the Amendment
1386
upon conditions. I do not want to have any misunderstanding. He says he can only accept it on the understanding that we do not attempt to interfere with Subsection 5 of Clause 4. Of course, I do not suppose that we are not to preserve our freedom of discussion. What that Clause lays down is that the employer's contribution should be carried to the general fund even though the particular workman does not get any benefit That is a question that will have to be discussed fully.
Mr. CASSEL: If these words are left out, how will it be possible to raise a discussion on the next Amendment on the Paper, which proposes to substitute "or" for "and"?
The CHAIRMAN: If the words are left out they are left out, and the point cannot be raised.
Mr. CASSEL: That is the point to which I wish to call attention, and I ask the Chancellor not to accept the Amendment simply for this reason, that it cuts out a later Amendment which proposes to substitute "or" for "and." If the Chancellor would be good enough to consider the effect of that Amendment it would be this, that instead of these requests for exemption having to be put in there would be an alternative. You leave out and exempt two or three classes—first persons whose trade is seasonal, that is to say those who upon the average are only employed for thirty-nine weeks in the year. Several cases of seasonal trades have been mentioned where people are employed for less than thirty-nine weeks. The result of that is that they will be always in arrear to such an extent that their benefits will always be suspended whilst they will be forced compulsorily to pay though they never got any benefit. Assuming I can prove to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a class of persons who habitually are only employed thirty-nine weeks in the year, in that case they will always be thirteen weeks in arrear, and that is the class who ought to be exempted on that ground alone. If you leave out the word "and" in order to insert the word "or" you come to another class which ought also to be exempted. As both are exempted, I submit that the proper way of dealing with them would be by such an Amendment as I have suggested.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I see the difficulty of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I think it is fair that that point should

1387
be considered. Let me point out, however, that it would mean cutting out casual labour. I think this is the class of all others we ought to make some provision for. It is not correct to say that he would get no benefit because he had always been in arrear. There are two alternative benefits. For instance, if he finds work for thirty-five weeks in the year, so long as he can save up just enough to make up the difference between thirty-five and thirty-nine weeks he can come into benefit in his own society. He will get the employer's contribution for the thirty-five weeks he is working, and the State contribution for the whole time. All he need do in order to get benefits from his own society would be to pay enough to come within the thirty-nine weeks.
There is a second thing he could do. Supposing he were not able to pay the contributions of his own society, he would at the very worst derive the advantage of the 4d. for the thirty-five weeks, 3d. contributed by the employer, 2d. contributed by the State, and the tontine arrangement of deposit. He derives the whole benefit of that arrangement, and he practically insures himself for medical benefits, sanatorium benefits, and a balance to provide for sick pay. The vast majority of these cases are not bad lives, but labourers who cannot find work all the year round, and this provision provides sick pay for twelve or thirteen weeks in a given year. It would be a great hardship to deprive them of such benefits as the Bill confers, and I trust that whatever else the Committee may do we shall not introduce the word "or" because that would have the effect of cutting out the casual labourer. If there is any desire to do something more for him it cannot be done if this word is taken out.
Mr. BOOTH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to the various sections of the Committee on this point. Speaking for myself and those for whom I am authorised to speak, I wish to say that we prefer the Amendment. Where a man who is in receipt of a private income wishes to go out of the scope of the Bill, if you make him stop in he will probably only become a malingerer.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite correct in saying that the effect of this Amendment would be to exempt casual labourers altogether.
Mr. LANSBURY: If the words are passed as printed at the bottom of page 2, shall we be able to alter the constitution, of health committees?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take it we are not now deciding upon the composition of the local health committees or their relations with county councils.
The CHAIRMAN: This Clause does not affect the constitution of health committees in any shape or form.
Mr. LANSBURY: It is the title I am anxious about, and I want to make sure that it can be altered.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Has. the Chancellor of the Exchequer any information to give to the Committee as to what he intends to include under Sub-section, (b). This applies to people who are "ordinarily dependent upon some other person." It seems to me that these words are very wide, and I am not quite certain what the right hon. Gentleman intends to cover by them. The previous Sub-section is intended to exclude from the Bill, or give to them the option of being excluded, people who have a secure provision made for them. I suppose that Sub-section also means that the persons referred to have a secured maintenance guaranteed by the persons on whom they are dependent. I only wish to call attention to the fact that these words are very wide, and that you might have a person compulsorily insured under them because he is entirely dependent upon his daily earnings while another person who is employed might be exempted from insurance on the ground that his maintenance is guaranteed by the insured person. I think it is a little complicated. There is no real guarantee in Sub-section (b) that a person ordinarily dependent upon another shall if need arise have any provision on which he can call because the person on whom he is dependent may be a person whose only means are derived from his daily occupation and ho himself might be on sick pay or disabled at the time. I should like to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to say upon this point.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that the words are wide, and I think they require a little more definition. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. The last

1389
class he mentioned is not to be excluded. I think it would be better for us to reconsider these words, and I promise to bring up words on the Report stage to make it clearer.
Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I desire to be quite clear as to the meaning of this Clause. It is intended purely in the interest of the insured persons, but if you take the proviso at the bottom of the page it says "provided that the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners may provide for claims under this Section being made." My only desire is to make sure that this provision is in the interest of the insured person.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I wish to draw attention to the point which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire with reference to Sub-section (b). I raise the point now because I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the same point in reference to other Clauses. Subsection (b) provides that if anyone asks to be exempt, he or she shall be exempt, if "ordinarily dependent upon some other person." The case I have in mind is the young woman working for what is known as pin-money. She may claim exemption and get it. Under Sub-section (5) of Clause 4 an employer will have to pay for her. We all know that one of the saddest experiences in life is the case of a family that has been broken up and the young persons of which are supposed to be independent. They have not been working for wages; they have only been working for part wages. Then a certain catastrophe takes place, and the economic position of the family is shattered. I am quite agreeable to this Clause, but I think we ought to keep in mind the fact that some provision ought to be made for those who are exempt from Sub-section (b), so that there may be something for them to fall back upon in the shape of insurance should it be necessary in consequence of certain economic accidents. The matter will be raised later on, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep this case in mind, because it is a very important case and one which is all too common.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the employer under this Clause could not insist upon exemption?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the two points raised by my hon. Friend
1390
the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. George Thorne) and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel), my interpretation of the Clause is that the application for exemption must come from the insured person himself. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) is a very important one, but it will come on later, I think under Clause 5, and it cannot be discussed here. I think the hon. Member was wise, however, in uttering a word of caution.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am afraid a very large number of employers will insist upon these exemptions if they find men are in receipt of an income of £26 a year, apart from their earnings. I want to protect these men so that they will not be called upon to be exempt. Personally, I cannot understand why a workman with £26 a year should ask for exemption under this Clause, but I am quite certain a very large number of employers will insist upon these exemptions, and I want to protect the workman against such exemptions.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE (FINANCIAL RESOLUTION).
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for Insurance against loss of Health, and for the prevention and cure of Sickness, and for Insurance against Unemployment, and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient:—
(1) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) Sums not exceeding two-ninths (or in the case of women one-quarter) of the cost of providing the benefits specified in Part I. of such Act and of the administration of those benefits, together with—

(i.) as respects medical benefit, one-half of any excess expenditure on medical treatment and attendance (including the provision of medicines) for insured persons which may be sanctioned by the Treasury;

1391

(ii.) as respects sanatorium benefit, including research work in connection therewith, a sum not exceeding one penny a year for every insured person;

(iii.) as respects benefits for persons who have been in the naval or military service of the Crown such additional sums as may be provided by the said Act;

(b) A contribution not exceeding one-third of the total contributions received from employers and workmen in any year towards the cost of unemployment benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund established under Part II. of the said Act, and of a contribution by way of repayment to associations of persons of a part (in no case exceeding one-sixth) of the aggregate amount expended by such associations in payments to persons while unemployed; and

(c) The salaries and remuneration of any commissioners, umpires, referees, and other officers and servants appointed in pursuance of such Act and other expenses incurred in the execution thereof;

(2) To authorise the Treasury to make for the purposes of Part II. of the said Act advances out of the Consolidated Fund, and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of Treasury Bills or Exchequer Bonds, the principle of and interest on such Exchequer Bonds to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund."
Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand this is the only occasion on which those of us who would like to propose Amendments to increase the contribution of the State, can raise that question. I suppose we shall follow the usual practice, that you will allow a certain amount of latitude in the discussion, and that it will take the form of a Second Reading debate. I and some of my hon. Friends have Amendments on the Paper proposing to leave out certain words which will have the effect of placing the whole of the cost of the scheme upon the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I understand the Amendments that are on the Paper are out of order, because they propose to increase the amount of money which is proposed in the Government Resolution, and I think those who are in the position I occupy have some reason to complain of the way in which the
1392
Government have drafted this Resolution. It will not only be impossible to move the class of Amendments which stand in my name, but also any moderate Amendment which will have the effect of increasing the proportion of contribution borne by the State. I may perhaps at the outset be permitted to make a few remarks to justify in general terms the position I take up. This Bill, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in placing his scheme before the House, is one to deal with a certain aspect of working-class poverty. That being so, I think it is necessary we should have a clear understanding as to the principles on which it is attempted to deal with the poorer part of our population. We must understand something of the cause of their poverty. We cannot improve the condition of the workers except by giving them in one form or another the enjoyment and use of a larger share of the national wealth. Therefore, the test I apply to this Bill is: will the proposals in their present form have the result of bringing to the working people of this country the enjoyment and use of a larger share than they have at the present time in the total national wealth? I frankly speak from the point of view of a Socialist. I said it is necessary we should understand some of the causes of poverty, and I do not think I can do better than quote the definition of the cause of working-class poverty given by the greatest economist of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, who said:—
"The deep root of the evils and inequalities which fill the industrial world is the subjection of labour to monopoly and the enormous share which the owners of instruments of production are able to take from labour."
7.0 P.M.
There you have the cause of working-class poverty. Certain people have a monopoly, and by the exercise of that monopoly they are able to keep the masses of the people poor, and to secure to themselves the greater part of the wealth which is produced. If we accept the proposition as laid down by this great economist, then any reform must strike at the root of that monopoly. It must in its result transfer to the working people a larger share than they have at the present time in the wealth which is produced. Will this Bill do that? If it would do that to any extent at all, and if that extent were as far as it is possible for this House to go, then it would be a measure we could support. I do not say this Bill, even if it be passed in the form in which it stands at present, would be altogether without advantages. I believe it will organise assistance in times

1393
of distress and will give a greater national security, but those for whom I speak—I do not speak in any sense as representing the views of my own party, but I believe there are Members in this House who will agree with the views I am going to put forward—do not think the advantages which would result from the Bill in its present form would be such that we could accept them without a very vigorous protest. I am opposed altogether to the principle of contributions, and the remainder of the remarks I shall make will be directed to opposition to the contributory scheme and in support of a non-contributory scheme. There are a number of objections against this scheme which occur to me. I think it is a wrong policy to put the burden of dealing with what is a special problem upon a section of the people. A contributory scheme takes a direct contribution, as in the case of this Bill, from certain selected classes who have no more obligation to deal with the problem than those who are not called upon to pay the contributions. A contributory, scheme, too, is costly, cumbersome, and irritating. My last objection is that such a contributory scheme as is proposed under this Bill is against the tendency of all recent legislation. The practice of requiring a direct contribution for social services has been gradually abandoned during the last thirty years, because it was both expensive and ineffective. I submit working people cannot afford to pay the contribution which is to be exacted from them under this Bill. The case in support of that has never been put more eloquently or more effectively and conclusively than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. In certain parts of the speech he made in introducing this measure, he told a tale against the proposals he afterwards submitted to the House.
On that occasion he was dealing with a fact which he repeated this afternoon, namely, that at one time or another practically the whole of the wage-earning classes had been members of friendly societies, and that lapses to the extent of something like a quarter of a million occurred every year. In ten years 2½ millions and in twenty years five millions of lapses from friendly societies in the United Kingdom would, he said, take place. He went on to give the reason for it. He stated that these people were too poor to keep up their contributions. They could not afford to pay them continuously. There are a multitude of the working classes, he
1394
added, who cannot spare—the sum he was referring to was 4½d. per week—and ought not to be asked to spare the amount because it involved a deprivation of the children of the necessaries of life. Nothing I am able to say could put the case against compulsory contributions, of 4d. per week generally speaking, but in the case of a considerable part of our working-class population of 6½d. per week, than those words. I believe more than two millions of working men are to be compulsorily insured under the unemployment part of the Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to take from these classes a contribution which, in his own words, they ought not to be called upon to pay, because they cannot afford to pay it.
What does 6½d. or 4d. per week mean? My hon. Friend, the Member for Bradford, in connection with a Bill dealing with the feeding of school children some time since, laid facts before this House showing that in the city of Bradford, which, I understand, judged by the income-tax returns, is the richest city in the provinces, there is a very large number of working-class families whose income is only sufficient to allow l½d. per day for food per head of family, and, therefore, this contribution of 4d. practically means three clays' food being taken away from people of that particular class. As a matter of fact there are more than two million families in this country whose income is less than £l per week, and this 4d. per week in their case means that the families are to be deprived of one day's food per week. I submit that that is a charge which this House ought not to place on the working people of this country, who, at the present time, are not able even to get a sufficiency of food, shelter and clothing. The working-class families of this country cannot pay this 4d. per week without depriving themselves of some necessary expenditure which they now incur. In every working-class family in the country to-day every penny of income is mortgaged before it is received, and if there is an additional 4d. or 6½d. to be paid out it means that the children will have to go without food, that meals will have to be abandoned, and that, in other ways, the poverty and privations of the people will be aggravated.
My second objection was that it is irritating and cumbersome. I am quite sure if this Bill passes into law the compulsory deduction every week from the wages of workmen will be very much resented. I remember, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on the Old Age

1395
Pensions Bill and was dealing with the German system, he brushed that aside as un-English, and he pointed out, with regard to the German contributory scheme that this country was not like Germany, as the conditions were altogether different. I am perfectly sure from my experience of working people that when these deductions are compulsorily paid a great deal of irritation, annoyance, and opposition will be created. My third objection was that this proposal, imposing a direct compulsory contribution for the payment of social services was altogether in opposition to precedent. We began forty years ago by imposing a direct contribution on the parents of children to pay for the education of their children, and it took thirty years of agitation to get rid of it. The principle of State financial responsibility is embodied in nearly all recent legislation—in the Workmen's Compensation Acts, in Public Health Acts and even in the old age pension legislation. I do not think it would be possible to find in present-day legislation any precedent for the proposals of this Bill. Proposals of direct contribution have, I repeat, been abandoned because of their irritating nature, their costliness and their ineffectiveness.
I come now to that part of the Bill which proposes to levy a direct contribution on the employer. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to make this explanation at the outset of my remarks, but I will say I am not speaking out of any feeling of sympathy with the employer. The case I shall attempt to put against imposing a direct contribution on the employer is because I feel it will prove diastrous to working men themselves. I really cannot imagine any sensible reason why an employer should be called upon to make a direct contribution for the support of his workpeople during times of sickness. I can imagine reasons which might be advanced, but, in my opinion, they are altogether unsatisfactory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said, and he will probably repeat the statement tonight, that he cannot afford to find out of the National Exchequer, the money required for the finance of this scheme, and that he is, therefore, driven to this system of contributions. A second reason which might be put forward is that the employer has a fatherly interest in his workmen. But surely we have got past that. The obligation to improve the condition of workpeople, especially in such a matter as this, is not on the employer, it is on the com-
1396
munity, and to put the obligation of supporting his workpeople during sickness on the employer is going back to the days of the patriarchs, days which I thought we had altogether left behind us. It has been advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the contributions from the employer are justified because he will gain through the improved efficiency of the workmen. Surely this again cannot be seriously advanced. Does not the employer gain from everything which is done, and which improves the efficiency of the workmen? Have not our Education Acts improved the efficiency of labour? Yet you do not exact direct contribution from the employer in order to pay for the education of his workpeople. Do not our Public Health Acts improve the physical condition of the workpeople? Yet you do not ask for a direct contribution from the employer in respect of them. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are the rates."] Yes, there are the rates, which everybody pays. I will deal with that later on. We are told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot find the money. Of course he can do so, if he is so disposed.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How?
Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman told us, during his speech in introducing the Bill that during the tenure of office of this Government £12,000,000 had been added to our naval expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had no difficulty in finding that money, and it would be just as easy for him to find money for this purpose as it is to find it for the purposes of destroying life. It seems to be very generally agreed—it has always been assumed that he will make the attempt—that the employer will succeed in shifting the burden of his contribution on to somebody else. I rather gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees to that. In some cases no doubt this will be done. It depends on the extent of the severity and keenness of competition in a particular trade. If trade be good and the profits large, and if the trade is well organised, I should think it would be very easy for the employer to shift the burden. But take the. case of the cotton trade. That is a trade which depends to the extent of four-fifths of its supplies upon markets abroad. It is occasionally subjected to keen foreign competition, and therefore it is a trade in which it will be found much more difficult for the employer to shift the burden. It has been often mentioned that the German employer is in favour of a contribu-

1397
tory scheme. Quite so! But then we know the reason for that. That is part of the price that the German employer pays for having a protected market, where he can more than recoup himself by putting the cost upon the consumer.
Another objection that I have to the contribution to be paid by the employer is that it will be most unfair in its incidence and will tax some trades to a fan greater extent than others. Take the trade which, in a Parliamentary sense, I am especially interested in, the staple trade of the constituency that I represent, the Lancashire cotton trade. I have had worked out for me by a very competent accountant the figures as to the cost of the employers' contribution upon that trade, and he has taken a period of six years, so as to include both good times and bad times, and in taking an instance where the employer has 500 looms, employing 200 workpeople—and he works under the system which is common in Lancashire that he does not own the building himself, nor the fixed machinery, and the motive power is supplied by the company that owns the building—the employer will have to pay £130 a year as his contribution under this scheme. Taking the average profit of the trade at 10 per cent., and I am sure hon. Members will agree that the Lancashire cotton trade does not over an average of ten years pay a 10 per cent. profit, that would be equal to an Income Tax of 2s. in the £, and if the profit were less, as it would be during bad times, the burden, reduced to terms of Income Tax, would be all the greater.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If it were a non-contributory system would the charge on the employer be less?
Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, a great deal less. Here in the Lancashire cotton trade it will work out at 10 per cent., or 2s. in the £. In the case of a large industry, where there is a smaller amount of labour employed in proportion to the output, the tax, reduced to terms of Income Tax, would be enormously less. I have, for instance, worked it out roughly as applied to the railway companies and the mines of this country, and I find the railway companies' contributions, reduced to terms of Income Tax, will work out at about 5d. in the £, and in the mining industry at about 2½d. in the £, whereas, when I come to distillery and brewery companies, I am not able, except by going into remote decimals, to estimate what it works out at. This is most unfair, be-
1398
cause it does not tax each industry on terms of equality. It is a direct incentive to employers, seeing that they are taxed upon the employment of labour, to reduce labour wherever possible and to employ machinery. It taxes those industries which are the most useful, because I think we all agree that those industries are most useful which provide the largest amount of useful employment. It seems to me, and I know I shall carry the sympathy of many hon. Members opposite here, that it will be especially hard upon agriculture because the burden is going to fall upon the farmer.
If I may go back to my illustration of the cotton trade, I referred to the system of the manufacturer not owning the power and the building, but under this Bill he alone, as the employer and as the profit taker, is to pay the contribution. The owners of the building, who equally make a profit out of the employment of this labour, are to be altogether exempt. Again, in the cotton trade, as in most trades, we have middlemen—agents—who are paid by commission upon the price of the goods, and therefore if the price increases on account of the increase in the cost of production the middle man's commission will be larger. He will gain by it, and yet at the same time he will be altogether exempt from making any contribution to this scheme. Something of the same sort is going to happen in regard to agriculture. It is the farmer who is to pay the employers' contribution. What about the landlord? Why should the landlord be exempted? Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer now show such sympathy with the landlords? When the Budget Bill was under discussion I protested against certain treatment he was giving to the landowners, and he described me as a crusted old Tory. He is the crusted old Tory now. Under the Income Tax Act the landlord's rent is three times the profit of the farmer, and yet the tax has to be put upon the farmer, and the landlord is totally exempt. He does nothing, I believe, to earn the economic rent. He may invest capital, but that is nothing to do with economic rent. So far I have been arguing on the assumption that the burden will remain with the employer, but I believe he will succeed in shifting it. Who is going to pay it?
Before asking that question, may I deal with another curious point in this Bill in regard to the employers' contribution? The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. in a Schedule to increase the employers'

1399
contribution where the wages are low. I should be very much interested to hear the arguments by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer supports that when we come to that stage of the Bill. I can only imagine one reason, that he assumes that where wages are low profits are high. It may be so in some cases, but I do not think it is the general rule. I think the general rule is the other way about, that wages are low because the industry really cannot afford to pay more. It might be a good thing—I think it would be a good thing—if these industries from one cause or another were driven out of existence altogether, but that, of course, is an entirely different matter. The employer can recoup himself in two ways. If he raises prices, which is probably the method he would adopt, that will take from the consumer more than it brings to the revenue of this scheme, because, of course, in the passage of the article through many hands a profit will be added at each stage to the cost. Another way in which he may recoup himself will be by economising. Suppose—and I have no doubt it will be so—that there is greater efficiency on the part of the workpeople as the result of the working of this scheme, that means that the workpeople are going to have to suffer again, because increased efficiency under competition means a greater output per workman, and it means, therefore, the employment of less labour in order to bring in the same amount. The way in which it is proposed, therefore, under this head to deal with the employers' contribution seems to me to be objectionable, because they put an obligation on the employers which is not theirs any more than that of any other section of the community. I can justify putting the cost of workman's compensation on the employer, because the accident can be in most cases directly attributed to the responsibility of the employer, but it is not so in the case of sickness. The sickness may be, and is in some cases, due to causes over which the employer has no control at all, and I am heartily in favour of that Clause in the Bill which proposes to penalise the negligent employer and the negligent landlord, but that raises an entirely different principle.
The incidence of this is bad because it will not remain where it is first imposed, and it is most unfair because it is not taxing the employer according to his means of paying. It puts an exceptional burden upon the most useful trades, and
1400
taxes those most who have the hardest struggle to exist, and it lets off most lightly those who are best able to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me just now how I would raise this money. It is not for me to suggest that, but I do not mind responding to his question. He had an interview with some Socialists a few weeks ago, and in the course of his conversation with them he stated that it would mean an Income Tax of 7d. in the £ if the State assumed entire responsibility for this. He is going to place upon the employers under this Bill a sum which eventually will be equal to 3d. or 4d. in the £ of Income Tax at the present rate of the yield of Income Tax. Therefore it would not make any difference to the employer if he paid directly in his Income Tax, but in putting it upon the Income Tax and upon Death Duties it will be much more difficult to shift the incidence of such a tax. It would be then not a tax upon the cost of production. It would be a tax on property. If I had been permitted to move the Amendment which stands in my name I should not have moved it with any very great hope that I should have been able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it. But that does not in the least lessen my confidence that it is right, nor does it lessen my confident belief that by and by we shall have to come to the position that I have attempted to put before the Committee. I am quite sure if the Bill passes into law the agitation in favour of a non-contributory scheme will grow in volume, and that within the next generation we shall do what we have done in regard to national education and other services which have come to be recognised as national in their character, and the State will accept entire responsibility and will spread the burden as equitably as possible over every section of the community.
Mr. HUNT: I rather agree with the hon. Member that this Bill will help the poorest of the poor very little, if at all. It will increase your cost of production.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this arises. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the scheme of finance. He can oppose it, but he cannot talk about the other question with which he is dealing.
Mr. HUNT: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman opposite. He did say that there would be an increase in the cost of production, and for that reason I cannot help thinking that if this Bill passes it will do more harm than good.
The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Second Reading of the Bill. We are discussing the Financial Resolution, which must be passed if we are to discuss the financial Clauses of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman can discuss the financial scheme of the Bill, but that is the only point before us.
Mr. HUNT: I am afraid I have very little more to say. I trust this Bill is not going to be rushed through the House of Commons without very serious consideration.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already pointed out that this is a Resolution which enables us to proceed with the Bill, although I think it is not an occasion for the discussion of the whole question of the finance of the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) has put before the Committee points which are relevant to the consideration of the Resolution. He has put them with his usual courage and eloquence. I thought I could congratulate him on having one convert, but I now find that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hunt) did not get up to support the view of the hon. Member for Blackburn. As I understand the position of the hon. Member his view is that the whole of this burden ought to be cast upon the State.
Mr. SNOWDEN Mr. SNOWDEN indicated assent.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is an intelligible point of view, and I have no doubt it can be defended except by those responsible for raising the money. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that 7d. on the Income Tax would be a proper proposal to make. I would rather hand over the responsibility for such a proposal to him. I do not know that I could undertake to face the House of Commons if it were my duty to propose an increase of Income Tax all round to the extent of 7d. I find it rather difficult to get 2d., with 6d. from those whose incomes are over £5,000. But if he proposed to put on the increase all round, I am not sure that the hon. Member would find in his own party very many supporters, and outside of it I am sure he would find very few. He took up the cudgels for the employers, and it was a very edifying spectacle to see the hon. Member for Blackburn defending the employers of this country.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not wish to be misrepresented. I did not defend the employers.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, at any rate, we will say that he assumed the role of protector of capitalists. I congratulate him upon his courage, and I congratulate them upon securing such a very efficient defender. He will be very useful in defending capital. But with the usual zeal of a convert, he has done it with great zest. He wants to protect the railway companies. He thinks it a most monstrous thing that railway companies should pay 5d. in the pound. Then he referred to the cotton spinners in Lancashire. Let me say that under this scheme the railway companies will pay 5d., while under his proposal they would pay 7d. He treats the whole contribution of the State as if it were a negligible quantity. He seemed to think it is of no benefit to anybody, and that it is just a burdensome scheme which gives nothing to the employés. He took up that attitude also on the Old Age Pensions. He got up and talked about this miserable sum of £7,000,000. That is not. so miserable a sum if you have to raise it. It takes a lot of raising. It is very difficult to raise. It gave rise to a controversy which lasted nearly two years, which shook the constitution, which is still raging, and I should be the last man in this House to venture to predict what will happen But it all arose out of an attempt to raise-money for Old Age Pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It arose out of an attempt to raise money for Old Age Pensions and the Navy. You cannot raise-taxation in this country without exciting every interest. If you attempt to put an enormous burden on the capitalists, I certainly think that you will find history will repeat itself. To say that the sum of money we are raising in this case will not benefit anybody is to be carried away by partisanship beyond the realms of reason.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that I said that? I admitted that there were some benefits.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad to have that explanation. The sum, at any rate of £21,000,000, is raised under this scheme to go for the benefit of the working classes. Out of that amount there is a sum raised of £5,000,000 out of taxes. There is already raised £13,000,000, for this is simply part of a general scheme. It started with old age pensions, and we are now going to supplement that by this scheme. We have raised £13,000,000 out of taxes for the purpose of paying members of the industrial classes who cannot

1403
otherwise find any provision outside of the workhouse. Now we have raised another £5,000,000, making together £18,000,000, which come from State funds. Compare that with what has been done in Germany. The hon. Gentleman says I go to Germany for my precedents. I take Germany for the purpose of contrasting what has been done there with the liberality of our provisions. For old age pensions, permanent debility, and sickness, Germany only provides £2,500,000 from the State for all that great population. In this country we raise £18,000,000 for the purpose, and it will not be necessary in my opinion to impose a single penny more to meet that great liability. The hon. Gentleman disparaged the benefits which are provided under this scheme. I do not think he gave the same prominence to the benefits conferred upon the workers as he did to the wrongs of the employers. I think it is necessary to give a few touches to the rather faint strokes he has given in order to bring out, as it were, that part of the picture which shows the benefits which are conferred upon the workers. There is subscribed by the State £18,000,000 for the benefit of the workers.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Half of it comes from the workers.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly wrong there. If you will look at all the taxes out of which this money is raised, so far as I recollect, you have to take the duty on whisky and the charge on tobacco. These are the articles on which the workers make their contributions. That is certainly not half. I am referring to taxes for this purpose. For this purpose the bulk of the taxation has been upon those who have incomes of over £5,000, upon largo estates of over £10,000, upon those who have unearned incomes of over £160, and upon those who have earned incomes over £2,000. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that these taxes come from employers and capitalists. Let me look at the contribution which will be raised out of the employers. It is something like £10,000,000, so that a sum amounting to £20,000,000 is raised for the benefit of the workers in connection with the whole of this series of schemes. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should ignore altogether that state of the question. He may say you are not distributing the money in the best way There
1404
is nothing in this resolution to prevent a change in the distribution. I do not say that the way proposed is the best. I do not know that the hon. Member may not be able to suggest a better way. I have had many suggestions made to me which I think will improve the scheme, and I hope we will incorporate them in it. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to dwell on one side and to ignore the workers. I wish him to know the magnitude of the benefits conferred upon the workers, lest in a moment of misapprehension due to criticisms which are not intended to convey that idea, they might forget what the enormous advantages are. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the employers would shift the burden on to the workers, but I do not agree with him there. It has not happened in Germany. On the contrary, wages have steadily risen since their scheme was introduced. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?
Mr. SNOWDEN: That can be attributed to other causes.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt that other causes were contributory, but I have not the slightest doubt that wages have risen. I say that during a period of twenty years wages have risen in this country. Of course, the German worker had a much greater leeway to make up. He started on a lower level. When you get up to a certain amount, of course the ratio of increase must be smaller, whether in this country or in Germany. What I want to point out is that so far from the burden being cast upon the workers in Germany, it is borne there by the employers, who receive benefit through the increased efficiency of the workers. That is the view which has been expressed by a considerable number of employers of very high standing in Germany whose opinion we have sought. They are of opinion that they get back their money in the increased efficiency of the worker. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have been the first to take that view. Surely the view of the hon. Gentleman is that everything you do for the benefit of the worker in the way of improving his housing conditions, the sanitary conditions under which he lives, the conditions under which he works, and under which he brings up his children, everything of that kind is refunded to the State, and to every class of the State, by the increased efficiency of the worker himself.
Mr. SNOWDEN: My point was that the advantage of this increased efficiency should go to every section of the community; it is all appropriated by the landowning community.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is not the hon. Member making my case? What I say is that the employers would benefit by the increased efficiency.' That is the very point I make. In order to contradict it he says it is absorbed by the capitalists. The point which I am making is the point that the employer will benefit undoubtedly by increased efficiency. But surely he is not the only man who will benefit. The man who benefits principally is the man whose health is improved, the man who is saved from sickness, the man whose children are protected, whose house is cleansed of the scourge of tuberculosis. That is the man who primarily benefits—himself and his household. If this scheme benefits employés and benefits the workman and his household, and the capitalist and his business, is not that a scheme that benefits the whole community, and benefits the State? Therefore I think that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in the opposition which ho has offered to this proposal. I think we have distributed in a way that will be the slightest burden upon the whole community. You have got to raise £21,000,000 for this purpose, and I submit to the House that the way proposed is the most effective way, and the way that will cause least interference with trade.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has altogether dealt with the somewhat larger question raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn in connection with the employer's contribution; because there is no doubt whatever that the contribution does fall unequally upon certain industries and that it falls most unequally upon those which are least able to bear it. In the case of failing industries, industries which just carry on. but which give a large amount of labour—I can put my finger upon several very large firms who carry on their business under great difficulties—the new tax will be a very serious matter for them when their profits are small. There-Tore it does raise the very point which the hon. Member for Blackburn raised, namely, that it is a deterrent to further employment and that it discourages the employer from continuing to use the fullest amount of his labour. That must in itself be a great deterrent and a great evil so far as the employer of labour is con-
1406
cerned. There is no doubt that the Chancellor put very clearly the advantage to the State. For myself I do not think that there is any doubt as to the advantage to the employers, but I do think that there is a great deal to be said about the actual incidence of this new burden placed upon the employer, especially when we approach the agricultural point of view. There really can be no question as to the possibility of shifting the charge. Nobody can suggest that with the competition which we have in connection with agricultural industry there can be any opportunity for shifting this charge on to the price. There is no reason to believe it.
There is in this case a low paid class of labour, and the employer himself in a vast number of instances in this country—I was astonished at the result when making inquiries about it—is not even an Income Tax payer even though he may be a considerable employer. It is on that man that you throw the burden of this new charge, and he has to bear it according to this Bill. What I object to in this Money Resolution that we are asked to pass to-day is that in its terms it binds us down so closely that we are unable altogether in discussion on the Bill to alleviate the difficulties and dangers which we see on this point. It is impossible for us for instance to do anything to alleviate what we think is a very great grievance in connection with the low paid labour as affecting the agricultural industry. We are not able to make a greater charge than two-ninths. That leaves seven-ninths to be divided between the employer and employé, and if we suggest that it is very hard for the farmer to have to pay extra contribution it means we are bound, if we pass this Resolution, to throw upon the labourer, who is still less able to pay, that extra contribution. In passing this we are preventing ourselves in the future from really approaching the difficulties which appeal most to us to come from agricultural Constituencies. There is another point. We are asked in this Resolution to bind ourselves in a strict manner to contribute, so far as the State is concerned, only one half of any excess in connection with medical benefits, which may be provided, which are dealt with under Clause 14 of the Bill. That means we have no power when the Bill comes to be discussed of objecting to the other half being thrown upon the local rates.
We have heard a lot about that during the present Session of Parliament. The

1407
Government themselves have instituted a committee and they have promised again and again to give immediate attention to it. There is not a matter on which those who come from agricultural Constituencies are more strongly pledged than to resist any legislation involving any further charge on the rates. Yet if you pass this Money Resolution as it stands now we debar ourselves objecting to the passage of a Bill in which a new charge is placed upon the rates. It seems to me most uncalled for that this Bill if passed into law should bring in another contributor, the ratepayer, who after all is in most cases the very man whom you are obliging to pay the contribution under this Bill. Let us remember when this charge for excess medical benefit is much more likely to arise in the country than in the towns, and therefore it is the rural ratepayer on whom this new burden will fall. In connection with the rates everybody knows that any regular charge made for medical benefits must inevitable be made larger in consideration of the needs of agricultural districts. The mere fact that the doctor has to travel such long distances to go to his patients scattered over a very sparsely populated district involves an extra over the ordinary rate. That means that these excesses are more likely to arise in the country. Therefore they will fall upon the country rates, already too heavily burdened, and will come back upon the farmer, who already is the most seriously burdened of all classes in connection with this Bill.
Therefore, however we look at this Money Resolution, we find that it would deprive us of the possibility of raising on the Bill the very questions that we desire. Why did the Government lay down so strictly their Money Resolution with reference to these points. When they got to seamen and soldiers they were much more general in their words. Although in the Bill those benefits for seamen are described, yet in the Money Resolution they take powers to have such additional sums as may be provided by the said Act, They give freedom to the House to discuss what those provisions will be. By that means we are allowed the liberty of discovering the sense of the House in dealing with the matter. But when we are dealing with these other matters, questions of medical relief, the two-ninths, which are much more important to us, we are bound absolutely down and are prevented from dealing with all the matters that really
1408
come most closely home to us. On those grounds I certainly do take serious exception to the Money Resolution as it is framed at the present time, and I hope that before it passes from us we may obtain from, the Chancellor of the Exchequer some greater elesticity, so that when we are discussing the Bill we may be able really to go into the. points which affect us so closely in agricultural districts.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I rise to support the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer attacked me without answering my arguments, and so to-day I think he has rather attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn without answering his charges in argument. After all, the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn that carried most weight with the House was the expression of the undoubted fact that the money required for this sickness insurance comes from the wealth produced by the community as a whole. Part may come from taxation, part from the contributions of the worker, part from the contributions by the employer; but however it comes, it is in every sense a tax on the wealth produced by the community, and the community on the whole will be no better off nor no worse off, although it may call part of this tax a contribution. In the old days of the Lancastrian kings, when it was found that the king could no longer levy taxation he levied what he called a "benevolence," a compulsory loan, upon his vassals, but it amounted to the same thing. It was taxation. So at the present time the contributions from the work people, the contributions from the master, and the contributions from the community out of taxation amount to one and the same thing.
8.0 P.M.
Instead of your total taxation, amounting to £180,000,000 a year, these compulsory contributions really add to the total revenue of the country. It does not matter in the least what you call your tax as long as it is part of the wealth produced by the workers of this country, taken by the State and doled out as the State thinks right. But I am supporting the hon. Member for Blackburn on other grounds than merely explaining that however you raise the money it is a tax. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that there were certain classes who were too poor to make the various contributions. I would like to emphasise that fact. There-are certain classes very ill paid, and

1409
though thrift is an excellent thing it is possible that for a community as a whole thrift will be a bad thing if it is forced upon very poor people. No doubt it is a good thing that people should have something laid up when they are sick to tide over the bad time, but if the money is to be saved compulsorily by the State or voluntarily by individuals at the expense of the health and comfort and well-being of themselves and of the children of the community, then it is going to be a bad thing for the country as a whole. The hon. Member pointed out that the scheme, with its contributions from one source and another, was cumbrous and irritating, and would in the long run disappear, as did the compulsory contribution for education. There I think he was right. But he left out of account altogether the most important point of all and that is this: so long as the scheme of thrift was a voluntary scheme you were perfectly justified in adopting the contributory principle. But directly you make it compulsory, and say that a man must pay in any case, whether he wants to be thrifty or not, you are acting unjustly in using that same contributory principle. The principal objection to the finance of this Bill is that it is unjust to take 4d. from the man's wages and apply it to the purpose of which he does not approve. I do not think a trade union has a right to take part of the contribution of a workman and use it for political purposes of which he does not approve. But it is equally unjust to take 4d. a week from a man for purposes of which he does not approve, however wise the community as a whole may consider that object to be. Just as the hon. Member bases his opposition to the finance of this Bill on the welfare of the community, I base my objection to it on the ground that it is an unjust scheme of finance—that is to say, unjust so long as your scheme is compulsory. When you make it compulsory you ought to make the whole community and not the individual find the money.
In regard to the question of the employers' contribution, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not have dragged up the hon. Member as a support of the employers in this matter. I am certainly with the hon. Member on this point. I do not wish to defend the employers in any way, but to see what the facts of the case must undoubtedly be. It is shown that the contribution from employers vary from 20 per cent. in some industries to a
1410
fractional percentage in others. The employers in each case are called upon to make different contributions, and the greatest interest of all, the landlord's interest, escapes entirely from any contribution whatsoever. I next consider the case of the employer's share and his ability to shift it in certain cases. Wherever an employer has a more or less complete monopoly—for instance, in the case of a railway company or gas or water franchise—wherever the employer is already getting from the consumer all that the consumer can pay, in that case the contribution of the employer will rest upon him, and he will not be able to shift it. Take the second case of the poor employer paying sweated wages and called upon to pay the biggest contributions under this Bill. In this case the men are not combined in strong trade unions, and it is just in this case where an employer will be able to shift his share of the contribution, and he will shift it on the workpeople themselves. They may not lose it from their pay at once, but they will not get the rise in pay they might otherwise get. There is, lastly, the vast mass of employers who are at present assisting in the production of wealth in free competition. In all these cases they will undoubtedly transfer their contributions on to the consumers of the country as a whole, so that the whole country will pay a tax indirectly towards this scheme. The hon. Member for Blackburn showed that the contributions from the employers could be translated into an extra Income Tax, but he missed the point that just as the employer's contribution can be transferred on to the whole community so the Income Tax at present is transferred to the whole community. If you tax capital you make capital dearer for those who want it to use it in production. You induce them to pay a higher rate of interest. Any tax on capital, whether on locomotives, steam ships, or factories, tends to increase the cost of what is produced by that capital, and therefore if you put on an Income Tax and instead of levying your contribution on the employer you levy an Income Tax on all generally, even then it will be shifted on to the consumers, namely, the community as a whole. There is only one tax which cannot be shifted.
Mr. SNOWDEN: What is that?
Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member has stated it pretty clearly, although ho slurred it over in his usual artless way.

1411
The only tax that cannot be shifted, as was recognised by Mr. Harold Cox in this House two years ago, is a tax upon land values, and if you want to raise this money not from the community as a whole but from where it cannot be shifted or put upon the price of anything that is produced you must put it on the land values, say a penny in the pound on the capital selling value of land apart from improvements. I will not leave the question there. The hon. Member as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very anxious that the beneficiary should pay his share towards the benefits he was going to receive, and the right hon. Gentleman protested that the people who were going to receive the benefits were the employers and the workpeople and the community as a whole. I think in that list he left out the chief beneficiary of the lot, and it is because the chief beneficiary escapes scot-free that I think this Bill is particularly bad. What will be the result of this insurance against sickness? The first result is that the people will not be turned out of their houses so readily when they come to be sick. They will be able to go on paying their rent, whereas otherwise they would be evicted. They will be left to live in their own homes instead of going into the workhouse. The people who will benefit by that are not only the workpeople but the landlords who own the house, and yet who are not asked to pay a single penny under this scheme. These people who are allowed to go on in their own houses instead of going into the workhouse or getting Poor Law relief will be assisting landlords in another way, because if they do not go into the workhouse or receive Poor Law relief the rates will be less and property owners will again receive a large part of the benefit under this Act. More than that, I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed conclusively that this Bill will in effect improve the whole conditions of labour as the producers of wealth in this country—that they will be able to produce more wealth per head in future than they can at present—that they will become better human machines and that that will be a benefit to the employer. No, Sir, in economics it will not benefit the employer. I should like to have the attention of the Treasury upon this point.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhbuse): I can assure
1412
the hon. Gentleman that I have been making careful notes of his confession of economic faith.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman said that the improvement of man as a wealth producing machine does produce an increase of wealth for himself or for the employer.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would invite the hon. Member to address his observations to the Chair. It is not in order to carry on an informal conversation.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member below me (Mr. Chiozza Money) and I have carried on a long feud over this matter that I was rather carried away. I was intending to show that the improvement of man as a producing machine will not benefit him, because the wealth he produces will not be his, nor the employer, because all employers are in free competition one with another, but it will result in an increase of the land values of this country, and that the persons who have an article to sell which is not in competition and which is in fact a monopoly, the landlords, will be able to get this benefit from the increase of a productive power of the individual which will come from the passing of this Act. Therefore, because I believe the best way of raising the money for this compulsory insurance is by a tax upon land values, because it cannot be shifted on to the community, and that it is the only just way of raising the tax, I shall support the hon. Member for Blackburn.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I cannot help feeling rather strongly that the incidence of the cost of this Bill will be very unfair. In the first place it would fall very severely, not so much upon the large employers, as upon the poor employers, with a small number of workmen, and whose profits are comparatively small. In very many cases the actual profits are not very much greater than the employer pays to some of his workers. A certain number of trades in this country, which are not in a flourishing condition, will be called upon to bear additional burdens under this Bill, while a great many very rich people, who do not employ a large amount of labour, but whose, income is largely derived from investments in other countries, will not be called upon to pay the charge under this Bill, save that proportion which they pay under the State contribution. That is a very unfair part of the incidence of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was a great outcry

1413
about his Budget, and he tried to make out that the outcry was because the money levied was devoted to additional charges for the Navy and old age pensions; but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the outcry against the Budget was not so much directed to the objects to which the money was to be applied, as to the very unfair way in which that money was raised. It has been quite truly said that to place a burden on the Income Tax that would amount to not less than 7d. in the £ would undoubtedly raise a very great outcry throughout the country. I think it is a matter for consideration whether really in the end it would not be a fairer way to the taxpayers of the country as a whole that the employer's contribution and the worker's contribution should be diminished to some extent, and that the contribution of the State, paid by the taxpayers as a whole, should be increased to some extent.
But the Second Reading of the Bill has now been passed, and we are not allowed to move any Amendment to this particularly skilfully-drawn Resolution, so that we cannot get any alteration made in that direction. As regards the contribution of the employés, there is one consideration which proves the necessity of persons who receive benefit under the Bill continuing to pay contributions, that being a deterrent against malingering. Where there is a local committee a contributor feels that he cannot malinger. The committee know who is getting the money; it comes out of their pockets, and they are induced, therefore, to keep a very sharp and watchful eye on the members of the society. If you did away with all the contributions from the employés it undoubtedly would be a very considerable premium on malingering throughout the country. The hon. Member for Blackburn alluded to the fact that certain industries are very unevenly treated under the Bill. He instanced the industry of agriculture, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he thought agriculture was unfairly treated under this measure. I think ho is perfectly right in saying so. I do think that agriculturists have a considerable grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned, the agricultural labourer is underpaid. It is an obvious truism that labour which receives a low rate of remuneration is by no means the cheapest labour. In the southern parts of England agricultural labour is very much cheaper than in the North of England or
1414
in Scotland. I think that is due to the economic fact that the amount of work done by agricultural labourers in the southern parts of England is not nearly as great as that done by the better-paid labourers in the northern parts of the country. That is an obvious truism. In Scotland or in the northern part of England, for some reason or other—I do not know what it is—the labourers move their limbs more quickly than do the labourers in the South of England.
If you put an agricultural labourer from the north alongside an agricultural labourer in the south, the northern man will do twice as much work as the southern man. I should not wish to be understood as saying that the south country labourer is necessarily less deserving, for everybody knows that the agricultural labourers are an excellent body of men. Agricultural labourers will have to pay very considerable charges, though their labour is not well remunerated. Under this measure the employers and the employés will have to pay a charge which in many cases will amount to almost exactly the sum that a boy receives for his day's labour. Take particularly the case of boys employed during the holidays in following the harvest carts and in doing other work. Those boys naturally are not very highly paid, but their work does tend to keep them out of mischief, and gives them as early as possible an interest in agricultural life. Under this Bill these boys would have to pay contributions practically amounting to the sum received for a day's work. That will not be conducive to increasing the employment of these lads, and they may become a nuisance to their parents if they do not follow that work and stay at home. The hon. Member for Blackburn said the farmer has to pay, the labourer has to pay, but the landlord will pay nothing under the Bill. I would respectfully remind hon. Members opposite that, after all, the landlord in a country district is a very large employer of labour. I can give numerous instances in which the income derived from an estate by the agricultural landlord is spent, every penny of it, upon the upkeep of that estate, upon material bought for it, and very largely upon the actual labour employed.
The landlord, in order to keep up his estate, has to expend a large sum of money every year. In every country village there are large numbers of old people who are almost helpless to do any work. The farmer does not employ them because they are not equal to do the work he

1415
requires, and he engages young and active persons. It is the landlord who gives the old people odd jobs to do in order to keep their homes together. Therefore it is ridiculous to say that the landlord is not paying a charge. He pays quite as much as any other employer of labour, and he pays a great deal more than many richer people who do not employ labour. There is another point under this Bill as to the charge on the rates which may be made under Clause 14 and Clause 43 which authorise the Local Health Committees to spend considerable sums upon sanatoria and various other medical benefits. The county council has to recoup those bodies for half of the additional expenditure that they incur beyond the sum received from the Treasury. The local authorities have only one-third of the representation on those Health Committees, so that it would be perfectly possible for them to incur the additional expenditure without the representative of the ratepayers having the opportunity of expressing their opinions. It is not possible for us under the terms of this Resolution to move any Amendment which will impose that charge from the county rates on to the Exchequer. I do submit it is very unfair that the local rates, which are very unevenly derived, should be expended on objects which are really national objects. I regret that an Amendment is not possible.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that we are obliged to debate the question of a contributory or non-contributory scheme at this time of day, because I should have preferred if we could have moved a resolution so as to take the opinion of the House definitely on the question. We have heard a great deal this evening about the cost of this scheme, and as to who has to bear the cost. Reference has been made to landlords and other people who can only get their money either by rent or interest. That is earned in only one way, and that is by other people working for them. There is no other way by which money can have any value at all unless it has labour power somewhere behind it. We may talk here for a century and at the end we would all have to admit that if everybody stopped working there would be no money at all for anybody to give away. We have got an instance now in our ships all around the coast. While they are not working there is no money being earned and no profits being made, although the labourers may starve the divi-
1416
dends are being starved too. Therefore it is as well that this House should realise that you never can give the people who work anything at all unless they first of all earn it. You take it in the shape of rent or profit, and you give it back in the shape of a dole, but you can never give them anything that they have not earned. I am surprised that high financiers do not realise that, because it is so simple, and there are so many instances of it all around. When I hear that landlords are philanthropists who take care of the aged poor and give them jobs when they are too old for anybody to grind a profit out of them, that only means that they are like the rest of us good, kind-hearted people that they cannot bear to see those people suffer, and that they salve their consciences for taking rent and profit they do not earn by taking care of the victims. That is perfectly true, as every honest man and woman is bound to admit. We sit in this House and some day we are going to receive salaries—some day! The Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench receive salaries already, and some people receive pensions. Where do they come from? The Lord does not rain them down from Heaven and they do not walk out of the sea. Somewhere in this community men and women are toiling in mines and in factories and in sweated dens to earn that money. The sooner we all realise that in discussing this Bill the better it will be for us in arriving at a good conclusion.
Whenever I hear about landlords and the difficulty of our raising money I have a vision of the great ground values of this huge Metropolis in which we live. I remember the Thames when it washed along here, and when we had no magnificent Embankment. I remember the day it was opened, and everybody here knows that that little scheme cost industry in London millions of pounds and put millions of pounds into the pockets of the Westminsters and the Portlands, and all the rest of the people who say that the Lord made this Metropolis for them. When the Chancellor asks where we can get the money, I want to get it out of the landlords, or, as one of my friends here said, we will get the money from where it is, and there is nowhere else where it can come from. That being so I am not worrying myself as to where the money for this is to come. It can come from the same source that I am glad the Chancellor commenced to attack, namely, the people who have got super-incomes. Those people do not

1417
really know how to decently spend their money. We have heard of freak dinners occasionally and we have seen luxury and other things flaunting themselves in the West End during the whole of this season. It would not hurt those people if we compelled them to unload some of the unpaid wages of the workers that they are spending. I want the scheme to be a non-contributory scheme mainly because I think to have it a contributory scheme is really to take a step backwards. This House really, I think, occasionally forgets what it has already done. You have already set up in this country a great public health service. That service provides for the person who gets small-pox, not merely treament but convalescent treatment, and generally deals with the person in an effective manner. That is really the answer to the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Wiltshire who is afraid that if people are not made to pay that they may malinger.
Nobody has ever heard of a fever patient or a small-pox patient malingering. The whole thing works quite automatically. The advantage in that case of the scheme is that the people are not obliged to pay and the person is kept until he or she is quite well. That is a very great advantage indeed. But some people imagine that if we have not a contributory scheme that the cases of alcoholic excess and other cases which friendly societies do not deal with, sexual diseases and others which are the man's own fault will be dealt with, and that therefore they ought not to get any benefits under the scheme we are discussing. Judging by all the men who gave evidence from the medical point of view before the Poor Law Commission, by what was stated by the men who have had medical service under each of the four Local Government Boards of the United Kingdom, we find that they all agreed that the worst thing you could do would be to drive away people who were suffering from this kind of disease and allowing them to spread it and to contaminate other people, by in any way penalising them in their treatment.
What we ought to do is to hold on to them and to treat them in the best manner possible. An hon. Member says we do. I know that, but his wife and children do not got the benefit. What I mean to argue for is that the State ought to have the health service it now has, and another service to deal with the whole of the public health in an efficient manner. I
1418
have already said my say about all I care as to where the money comes from, but if hon. Gentlemen will think for a, moment they will see that there is from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 already being spent on the treatment, or supposed treatment, of diseases of various kinds through the Poor Law. It is perfectly certain to my mind that whatever comes from the pockets of the ratepayers now will still have to be paid through the Poor Law if this scheme remains as it is. I would prefer that the twenty or twenty-five million which is going to be raised, instead of being spent in the manner proposed in this Bill, should be devoted to grants in aid of the public health authorities to be paid from the point of view of public health efficiency, to be brought up to whatever standard the central department should set up, rather than see it go into the huge bureaucracy which is to be set up under this Bill.
There is another reason why I object to a contributory scheme. You are leaving out the whole of the children. I have here a report from some of the officers who visited one of the council schools here in London. These inspectors were struck by the want of vigour and energy and the low tone of the children generally, and they set to work to investigate the cause. They found that a number of the children in the school were living in homes where six persons slept and lived in one room. They found that many of the children were members of families where the wages coming in were less than 15s. a week. It is said we are helping the breadwinners, but in many of these there was no breadwinner at all, and they were not able to earn any bread at all. I want to urge that you have the local authorities dealing with this very matter under the Poor Law, but only partly, because it is a case of "may," and not "shall," and I do not think that if you were going to spend the money which you are going to raise under this Bill in seeing that no child was brought up in bad physical conditions you would really save that money in the increased physique and health of these boys and girls who will become our men and women. Therefore, in spending the money in this way, you are leaving out of account altogether this great mass of poverty and destitution which is the main cause of sickness and bad health, and, in my opinion, you are wasting the money. It may be argued "Yes, but we are looking after the man and keeping the bread-winner going." I put it to the House that after all 10s. a

1419
week is not very much to keep a man going. In London the house landlord will see he gets a jolly good portion of that, I was going to say in spite, but not in spite, of the Clause which I understand is now to be redrafted. A man who even does get 10s., it may in a certain way keep him going; but there are multitudes where there is no male bread-winner at all. A number of these children are left as children of widows. For these there is absolutely no provision in this Bill at all, and they are being left out, as you are leaving out other large masses of people whom everyone knows who has investigated the subject, need most help. When I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking, I am, like everyone else, carried away by him. I think that a new heaven and a new earth has dawned, but when I come down to the cold reading of the Bill, that is another tale. I wake up in the morning, and then I am quite certain his delightful vision of lifting the load from those who are carrying it is after all only a vision, and does not promise to have any real or early effect for these children and widows.
Here, again, I invite the Members of this House to consider the Poor Law Commission. I do not want them to consider the Report, let them leave aside the whole eighteen of us, but let them read the evidence of that Commission and the evidence of the investigators, and they will find that the children who are orphans, sometimes without fathers, and sometimes without mothers also, are the children who grow up and form the large mass of men and women who are called physically unfit in the community. You are talking about this Bill as if it were a Bill for dealing with these orphans. It does not touch them one iota. If you had a National Health Service tacked on to the present health service these children would get treatment, and we should get some real value for the money we are going to spend. There is another point with regard to the contributory scheme, and that is the point of view of unemployment. Everyone who has spoken on this subject has admitted that it is not the fault of the individual man or the individual employer that men and women are out of employment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that we must look forward to the time when the boom in trade will have spent itself and the lean years will have come. Everyone knows that these lean years are not the fault of the individual. We are thinking of people being
1420
out of work in bad times. I say to this Committee, there are men and women out of work by the thousand even in good times, and yet you talk to us as if we have to wait for unemployment until trade is bad. That really shows no appreciation of the facts. The scheme takes hold of a man who is a casual labourer, and says, "You must insure yourself against unemployment." One hon. Member opposite put the case of this class in a way which I think was very admirable. These men will have their money docked whenever they are at work, but I think that many of them would never be out of work sufficiently to get any benefit at all, they will work one or two days a week, or perhaps three days, and they will get their 6½d. docked, but they will not be out of work long enough to come on the fund, I contend that the State has no right to impose upon the victims of our society the responsibility for paying for the cure of those evils which they are not responsible for.
I hear sometimes in the House—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of his speeches said, that he wanted to get at the casual because he really wanted to find out the people who would not work. A sort of uneasy feeling occasionally goes through this place that there are people who really will not work, and that in the main they are amongst the casual labourers. I have lived most of my life amongst these men, and they are as industrious a class as any in the whole community. Many of them are men who have walked mile after mile for the purpose of getting work; and here they are, to be tumbled into What is called a Post Office Deposit scheme. Here, again, I would point out that the money you are going to provide does not provide insurance for all that large mass of men and women. It does not insure them at all. It simply says: We will save up so much money, and we will take first of all so much to pay for medical attendance, so much for sanatoria, and so much for working expenses. What is left we will earmark in case you are ill or need maternity benefits.
You do not require to be able to do a very big sum to realise that a man, even if he is lucky and puts in his fifty-two weeks right off, will have standing to his credit quite a trumpery sum. Remember, that has got to insure himself against both unemployment and against sickness. I contend that that 6½d., if it is deducted, will not insure him against both sickness and unemployment. You are going to rob these people of the

1421
real necessaries of life. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) quoted the case of Blackburn. But here in London at this present moment there are between 40,000 and 50,000 children who are being fed at the public expense. Of my own knowledge I know that each of these cases is investigated, and in all kinds of ways looked into, to find out whether the parent can afford to pay. I know that attempts were made to get the money, and the amount that we got was quite trumpery. Yet what is the reason of that? That the parents of these children are not able to provide them with the means of livelihood. The main reason is that where there are men they are unemployed. You may say that the men who get a day's work now and again most of them these casual labourers, and you are going to deduct the 6½d. from each two or three days' or week's work. It means that their children will not merely have to come for their dinners, but for their breakfasts and teas as well. That is in this Metropolis, in this greatest city in the whole world? I put against the Chancellor's scheme the scheme that was formulated after the issue of the Poor Law Commission's report on unemployment, as something that this nation itself ought to deal with, just as it deals with the public health. We ought to deal with unemployment out of national funds, and in such a way as to secure work for the men! not insurance, but work, when otherwise they are not able to obtain it.
I do not want merely to talk about insuring. After all, to go back, if our forefathers had thought only of insurance, we would now have been suffering from the plague, smallpox, and all other epidemics that they were heir to. But they set to work to prevent them, and we should set to work to use this money which is to be provided to prevent consumption, tuberculosis, rheumatism, bronchitis, and other diseases, so that we may enable the people to live in healthy surroundings. The money ought to be spent to prevent these conditions, and we are going to insure against the results of them! Instead of insuring against unemployment of this kind, what we ought to be doing is organising some national scheme whereby every man and women who is able and willing to work should have the opportunity of doing so. This manner of spending our money is the most expensive way. When I remember that this is the money Which the workers have earned I object to it being spent in this way, and I at least
1422
am going to vote against the Money Resolution this evening, because I believe, first, that instead of insurance we ought to prevent; and secondly, because I believe that you are putting a burden upon the very poorest people in the community, these Post Office Contributors, who are not going to get anything of real worth for the money they pay.
Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think that everybody will agree that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made out a very good case against the Post Office contributors' scheme under this Bill. I do think that it is very important indeed to try to clearly understand what the State is actually contributing per week under this scheme in regard to every insured person, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has led us to believe that it is 2d. It is not really 2d. at all. The Government actuaries (on page 23, paragraph 73) show quite clearly that persons entering the scheme at the age of sixteen will be contributing about 12 per cent. over and above what is required to meet the proportion of minimum benefits they have got to pay for, that proportion being seven-ninths benefits in the case of men, and three-fourths benefits in the case of women. But that is not all. In this calculation of minimum benefits the Government actuaries have included one and five-ninths of a penny in each weekly contribution of 7d in the case of men, and 1½d in each weekly contribution of 6d. in respect of women, these fractions, as hon. Members know, being kept and invested by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of reserves for the next fifteen or sixteen years.
The actual weekly equivalent which is to be paid by persons entering the scheme at sixteen to meet the seven-ninths minimum benefit actually paid out is therefore not 7d. in the case of men and 6d. in the case of women, but those sums, minus the 12 per cent. margin—to which I have referred—minus one and five-ninths of a penny in the case of men, and l½d. in the case of women. That makes it a very different story from the one which we have had on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of 7d. and 6d. in regard to men and women respectively, it is only about 4¾d. and 3¾d. respectively. These are the weekly sums requisite for a seven-ninths minimum benefit in respect of men and a three-fourths minimum benefit in regard to women. The State now comes in and

1423
pays two-ninths of these minimum benefits in the case of men and one-fourth in the case of women; that is to say it contributes two-sevenths of 4¾d. in the case of men and one-third of 3¾d. in the case of women. What does that amount to? Not to 2d. but to about 1½d. in the case of men and women for the first few years, and even fifteen years hence it only reaches the sum of about 1¾d. Surely it would be better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really made it clear—for instance at Birmingham the other day—that the working man is paying 4d. per week and that the State contribution is only about l½d. Would not it have been better if he had explained that he was making the working classes lay aside a large reserve for the next fifteen years, and that the State itself is laying by no reserve at all, in order to save expense, thus throwing a very heavy burden upon the future taxpayers of this country?
The reason why I think it very important indeed that the State should contribute 2d. is this. The reserve value required to support seven-ninths of the benefits are shown by the report of the Government actuaries to be £60,000,000. It therefore follows that to support two-ninths of the benefits provided by the Government there ought to be £18,000,000 of reserve value set up. That is to say, the Government ought to pay a contribution of 2d. per week, of which four-ninths of a penny should go to build up the £18,000,000 of initial reserve leaving one and five-ninths for meeting current benefits and any further little accumulations that may be required in respect of Government liability. If the Government do not do this the effect will be after fifteen and a-half years that the Government will have an accumulated deficiency, never having provided for it of about £30,000,000 sterling; that is the original £18,000,000 deficiency with compound interest at 3 per cent. It is quite clear that the need for these reserves will then begin to be felt very sensibly indeed, and for this reason two-ninths of the minimum benefits will be a very different thing in fifteen or twenty years from two-ninths of the benefits at the present day or a year or two hence. At the very moment when the Government are feeling the pressure of the additional cost for minimum benefits in consequence of never having set up reserves it will be called upon to take upon its shoulders the
1424
further liability of two-ninths of the large mass of additional benefits which will have to be provided when the contributors to the scheme have made up their reserve of £60,000,000 sterling.
As hon. Members know, in fifteen and a-half years, instead of getting the benefits supposed to be represented now by the five and four-ninths of a penny the contributors will get the benefits represented by the full 7d. or 6d. as the case may be. And the Government will therefore have to provide two-ninths of whatever extra benefit is thus secured to contributors. It is estimated by the Government actuaries that in the year 1927–8 the liabilities of the Government will be £5,500,000 sterling. Why did not the Government actuaries go a little further and set out what the cost to the Government would be in the following year, 1928–9, and perhaps for a year or two after. In 1927–8 the cost to the Government will be about £5,500,000 sterling, but in the year 1928–29 it will be at least £7,500,000 sterling. And there is another reason of importance to my mind why the Government should pay the additional contribution of 2d., and that reason is the very great increase in sickness during the last few years.
9.0 P.M.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government actuaries have made use of the Manchester Unity sickness experience compiled by Mr. Watson, a very eminent actuary. On page 15 of their report, paragraph 38, the Government actuaries say there has not been any very material change in the rates of sickness prevailing in the Manchester Unity since the year 1897. It is true at that time Mr. Watson's report on the eighth valuation of the Manchester Unity was written, in respect of the years to which the eighth valuation referred chiefly 1900, 1906. Since then there has been, unfortunately, a marked change for the worse. Between 1900 and 1906 the average payment per head for sickness in the Manchester Unity was 18s. 6d. It rose to £l 0s. 4d. in 1907, it reached £l 0s. 6d. in 1909, and there are as yet no figures for 1910. Take now the experience of the Ancient Order of Foresters, which has a similar. In 1900 the sickness rate for the Foresters was a little over thirteen days per annum. It has increased ever since, and was over seventeen days per annum last year. As hon. Members know, these two are the largest affiliated orders in the United Kingdom. In the Hearts of Oak they

1425
have the same sort of experience. If you take the relations of actual sickness cost to the expectation of the Manchester Unity standard tables, we find in case of ages under seventy that between 1901 and 1905 it was 100 per cent. of the expected sickness, and between 1906 and 1910 it was 110 per cent.
The Stoke and Melford Union Association, which is a purely agricultural society of almost 2,000 members, experienced the following relations to the Manchester Unity standard. Between 1900 and 1904 the sickness cost was 82 per cent. of the expected. Between 1905 and 1909 it was 96 per cent. The largest county society, the Hampshire and General, with a membership largely agricultural, shows the following relation to the Manchester Unity standard. Between 1900 and 1904 sickness cost 81 per cent., and between 1905 and 1909 it cost 86 per cent. Thus hon. Members will see that the rate of sickness has universally risen, and it is perfectly clear, I think, to anybody who considers it, that the margin of 11 per cent. allowed for in the actuaries' report will be practically destroyed in the very near future. For these reasons I think it is most important that the Financial Resolution should be most carefully considered, and I think it is the duty of everybody to try and persuade the Government to look into it, and to add to the Government contribution if possible.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: I only want to touch upon one phase of this discussion, and that is the question as between a non-contributory and a contributory scheme. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley spoke for the United Labour party. I expect that is not so, because I should be greatly surprised to find that any considerable portion of the Labour party associated themselves with the particular point of view which both those hon. Members put forward. As the hon. Member for Blackburn admitted, the whole purpose and intention, as well as effect, I understand, of his speech was that the whole contribution should come from the State, which would mean the absolute elimination of the friendly societies. The hon. Member for Blackburn desires to absolutely wipe out the whole of the friendly society system, and the trades union friendly society branches, and for that reason I quite understand the bulk of the Labour party could not associate themselves with the position he has taken up.
Mr. LANSBURY: I happen to be a trustee of the biggest unskilled union in the country, and I have been asked specifically to oppose a contributory scheme.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: If you are asking for a State scheme, and for the bulk of the contribution to come from the State you are asking for a system of administration exactly opposite to the administration of the particular scheme under this Bill. And it is that we have to face in this particular discussion, and it is upon that we have to vote if there is to be a division. I observe that when the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) was making his points, a considerable number of Conservative Members seemed to punctuate them with applause as if they agreed with them I think it would be interesting to put on record that the mass of the Conservative party in this House have associated themselves with a point of view that means the elimination and wiping out of the friendly society method of administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am glad to have that denial, because by their cheers they conveyed a totally different impression. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the very serious importance of realising the importance of the amount of contribution as between the State employer and the workman from the point of view of administration. You cannot separate at all the question of the proportions of payment from the method of administration. The view put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn suggests a system of central administration whereas the system of the Bill sets up a common fund administering through the local friendly societies.
Mr. LANSBURY: I did not suggest a centralised administration. What I advocated was a public system.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: I accept what the hon. Member says as to a public system. The difficulty you have got in a public service is that you are not able to administer money with anything like the economy which friendly societies have been able to achieve. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) took as his parallel infectious diseases, but they are not parallel at all. There is a type of sickness known as malingering, the symptoms of which it is very often difficult to diagnose. We have to face the difficulty of the malingerer. The working men who have been administering sick funds and

1427
working the committees of friendly societies often complain of the little help they are able to get from medical practitioners in reference to malingerers. It is obvious to every hon. Member of the Committee that where you have got a village remote from any great centre, scattered along the hillsides, and you have the mass of the population interested in getting as much as they can out of the public fund which they look upon as some mysterious chest, the main source and, in fact, the ultimate source of which is somewhere here in London. This affords a temptation and a general conspiracy, not openly expressed, but yet an implicit conspiracy for everybody to try and help everybody else to get as much as they can get out of the State.
The essence of the friendly society system is that the working men themselves, through the local committee in the village, have got a direct personal financial interest to see that there is nobody unfairly utilising the funds, because the more economically they can be administered the greater will be the benefits to the members in general. I have a considerable knowledge of the work of members of friendly societies in my district, and I know how very economically they administer their funds and I know how ruthless sometimes the sick visitors are. I remember many examples during the great revival we had in Wales ten years ago. I remember at one meeting one poor fellow rushing out upon the stroke of eight o'clock. When asked on the following day what was the matter with him he said, "My time was up, and there was a sick visitor sitting in the deacon's seat." I can give an example to illustrate that the whole principle of the Bill lies in the proportion of the contribution.
I will mention a case given to me by one of the deacons concerning a member of one of the friendly societies. It is an extreme case, but it illustrates the efficiency with which these working people have administered these funds, and will continue to administer them under the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the case of a man seen on the Monday night staggering along the road, and he was eventually found in the gutter helpless and had to be taken home and put to bed. He has been ill now for two years, laid up with locomotor paralysis. The friendly society to which he belonged received a report from the people who saw the man and who said he was drunk and that that had brought his illness about. They said it
1428
was his own fault, and they cut him off and refused to allow him one halfpenny out of their funds. The doctor appeared before that small local committee, and he told them that the staggering was due to a symptom of the disease and that caused him to be in the gutter, and this medical man contradicted the idea that it was possible that the man could have brought on this illness through drink. But the committee would not listen to him. One of the sick visitors had seen the man enter a club at an earlier hour of the evening, and although for two years that doctor has coaxed them, it has been no use. I give that to the House as an illustration of what is going on in these villages.
With regard to these contributions and the system of administration which is proposed in the Bill, I think in the long run it will mean that the working men will get value for the money they will have to contribute. I agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for Blackburn that the bulk of it all will eventually come back to the working men, and it is because I agree with that principle that I am anxious working men should not be allowed to adopt a wasteful system of administration. With regard to the employers' contribution we have heard several arguments about the financial injustice of this contribution from the employer. From the point of view I am taking of the administration of the funds I think the contribution made by the employer is again another incentive to economy. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also agrees with him, that it is practically equivalent to a type of Income Tax. You might have got a contribution from the employers by means of the Income Tax. I sympathise with those people who think that the incidence of these contributions made by one employer as compared with another might be fairer under a system of Income Tax, but the method of getting employers' contributions through the Income Tax would not contribute to an economical and effective administration of the money anything like so efficient as the method which has been adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Let me explain that point. Take the case of a village where the population is compact, where everybody knows everybody else. Assume there is there an employer with a hundred workmen. I might take a bigger figure than that, and the only effect would be that it would apply

1429
more drastically. Let us assume that out of those 100 workmen there are ten who are fond of being sick and of going on the funds at every opportunity because of the chance the leisure may give them to drink or to dissipate themselves in one way or another. As a matter of fact, I do not think the actual malingering among workmen is as much as in other classes of the community. Surely it is to the interests of the employer to see that the bulk of the benefits go to the ninety workmen who are hard-working, regular, and honest in their employment, and as little as possible to the small percentage who may not be so industrious or so regular as the majority. The very fact the employer has a local financial interest in seeing the funds are well administered and there is no sponging upon them is a great argument in favour of keeping the employers' contribution. I wanted to call the attention of the House and to put it clearly upon record what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) proposes.
The friendly society movement is the most astounding social phenomena in this country in the last hundred years. The friendly society movement was not invented under the guidance of Parliament or of the professors in our universities, or of the professors of economy, or of any body of that sort. It has been built from the bottom, from the very bottom of all. The workmen received practically no assistance. They have built up the movement from their own knowledge and by their own capacity and out of a sense of fairness and of justice one to another. That, and that alone, has built up this great friendly society movement, and I was very glad to get a denial from the Labour party that they were in any sense whatever disparaging this great movement. The capacity of the workmen has been revealed in the friendly society movement in the past. They had no guidance from official actuaries, such as we propose to give them now, and they had no guidance from Parliament or from speeches, either in their constituencies or anywhere else. That fact is the finest guarantee this House could possibly get, and it is the one and only guarantee to which they must look, that there will be no malingering, but that there will be the efficient and economical administration so as to ensure to the men who deserve it and to their wives and children the full value of any benefit the State confers upon them or for which they themselves contribute.
Mr. COOPER: I think I shall be able to satisfy the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) as to where I, at any rate—and I think I shall be supported by my hon. Friends on this side of the House—agree with the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). The main principles enunciated by him, and with which I absolutely associate myself, are summed up in one of those unkind, but very truthful remarks he directed to the Government yesterday:—
"We are witnessing just now a very great upheaval among workmen 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."
I am glad to see this rift in this particular matter between the direct representative of large bodies of working people of this country, because it has been urged by people from one end of the country to another, and from these Benches over and over again, that the indecent haste with which the Government are thrusting this Bill on the House and on the country is not in the very best interests of the working men, the employers, or the State. The fact that there are two separate opinions on this question among the direct representatives of large bodies of working people is the clearest evidence that this financial question is not thoroughly understood by the working people of this country. Let us go one step further. I believe I am right in saying that for the first time in history this House is tampering, and I might almost say juggling, with the slender incomes of the masses of the people of this country. I ask if a Bill of such far-reaching effect, of such magnitude, and of such importance above all to the working people of this country ought to be thrust upon us as it has been when there is so much at stake for the people and especially for the working people. If there is one thing more than another which would entitle us to go into the Lobby and vote against this Resolution, as I personally intend to do, it is that we are going to be precluded from discussing many matters of interest, not to those landlords of whom the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) spoke, but to the working people, the trade unions, the friendly societies, and the other vested interests throughout the country. We are being "kangarood" and closured, and it is a marvel to me party politics can have such an effect as to drive Members like a lot of blind sheep into the Division lobby to support a Govern-

1431
ment and keep them in power against the interests of the working people themselves. One other point which exercised the great part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was the power of the working people to bear the strain of these additional burdens, and the question where the money is to come from. He has only got to come over to this side of the House, and we will very soon tell him where the money is to come from.
I should like to make one or two brief observations on the effect of the financial Clauses of the Bill on different sections of the people. There is one fundamental mistake which I challenge anyone on the Front Bench to contradict. There is a fundamental fallacy in the Bill from a financial point of view, inasmuch as it has failed to follow the German scheme in the very first point it should have done so. It is trying to make a flat rate cover unequal risks. I believe hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House realise that mistake. A good deal has been said as to the burden that this Bill will put upon industry. I do not want to labour that aspect of the question, beyond pointing out that in many cases it is going to be such a burden, because you are not asking employers of labour in the country to pay in proportion to their ability to pay. You have, roughly speaking, three classes to deal with; you have people not far from this building, who probably do not employ more than half a dozen clerks, and yet make a profit of £10,000 a year. They are generally merchants dealing in foreign goods. Secondly you have to deal with a certain class of business, and I could put forward a very powerful illustration of that class in the case of a big firm in my own Constituency employing 3,000 people, mostly women. That business has not paid a dividend for two years, and I know there is a great anxiety as to what is going to happen in the future to that business, as, under this Bill, they will be called upon to pay over £2,000 per annum I think it is not an unfair suggestion to make that it only wants a burden of this nature in a business of this kind, which, after the most careful investigation, can be shown to be unable to bear such a burden, to indicate at any rate some of the disadvantages that are going to arise when this Bill becomes law.
I would ask the House what benefit are you going to give in this particular case to the working people in my own Constituency. It is quite conceivable that, as a
1432
result of the passing of this measure, 3,000 people may be sent from one factory alone on to the unemployed labour market. Of the third class of people affected the City of Sheffield probably furnishes one of the best illustrations. There you have a large number of little shops producing, it may be, metal ware for saddlery or locks and chains. They are owned mostly by men who have risen from the working classes, and who employ perhaps six, eight, or ten workpeople, and, in some cases, the best paid of the workpeople have a bigger income than the owner of the little business himself. There are indeed many of these little businesses employing from five to twenty people, the owners of which do not get a clear income of £80 a year. I take it that a larger number of cases of this nature may be found in most of our industrial towns throughout the country, amongst people who do not pay Income Tax. I submit that the method by which the finances of this Bill are raised from the employers will fall very hardly on many of them, and will, in fact, wipe some of them absolutely out of existence. It has been suggested by the Member for Blackburn, and indeed in speeches outside this House that employers of labour can meet this burden by putting up their prices. If any hon. Member can tell me how I can. put up the prices of the goods I am selling I will pay him well for it.
Mr. LANSBURY: Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, of Birmingham, said that very same thing the other day.
Mr. COOPER: And the hon. Member for Blackburn has made the same remark tonight. I do not think there can be much difference between us. Employers of labour, however, are not such fools as has been suggested, as if it is possible to put up prices they surely would have done it years ago. The next point I wish to deal with is the effect on the working classes themselves. One of the great sores of the working people in this country is to be found in the tremendous number who are earning a low rate of wage which is insufficient to provide the absolute necessaries of life. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) will not perhaps have forgotten a very interesting article he wrote for the "Daily News" last March, which showed that the cost of living to the people of this country had increased 15 per cent. since the year 1899, and an increase of wages was required to bring the working classes up to the posi-

1433
tion in which they were ten years ago. The hon. Member for Blackburn, in September, 1909, in a discussion on the Budget, pointed out that the working classes would have to pay a sum of £7 12s. 6d. per family, and I would remind the House that, as he then stated, there are 2,000,000 families in this country, representing 10,000,000 souls, whose income is under £l per week, whereas, according to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, 25s. 6d. per week is required for the provision of the bare necessaries of life. Bearing in mind the extraordinary speeches which emanated from the benches opposite yesterday, and which went to show that the Bill was something very much worse than was at first supposed, and bearing in mind, too, the fact that the people of the country do not understand the Bill and that the Labour Members themselves have not yet got hold of it—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I have been very lenient to the hon. Member, but he seems to get wider and wider afield. After all, the question before the Committee is whether or not the State shall contribute two-ninths.
Mr. COOPER: I am very much obliged to you, Sir. I will only say this, in conclusion, with regard to the financial aspect of this Bill: I take a very serious view of the proposals of the Government and of the provision they have made to meet their liabilities under the measure. I disapprove of those proposals. I disapprove altogether of the financial aspect of the scheme, and, should this Motion be taken to a Division, I intend personally to give my vote against the Bill.
Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I sympathise, to a large extent, with the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) on social matters, Taut I cannot say I fully understand the economic position he takes up with regard to the financial provisions of this Bill. I understand his view is that in a scheme of this sort the State should bear the whole cost. I am quite sure his last desire would be to turn the working people of this country into State paupers. That is really what is the meaning of having a scheme of this sort contributed entirely by the State. I think the working classes of this country, like every other class, desire to be independent, and wish to pay a fair share for what they receive. I speak for a constituency which has a large proportion of the working classes. I have spoken to them many times on this ques-
1434
tion of insurance, and I have advocated the idea that they should pay some portion of the cost of the scheme, and I have not heard one word of dissent.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Last week the trades council in the constituency represented by the hon. Member unanimously passed a resolution condemning the contributory part of this scheme.
Mr. L. HASLAM: I made no allusion whatever to what the trades council said. I said I myself had addressed audiences of working men in that constituency, and they themselves raised no objection, but indeed were gratified at the view that they should take a part in this great measure. I have had to do with working people all my life, and I believe they are only too anxious to pay what is their fair share towards any expense of this kind in every way. And if we start by saying that the cost is to be paid entirely out of the public purse, where are you going to stop? The next thing you will say is that the whole of the housing of the working classes should come out of the public purse. It is a dangerous principle, and I do not think the hon. Member really saw the effect of his views if carried to a logical conclusion. Then he left out of his speech one of the most important features, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to, and that is that this Bill makes for efficiency. It makes for the efficiency of the workman. Therefore, it is a Bill which, if carried into law, will benefit both employer, employed and the State. The whole body politic will be better off after the measure is passed. With regard to increasing the financial responsibilities, let us look at Germany. In Germany the State pays nothing at all towards temporary sickness. We propose to pay a very large amount. In Germany they pay one-third of the expenses towards permanent invalidity. In this Bill we pay a large proportion to sick benefit. The last speaker alluded to some poor employers in Sheffield who employ ten workpeople, who are going to be very badly off on account of this measure. These employers of ten workpeople, as I understand the Bill, would have to pay half a crown a week towards their insurance. It is beyond reason to believe that such an amount would ruin any employer. I have looked forward to a measure of this sort practically all my life since I have taken any interest in politics. Although at first I felt that the proper way of approaching this was by the

1435
German method of insuring only under the State against permanent invalidity, I have come to the conclusion that the scheme advocated and promoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which the friendly societies will be able to voluntarily take in those members as they have done in the past.
Sir F. BANBURY: I rise to a point of Order. I was under the impression that we were discussing the Financial Resolution, whereas the speech of the hon. Member has been directed entirely as to whether or not the Bill was a good or a bad one.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Baronet had not been more pleasantly occupied he would have heard the Debate develop on to the question of whether the State should contribute the whole or not, a question which I cannot say is out of order on the Financial Resolution, and I understood the hon. Member's speech to be in order as replying to certain arguments put forward, when the hon. Baronet was not in the House, in favour of a non-contributory system, and therefore of the elimination of the friendly societies.
Mr. L. HASLAM: The friendly societies will in the future have the advantage of State aid. Then there is a provision which I have not looked forward to, that as the Post Office scheme, by which a workman who pays 4d. into his account will, if he becomes sick, receive about ninepenny-worth of benefit. It is, therefore, compulsory Providence, but it is compulsory Providence by which a man gets over 100 per cent. per annum for his money, and therefore it is helping the weak—those who are better off will help those who are worse off, so that they may have some advantage, at any rate, so long as the funds last, which will be of great benefit in case of sickness. It is quite possible that some Amendment will be proposed with regard to that which will improve the position of these people. I believe very strongly that it is highly important that we as a nation should try to make the people of this country independent, each one doing his own duty and paying his share of the expense which is necessary to maintain the country's welfare.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want to call attention to the words of the Resolution, which seem to me to be unnecessarily restricted in their effect. The authority we are asked to give is "to
1436
authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding two-ninths of the benefits." It is quite true that the specific amount that is to be voted is not put in the Resolution, but whenever we come to consider the scheme in the later part of the Bill we shall be brought face to face with the financial Resolution, and we shall be pulled up at every turn for exceeding it the moment we begin to propose any additional benefit for the deposit contributors class, which the last speaker seemed to think was beneficial to the poor unfortunates who were driven into it. I have on the Paper a scheme which will provide a real insurance for those who would otherwise be deposit contributors. It is quite true that the benefits will be low, and it might have been necessary to ask the State to make a slightly larger grant. But even if I got the scheme worked out as to benefits, so that I was not, in fact, asking the State to give any more to that class than they are willing to give to the members of approved societies, yet the particular form of this Resolution will prevent me from proceeding with that scheme. Although for the reduced benefits it would be necessary for my purpose to increase the grant or the subsidy from two-ninths to possibly one-third, yet the money charged on the State might not be increased, because if the benefits were lower the cost might not be greater than the two-ninths proposed for members of friendly societies. The form, therefore, of this Resolution will prevent a large number of alterations on the Bill. Acting bonâ fide in answer to the invitation of the Government to endeavour to make this Bill into a complete scheme, we have taken an immense amount of trouble to prepare Amendments which we think will improve the scheme, and then the Government come down and propose a resolution which they know must shut out a large number of the Amendments.
We have references from time to time to Germany. It should be observed that in Germany there are no deposit contributors. That is a blot on this Bill which will exist so long as deposit contributors remain. I am afraid it will be impossible to remove that blot unless this Resolution is altered in shape. If the Government would make good the statement they are constantly making, we would have money to make good the deficiency of this scheme. We have this afternoon heard hon. Members, led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, talking about the 2d. con-

1437
tribution of the State. They said over and over again that the State is giving a contribution of 2d. a week to the benefits. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is directly responsible for the statement. I do not mind him in this House using 2d. as the equivalent for two-ninths, but in the country the statement is not understood. In a book called "The People's Insurance," explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, page 138 I think, it is actually stated in so many words that the State is giving 2d. per week to the male and female workers earning over 2s. 6d. If they really were giving 2d. there would be plenty of money for the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is followed in this matter by the Liberal Publication Department. In leaflet 2,381 it is stated that the contribution by the State is 2d. The actual facts are far from showing that the contribution will be 2d. In 1912–13 it will be about 0¾d., a total of under £2,000,000. If it were 2d. it would be necessary for the State to find £5,500,000. In 1917–18 the contribution, instead of being 2d. is l½d., and the total of that about £4,500,000, whereas at 2d. it would be £6,000,000. These are the estimates of the actuaries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to questions put to him yesterday, said it starts with 0¾d. and up to 1927 the so-called 2d. does not amount to more than 1½d. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury showed what the future effect of this would be to any Government that succeeds this Government. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make good his statement. He says he is giving 2d. from the State, and I want him to make that statement good in the Bill, or at least to correct the statement. If 2d. were given, deposit contributors might have what a second leaflet says they are to have, the "dawn of hope." The Chancellor of the Exchequer is pictured sitting at the bedside, holding the hand of a sick man. That picture has been repeated at Hull. It has grown from the "dawn of hope" to "sunshine for the worker." The electors are told in the Hull leaflet that the Tory party tried to gull the electors with all sorts of promises.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this line of argument on the Money Resolution.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will not pursue it. I was tempted out. of the strict course of financial rectitude, but I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to at least correct a statement which will be
1438
misunderstood by the public unless it is corrected, or else to make good his words so that we could co-operate with him in making the Bill what we wish it to be—a good and complete system of insurance. I called attention to the leaflets, because I think we should not be asked across the floor of the House to co-operate with those who are usually our opponents while they make use of such leaflets against us in elections.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and I hope that hon. Members on neither side are going to make political capital out of this legislation. We were all united on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I want to thank the Government for framing this Financial Resolution in what appears at first sight to be fairly and strictly in accordance with what they propose in. their Bill. In all social reform legislation it is for the Government of the day, to whatever party they belong, to form their financial decisions as to how much they feel justified in asking the House and the country to grant. It is no part either of the official Opposition or of free lances to try, by proposing to extend the benefits, to put the rank and file of the supporters of the Government in the wrong path, so to speak, through having to vote against extended forms of relief which they would like to support, but which would defeat the object, having regard to the design of the Bill and the hope they have of getting a practical measure adopted.
We have seen something of it in past years. I am not speaking from a party point of view, because Amendments are proposed on the Government side as well as the Opposition side to compel the rank and file, the supporters of the Government in a measure of this sort, to vote against extensions such as the removal of the pauper disqualification, thereby exposing themselves in their Constituencies to charges of having voted against benefits-which they would like to see added had they considered them to be practicable. I consider that these financial Resolutions are so framed as to confine the limits of this Debate in Committee largely on the principle that the House has adopted in the past by its rule which prevents private Members from proposing taxation and which limits large proposals of this sort to Ministers of the day. I wish to thank the Government for having thus limited the financial provisions in this way. I am sorry if the hon. Member who has last

1439
spoken feels that many of his pet schemes are cut out by the Resolution, but at the same time, in the interests of what he has urged, the absence of party capital or individual capital being made out of these Debates, he must recognise that on the whole a strictly financial Resolution like this is beneficial. It is quite easy for hon. Members on either side of the House to propose an Amendment getting the credit with their Constituents for having fought it.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My complaint was not that we were not able to ask for bigger benefits, but that the tight form of the Resolution would prevent any alteration of the allocations of the benefits, even though it did not create any greater charge on the Exchequer.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: I did not quite grasp the hon. Member's meaning, but I think my argument equally applies in a measure of this sort, a well-thought-out measure, as we believe it to be. The Government have undertaken the responsibility of producing this measure and limiting the discussion on the lines of the Resolution, and it is in the interests of fair play all round that these Resolutions have been framed as they have been framed.
Mr. FORSTER: I do not at all sympathise with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I have resolved as far as I possibly could to keep silence on this Bill. My object is not to waste time in making speeches but if possible to suggest improvements and to see as far as I can that improvements are effected. But I do feel impelled to make some few observations to-night, not with reference to the whole scheme of finance so much as to the particular form in which the Financial Resolution finds shape. If my hon. Friend opposite is glad that the Resolution takes this shape I am sorry for the same reason that he is glad. He professes to be glad that the Resolution is drawn thus strictly in order to avoid any of those occasions of party controversy and party strife.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: I conceive it possible that Amendments might come from individual Members on both sides of the House which would cause a body of supporters as a whole to vote against it.
Mr. FORSTER: That it would prevent party controversy, that is what I said. I say that the Resolution being drawn in
1440
this particular way makes it difficult for us to prevent the opposition from considering the financial scheme from any but a party point of view. If I wanted anything else to impel a hot partisan like myself to take a party point of view I should find it in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from a debate at which I should have thought he would make a point of being present. I am not going to say anything on the finances of the scheme as a whole. I hope that in spite of the language in which the Resolution is cast we shall have some opportunity at any rate of making suggestions for financial amendment and proposals in future. But I do protest most emphatically that the effect of the strictness with which this Resolution is framed acts as a most effective gag upon Amendments which we desire to move. We were told before we approached the Committee stage of this Bill that we were going to be called upon to undertake it under the strict application of the guillotine Resolution. I am glad to think that the Government thought twice about that proposal, and finally abandoned it. But I believe that the strictness with which they have drawn this Resolution has acted as an even more potent instrument in the curtailment of debate than any Resolution which they could put on the Paper. This Resolution will shut out. a great many Amendments which Members on this side of the House, and I quite believe Members on the other side desire to suggest, Amendments moved not with the object of wrecking the Bill, but solely with the object of improving it.
I might refer to the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Blackburn in his most interesting speech on this Motion, the Amendment suggested by the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Locker-Lamp-son) and other Members of this House. We desire some sort of freedom to suggest possibly a slight increase in the Government grant, the State contribution, and certainly a redistribution of it in the case of low wage earners, and in the case of agricultural labourers. By your Resolution as drawn, those Amendments will be shut out. We desire to suggest an alteration of the distribution of the financial burden in certain parts of the Bill, but those Amendments would be shut out. We find ourselves confronted with an indirect method of limiting discussion, such as this Resolution fairly amounts to, and there is inflicted upon us treatment which

1441
we have not deserved in limiting us to reservations and limitations which we have not fairly earned. I approached the consideration of this Bill, ever since I heard the introductory speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a spirit of unfeigned friendship. I disagree in a considerable number of details, but my one anxiety has been to improve any defects that I find in it, while adhering to the general method it seeks to carry out.
I know that some of my hon. Friends who sit behind me think that I have approached the consideration of this measure in an unduly friendly spirit. I do not think so myself. I can say honestly that such measure of friendship I have felt for it from the first has not been the outcome of emotional enthusiasm, but the result of some study of the problem and a genuine desire to effect some improvement in the lives of my fellow countrymen. I say it is at any rate trying to the patience, if not to the temper, to find one's opportunities limited and hampered and one's hands tied and one's mouth shut by the indirect method of closure which the Government seem fit to adopt. I have only to say this, in conclusion, that unless we are allowed some freedom of discussion, some opportunity for suggesting real improvements in the financial burdens imposed in the distribution of the money, unless we are given in the future opportunities in the Committee stage of making these suggested improvements and amendments, then we decline to be any party whatever to the finance upon which your proposals are based, and we throw upon the Government opposite the whole responsibility for it.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am bound to confess that I must associate myself with at any rate a great deal of what the hon. Member opposite has said. I think it is a great pity indeed that this Financial Resolution has been drafted in this form. This Bill is not exactly what one would call a non-contentious Bill, but I think we may say quite fairly that it is one which has been approached from all sides of the House with a desire to improve it. We have our differences of opinion and our differences of point of view, but we all recognise that the Bill is an honest, promising contribution to an extremely important pressing social problem. Surely the Government ought to have met us fairly and in the frame of mind which we approached the Bill. The Government ought not to tie our hands
1442
and apply the closure in an indirect way, as the hon. Gentleman opposite very truly said, as it is doing by the form of this Financial Resolution. I am in favour of a contributory scheme. I was not converted after this Bill was introduced. I was only the other day somewhat concerned for my own Constituency, and looked up an article I wrote fifteen years ago on this very subject, in which I discussed the problem of a contributory versus non-contributory scheme, and I was delighted to find that I was of the same-opinion then as I am now—that a contributory scheme is the soundest scheme and the best scheme from the economic point of view, and those of us who are consistent Socialists are bound to support it as opposed to a non-contributory scheme. That, however, is neither here nor there. Approaching the Bill with more agreement than some of my hon. Friends around me, I am still full of regret that the Government have by this Resolution made it difficult for us to readjust the proportions of the contributions from the three factors. I hope that the Government will reconsider the situation even after it has got this Resolution. It is not at all impossible for them to do so. As the Government saw fit to change its mind about the guillotine and benefited very much yesterday as a result of that change, I hope it will see fit to open its mind again in regard to the financial basis of this Bill, and to decline to hold the Committee bound by any ceremony of red tape, so that it can release the Committee from the red tape-whenever it has a mind to do so.
I have said I am in favour of a contributory scheme. That means I am in favour of insurance, for to talk about State Insurance without contribution is simply to talk nonsense. The very word "insurance" implies a contribution, not a gift not a grant, nor a dole, but a contribution proportionate to the risk which is covered by the insurance. We talk about the causes of poverty, but we must also consider the cures of poverty. There are certain ways of approaching the problem which makes it worse while we appear to-be curing it. Therefore we must have a clear idea in our mind not only why these people are poor and why we can speak of their ills, their grievances and their shortcomings, but how this House as a rational legislative body can lift them out of their poverty and enable them to live by the organisation of the State independent individual lives. Talking as I do for the Labour party, in supporting a contributory

1443
scheme I am bound to refer to a very remarkable conference which met in the Coronation week, representative of one of the largest gatherings of Trade Unionism that has ever been held in this country. That body by a very large majority decided to support the fundamental principles of this Bill. There are minorities. There are minorities in the party opposite. Every healthy party has got its minority. I hope that will always be. I hope the Labour Party will never be a party without a very vigorous, intelligent and active minority. So far as the majority voted for a contributory scheme it becomes the party decision and nobody in the Committee need have the least doubt but that the Labour Party stands for a contributory scheme so far as this Bill is concerned. Moreover, we are in favour of a contributory scheme with reference to sickness, whilst we were in favour of a non-contributory scheme in reference to old age pensions. I am surprised to find some publications criticising us in that because we were in favour of non-contributory old age pensions therefore we must be in favour of non-contributory sickness benefits. Of course there is no logic in that. That sort of logic does not exist except in some abstract world far remote from the earth we are in. Each one of the cases has to be adjudged on its merits, and the reason why we were in favour of old age pensions was because the contingency of the old age of seventy was so very remote that nobody who held our views could have suggested for a moment that it was an intelligent proposition to suggest that a man should insure himself against such a contingency. The fact of insurance must be determined by the nearness or possibility of the risk which is theoretical becoming a risk which is actual. The same is true with education and so on, not on the same ground, but on totally different grounds, so that the logic of the case, as a matter of fact, does not exist at all. But when we agree to the contributory basis, then the question arises, is the distribution fair. So far as I am concerned I do not think this contribution is fair. The distribution of two-ninths from the State and seven-ninths from the employers and workpeople, I think, is a very unfair distribution. I do not think that the distribution means that the State is going to do its duty under the circumstances. Why? Let me remind the Government of this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Bill, proposes to
1444
give very substantial benefits to those who are to become beneficiaries under the Bill. It is perfectly true that so far as those benefits are concerned the working class contributor is getting full value for his money. But then the difficulty in which the working class contributor is placed is this. If he was in a position to pay 4d. for sickness insurance, and having paid the 4d., to deal with the same fulness with all his other responsibilities that have to be placed upon his income, then it would be all right. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes and says to him, "I can only give you a certain scheme of benefits if you give me 4d." That scheme of benefits may be a necessary scheme, but it is out of proportion in its provisions to the way in which the man or the woman can clothe, feed, and house himself or herself, can look after the children, and can enjoy the little luxuries of life. See what the Chancellor is doing. He is abstracting one responsibility and one duty from the individual, and saying to the individual, "Whilst your income is wholly inadequate, I am going to adequately meet the one contingency in your experience." If a man's income was sufficiently large to enable him to meet all his contingencies, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be perfectly right, but until his income is sufficiently large, to expect him to meet all those contingencies as fully as the one contingency, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to impose upon him such a large percentage as 4d. He is running a grave risk, and I am sure he must recognise it, by making a person insure himself against sickness at the cost of his standard of life.
When a man is sick and receiving his benefit, then undoubtedly he is far better off under this Bill than he would be if there were no Bill at all. Whilst a man is not sick, and whilst a man is struggling and striving to make ends meet week in and week out, the proportion of 4d. taken from him compulsorily is too large a proportion in a great many instances to enable him to fulfil his other responsibilities with anything of the same adequacy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer compels him to fulfil with regard to his individual sickness. I saw a criticism the other day which was exaggerated and therefore I did not agree with it, but which, nevertheless, did indicate in some dramatic way the real weakness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's finance. The criticism was passed upon the ground that the Bill compelled poor people to

1445
Substitute drugs for food. That is very exceptional. Nevertheless, it does indicate that the mere question of drugs, the mere question of medical attendance, the mere question of sickness provision, have been abstracted from the general round of responsibility, and taken out of its true proportion, and to that extent is an injustice, and to that extent the State ought to have given far greater assistance than it proposes to give. But that is not all. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have approached this question from a different point of view from that which he has adopted. He ought, first of all, I think, to have catalogued what he proposes to do under this Bill, and then, having done that, he ought to have classified all the things he wanted to do with those which are personal and those which are social. If he does that now he will find that two-ninths for what he proposes to do is far too small a proportion for the social work that is going to be done under his Bill. Let me illustrate. He is going to start a system, which I hope will be efficient and well equipped, of experimental medicine. To charge the cost of a system and experimental medicine upon personal income is altogether wrong, because any system of experimental medicine which is going to be carried on on a proper scale must be a State system. You might just as well tell us that he should impose a personal charge upon us for London University or for Ox-ford or Cambridge. Experimental medicine must be organised by the State, must be staffed by the State, must be kept going by the State, and to impose one single brass farthing of the cost of the system upon individual insurance is a very wrong and a very unjust system. All that ought to have come from the State.
Then take the question of the Public Health Committee. If any hon. Member takes the Clauses of the Bill which refer to the responsibilities and duties of the Public Health Committee he will find again that they are nearly all social. Looking after the administration of the factory laws is one point dealt with, seeing that the general sickness of the locality does not go beyond a certain figure, seeing that the housing accommodation is sanitary, seeing that employers of labour are not working their labour under conditions which produce more than the average amount of sickness. The costs of such a committee and of such a service ought not to come out of an insurance fund at all. Those are State costs, just as much as the factory
1446
inspector at the present moment is a State charge, and ought always to remain a State charge. The whole cost of the administration of public health should be a communal charge, and not imposed upon individuals, or any class or any section of individuals. Take the question of sanatoria. Tuberculosis sanatoria is again exactly that kind of thing for which the community as a community should make itself responsible. It is no good to the individual man and individual woman, particularly if his or her wages are inadequate, saying to him we are going to compel you to insure yourself against consumption, we are going to compel you to pay out of your pocket the cost of running sanatoria, or at any rate part of the cost, because, as a matter of fact, just in precisely the same way as the cost of eliminating a severe infectious disease like small-pox has been regarded by every enlightened public-spirited citizen as being a public charge, necessarily a public charge, so the cost of eliminating consumption ought to be considered a public charge and in no sense a private one expressive of private responsibility. Or take the class that appear to be very personal, or which, to a very large extent, are personal, and which, because they are personal, give me more ground for supporting the insurance aspect and insurance Section of this Bill—simple sickness, which is very largely a social disease.
If you allow slums to exist in your midst and the vitality of your people to be low it is unfair to ask those people to insure themselves against that part of the sickness which ought to be a public charge and ought to be a communal charge, and the State ought to bear the expense of it. I do not say altogether. I admit, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done some of it, but it is not my case at all that he has not done anything. My case is that if he classifies all the activities which he contemplates in his Bill, and for which he is making financial provision, more than two-ninths of them are social in their origin, social in their character, and therefore ought to be social in the source from which they ought to be paid. They ought to come under social finance, to which they are extending these two matters, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided. So much for the sickness part. To say that this Part I is full of matters which are of a distributive responsibility, of which four-ninths is personal, three-ninths is capitalistic or employers' responsibility, and two-ninths

1447
belongs to the State is unfair. It is not true. The State has the larger responsibility. The State ought to bear a very much larger share than two-ninths, if it is going to give fair play to those whom it compels to come into the scheme of the Bill. If you take Part II., unemployment, the case is far worse. As a matter of fact a very good case can be made out under Part II. for no contribution from the workmen at all. Well, if we can get a satisfactory scheme against unemployment I am not concerned with sticking to stilted economies and stilted logic. If a small contribution from the workman is going to lubricate the matter, so that the State will do its duty and give us an opportunity of starting a very important experiment, I am not going to quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for asking for a small contribution. But what has happened? The actuarial return shows that to the income of the unemployment fund the workman will contribute 9s. 2d., whilst the employer contributes 7s. 6d., and the State contributes 5s. 6d. and two-thirds of a penny. That is not fair. There is no use in anybody imagining that that is a fair proportion. Unemployment is mainly a social disease. You have said that over and over again in this House, and we shall have to say so often again. It is caused very largely by inefficient industrial organisation for which the employer is responsible. If there is any cause at all which calls for a contribution from the workman it is a cause very slightly indeed due to the workman by anything he has done or can do in our very complicated industrial organisation. Therefore I am not going to stand on stilted logic or stilted economics. But surely if from one factor you are to get a contribution of 9s. 2d., whilst from another you get 5s. 6d. and two-thirds of a penny, the factor which should contribute the 9s. 2d. is the State and not the workman, and the factor which is going to contribute the most ought to be asked to contribute least, and that is undoubtedly the workman. The graduation ought to be the State first and the employer next, and these two together ought to contribute practically all. If you insist upon the workman contributing something, it should be a minimum, the very minimum, just enough to be a contribution at all.
Now what I should have liked to have done was to have moved an Amendment to this Resolution which would give effect to our opinions. It is not the Chancellor
1448
of the Exchequer's fault, and it is not the Government's fault, that we cannot do that. It is part and parcel of the very ancient Rules of this House. We must work in the very limited space that is afforded to us. I am not going to vote against this Resolution, because to vote against this Resolution is to vote against the whole of the Bill. We cannot shut our eyes to that. I wish it were otherwise, but in many instances in this House we have to vote for the least of two evils and not for the greater of two goods. I say candidly I am going to vote for the least of two evils, because if I vote against the Resolution I vote against the Bill.
An HON. MEMBER: Why?
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Anybody who knows the Rules of the House knows that a private Member cannot bring in a Finance Resolution. That is a matter for the Government. Unfortunately I am not the Government, but if my hon. Friends around me were sitting on the Front Bench it. would not be a difficult matter to arrange. We could substitute some satisfactory Resolution, but to defeat the Resolution is to defeat the Bill.
I am not going to help to do that. But what I do wish to do before sitting down—and this is my last sentence or two—is to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has come in since I started to address the Committee, not to go and rule this in a red tape way. He may find as he goes along in his Clauses that we can make out a case that will be overwhelming in the strength of its arguments, and in the wealth of fact that we can bring to bear in support of it. If he does find that some of these exceptions—I will not put it any higher, but I appeal to him on the grounds that I have named—that he encouraged us to hope during the debate yesterday he would accept to mean that in respect of them the State contribution must be over two-ninths, then I do appeal to him not to turn round and simply say that because of this Resolution passed to-night that he is unable to meet us or to do anything. It is quite possible—because primarily the matter rests with the Chancellor—that he cannot. But as we know, the Government can quite easily put the whole thing right, and put down other Resolutions on the Paper. I think I am quite right in saying that the Government can make this perfectly right by setting up Committee of Ways and Means again; by putting down other Reso-

1449
lutions upon the Paper. It is on consideration that I believe my right hon. Friend is willing to do what I have suggested if we do make out our case, that I am going to support in a general and platonic way the Resolution before us now.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, which can be resumed upon the Report stage of this Resolution. But there is something we cannot do on the Report stage—that not even the Government can do—that is, introduce any Amendment which in any way might enlarge the cost to the Exchequer. I find myself, as I do not very often, in the same position as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester. I am unwilling to vote against the Resolution without which consideration of the Bill cannot proceed. I am certain that if I did kind friends on the opposite side of the House or in the country would represent it in the most unflattering and uncharitable light in the constituencies. But neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Resolution deliberately framed in order to withdraw from the consideration of the House a great number of questions which the House ought to have the opportunity of considering. I regret that during a most interesting two hours of this Debate to-night, during which it developed on new lines, the Chancellor's other engagements prevent his being present. I rise to ask him to deal with a small part of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester. He put to the Chancellor two cases in which it was suggested that the contribution of the employé was too large in certain cases. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that in certain cases the contribution of the employer is too large. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, meant to make himself responsible for is a total sum of money that he will be a party to spending. Having decided that, why should he draw his Resolution in such a way that he cannot spend that money as perhaps he should desire to do? Suppose the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Blackburn moves to reduce the contribution of the men? Automatically, under the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the contribution of the State would be diminished. Suppose another hon. Member moved to reduce the contribution of the employer then automatically the contribution of the State would be
1450
diminished. Why should we be limited in that way? Why should we not consider these two contributions on their merits without having our hands so tied that if we made any reduction in either of them we reduce the State contribution. I put another question raised by the hon. Member for Colchester on his Amendment. It might easily be raised on other Amendments as well. The hon. Member, like every Member of the House, is greatly concerned about the position of the Post Office contributors—the deposit contributors—who although included under the Insurance Bill are not insured. He has devised a scheme by which they should be insured in practice. Now the Chancellor says that would increase the expenditure of the State; that only shows how very important it is. It would not be at the expense of the State, at any rate there would be no material addition to the expenditure of the State, and if there be only a fractional additional that could be met.
What would the hon. Member's scheme cost? By paying a smaller benefit you could turn what is now a deposit account up which the depositor can only draw up to that limit into an insurance with a lesser sum it is true. Again, that is prohibited under the Resolution because if you reduce his benefit you automatically reduce the State contribution and the scheme of my hon. Friend is based upon the supposition that you have so much money to give and that you would better employ it by giving some insurance with smaller benefit than by giving no insurance at all with larger benefit. I have been obliged to explain what the nature and principle of the scheme is because otherwise of course the obvious answer might be: "You cannot do a thing of that kind without increasing the total expenditure of the State, and that the total expenditure of the State would be materially increased," but I do say the Committee ought to have the fullest power for dealing with the money which the Chancellor is prepared to provide in any way they think fit. I do not believe the Chancellor intended to cut out Amendments of that kind; I do not believe any Member of this House thinks it is desirable they should be cut out, and I appeal to the Chancellor, whilst there is yet time, to so alter his Resolution that we shall proceed with the discussion of this very important matter in Committee, unhampered by restrictions not needed for the safety of the Treasury or the defence of the taxpayer.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret I did not hear that portion of the very interesting discussion which the right hon. Gentleman alludes to, but I need hardly assure the Committee that there is a good deal of work outside a Bill of this kind, and that it is very difficult to find time for it. I thought the discussion was coming to an end when I left the House, or else I should have arranged to be notified if there was anything that required my presence in the Committee. There are two or three questions of very considerable importance raised, and I had the advantage, at any rate, of hearing the latter part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. From both the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman I have heard practically the same suggestion, except that I think the form in which it was put by the hon. Member for Leicester is on the whole a better way of meeting the case. The mere fact that nobody has been able to frame an Amendment which will enable us to do the things the right hon. Gentleman suggests shows the difficulty of doing it. There is only one way of doing it, and it is by saying that the State shall find £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 and then allowing Amendments to be moved within that limit. That obviously is inconvenient for the simple reason that you cannot quite say at a given moment what the Bill will cost in that way. The only way in which you can have an empowering Resolution is by saying you shall have two-ninths, one-fourth, or one-third of the benefit. We could not think of any other way of framing the Resolution.
There is no desire on my part or on the part of the Government to reduce the total amount of the contribution which we are prepared to find for this insurance scheme, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it was framed with the intention of ruling out Amendments which would increase the charge. That is a responsibility which the Government must take. If the House of Commons takes a different view there is only one way in which it can enforce a Resolution of that kind. I think this method has operated as a useful check. It has never prevented the House of Commons really increasing the amount when it wanted to do so. The one way of increasing the charge on public funds is by means of moving a reduction. The object of moving a reduction is not really to reduce the amount available, but in nine cases out of ten it is moved in order to increase it. There is nothing to
1452
prevent the Committee making its will manifest, by discussion as to the way in. which it prefers money to be spent. There is nothing in this Resolution which will prevent that being done. It is perfectly clear that if it is the general opinion of the House that hon. Members would like to take a certain proportion of the amount which is available out of one particular benefit and put it into another I do not think it would be difficult. It would then be the duty of the Government to introduce an amending Resolution to put the matter right.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: But how can we raise the question?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You could not raise it in the form of an Amendment, any more than you can raise it in Committee of Supply. The modifications which I indicated yesterday the Government were prepared to make have been referred to. There is nothing in the Resolution which prevents those being made. I come now to the change which the right hon. Gentleman indicated as having emanated from the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal of the hon. Member would not increase the aggregate charge, but the hon. Member admitted it would.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really did not admit that. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman was "Very little, if at all." It is not possible to say in any actuarial calculations within a very little whether it does or does not. The right hon. Gentleman himself has found the same difficulties as we have found in getting information.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have some acquaintance with the information, and I understood it did involve an increased charge on the Exchequer. This is the only safeguard the Government has with regard to public finance, but, if I thought there was any other way which would protect the Exchequer I certainly would not rule it out of consideration.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have put down an Amendment dealing with the point; but it has been ruled out of order. It was a manuscript Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman says he sent in a manuscript Amendment. I could not possibly consider it now, because I have not seen it.

1453
If it were possible to do it without letting in all sorts of other Amendments which might involve an increase in the public charge, then I should be prepared to consider it; but I still say the much better way is to assent to this as it stands. I do not wish to rule out anything which the House really wants in the form of an Amendment of the Bill, of course excepting the proposal of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). That, of course, would be impossible. I understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seven-oaks (Mr. Forster) made a similar criticism on the Resolution in my absence. I do not think he will find the questions in which he is interested would be ruled out at all under this Resolution, and for that reason I do trust it will be possible now to get this Resolution. I do not think I have shown any real rigidity so far in the discussion of the Committee. I have accepted several Amendments from both sides of the House. I have been willing to listen to all kinds of suggestions in the matter, and there are several other suggestions I will still consider. There is the suggestion which came from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. If I find it is impossible to carry out the wish of the House owing to this Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman and his associates may depend upon it they will find no difficulty with the Government in amending the Resolution or in bringing in a fresh Resolution.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an Amendment to make the State contribution 3d., the employer's contribution 3d., and the workman's contribution 3d., would be in order if the Resolution is passed?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): That is a question for me. Clearly it would not be in order.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I wish to call attention to another question, but one which is of equal, if not of more, practical importance, and I think I shall be able to claim some sympathy from the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil and Bow and Bromley. I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the restriction with regard to the payment of the medical benefit; I think it lies at the very kernel and basis of the Bill. No one can say that this Bill does not hang chiefly on what can be done for the health of the people. Is not this the real thing that divides the lot of the people more
1454
than anything else. It is not money or position or society: it is the security you can give them for the preservation of health, and I believe that so far as this Bill will add to the security and benefit you can give to the great mass of the population with regard to health it will operate all the more beneficially in other directions. Let us see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer restricts this expenditure. He places the real responsibility for what is the most important part of the Bill, and which is the very crux of the Bill upon the locality, and if they wish to save money they can do so. He holds out, as it were, an object to economise on this particular point on which usually they are most anxious to economise, and we think it is most unfair that he should place that economy upon them. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an analogy—and that is, what has been the case with regard to medical inspection in the sphere of education?
The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Resolution.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: Sub-section (1) of (a) distinctly deals with the medical benefit.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not yet indicated his point.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman instead of bringing the help of the State to what I consider the most important part of his scheme, he has put the burden mainly on the local rates, and I think our previous experience has shown that the consequence of so doing will be to severely restrict its benevolent operation. That is why I object to the financial Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is only in order in objecting to the proportion. The State only claims to pay one-half of the additional medical benefit.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I object to the restriction of the State subvention and we know from experience that such a restriction will operate very evilly in regard to this scheme. That is precisely the argument I have to put forward. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should think proper to pay no attention to the urgency of this important part of the Bill and for an extended measure of generosity. What is the real difficulty with regard to

1455
this matter of medical inspection? What will be the likely course to be pursued by heavily burdened localities? They vary infinitely in circumstances. Some have scattered populations to attend to, where medical relief can only be given at the cost of enormous expenditure of labour and an unproportionate expenditure of money. That I contend is not a burden which ought to be placed upon the poorer localities of England or upon the slum districts in great towns. It is a burden which belongs to the State. It is a public service, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would have ensured the success of his Bill very much more if he had enlarged the purse strings and left less to the tender mercies and exigencies of particular localities. He would have done better if he had followed the analogy which he adopted in the immediately succeeding Section. Why in regard to sanatoria does he give a penny per head? Why does he not. say he will pay a certain amount per head of the population or that he will take into account certain difficulties of particular localities? Surely he is tying his own hands and the hands of the Committee afterwards in regard to enlarging the benefits of the Bill. I have listened to all these Debates, and I have heard talk of the absolute necessity of stopping malingering and restricting expenditure here, there and everywhere—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the general question of medical relief. That does not arise now. The only point, so far as I can see, that arises in regard to medical relief is the provision in Sub-section (1) of (a).
Sir HENRY CRAIK: With all respect I have to say that I am talking about the excess of expenditure—the expenditure in excess of the minimum. That burden ought to be borne in larger proportion by the State, and not thrown upon the rates. I was trying to show—and I think I was within the bounds of order—that in order to make this Bill operate in regard to medical relief in a proper way you must have an excess of expenditure, which will fall heavily upon certain localities, and not upon those whose object must be to curtail expenditure. You ought to make generous provision for medical relief—provision which will not be restricted absolutely to the minimum necessities of the case, but which will place the people on the foundation they desire. If the right hon. Gentleman has restricted his expen-
1456
diture in this direction, he has restricted his own hands, and I ask him why he does not follow the analogy in regard to sanatoria, and say that he is perpared to pay a certain amount of the debt? You have not placed half of the expenditure of the sanatoria on the locality. Why place on the locality the very unequal amount of burden they will have to pay in this excess?
11.0 P.M.
Mr. GOLDMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether in view of the fact that the contribution of 2d. by the State is the equivalent of the two-ninths benefit contribution, would it be possible, if this Resolution is passed, to move an Amendment to substitute 2d.?
The CHAIRMAN: Twopence is not the equivalent as I am informed. Twopence would be a great deal more than two-ninths during the earlier years of the Bill. Such an Amendment would increase the charge, and therefore it would be out of order.
Dr. ADDISON: I think we should receive an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter of medical relief will receive free discussion on the later stages of the Bill. I am not concerned at present with where the money to meet the charge is to come from. It is of the first importance in the interest of the insurer as well as the fund that we should know whether the wives of insured persons will receive the benefits with a free hand hereafter. It will be quite useless to undertake this campaign against tuberculosis if we are by this Resolution to prevent ourselves from extending the benefits to the wives of insured persons.
Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member going considerably further than I did when I was interrupted? He is discussing the whole question whether sanatorium relief should be given to the wives and children as well as the consumptives.
The CHAIRMAN: When I interrupted the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities he seemed to me to be dealing with the treatment of doctors in the Bill as a whole.
Sir H. CRAIK: No, certainly not.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to think he was dealing only with the excess charge. I did not think so. In

1457
this case the hon. Member now in possession of the House, or who ought to be, is confining himself to one of the paragraphs in this Resolution which would restrict sanatorium benefits to insured persons. He is asking for some relaxation of that. That is quite in order.
Dr. ADDISON: I was pointing out that our efforts for reducing not only sickness, but the ultimate charge upon the fund, would, owing to mothers and children remaining in the infected house, be handicapped by the spread of infection. For the protection of the fund as well as the promotion of public health, we should have a free hand, if it were possible, to extend the sanatorium benefits to mother and children.
Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked just now whether in this Resolution there is any particular condition which will prevent a single one of the provisions of the Bill from being discussed, which is a matter of public importance. In (a) it says:—
"(i.)As respects medical benefit, one-half of any excess expenditure on medical treatment and attendance (including the provision of medicines) for insured persons which may be sanctioned by the Treasury."
That is a resolution which is regarded as the foundation of the sub-clauses in Clause 14, the clause which relates to the administration of medical benefit. As the right hon. Gentleman has told the public already in answer to a deputation from the Association of County Councils, probably more than one-half the total medical benefits will, as the Bill is now framed, be administered by local health committees. It may be that if the further change which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated he himself advocates is made the proportion of the administration of medical benefits within the purview of local health committees will be more still. Section 14 provides that if and when there is any deficit in the administration of medical relief by a local health committee then the committee may through the commissioners transmit to the Treasury and to the county council or the council of the borough an account showing the total expenditure. Under Sub-section (4) the Treasury and the council of the county or the county borough shall, if satisfied that the amount
1458
so payable and the proposed expenditure are reasonable and proper in the circumstances, sanction the expenditure, and then Sub-section (5) provides that if the expenditure is so sanctioned the Treasury is to pay one-half and the local authority also one-half. On that Clause a very serious public controversy has arisen, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, on the large question of public health, as to whether or not it is desirable to constitute a new public health authority in the form of these local health committees, upon which the whole of the county councils, the borough councils, and also the port sanitary authorities have taken up a very strong line. The line they have taken up broadly is: "We ought not to be called upon to pay money unless we are given control of the public health expenditure."
As far as this Resolution is concerned that is the main question that has arisen. Upon that the vital question arises for solution by this House; ought they or ought they not to be made to pay or asked to pay if they are not given control? That involves the whole relationship between this Bill and the public health administration of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully alive to it for he has already received several deputations upon it, and I am quite sure he will agree with me when I say that the question is one of great importance whatever solution is adopted. I agree that many points of view may be taken, and that many considerations have to be taken into account. Whatever the result, the question is of great importance. I do not want to discuss the question of the incidence of the payment of this excess expenditure here and now.
What I do ask is that when we come to discuss on Clause 14 whether or not it is right that the county councils should be called upon to make a contribution so great as 50 per cent. towards this excess expenditure unless they are given control—in other words, that on Amendments like that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) we shall be able to solve the question. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that on the discussion of Clause 14, and the relevant clauses, namely, 43, 44, 45, and 46, he will not say, "You cannot ask the Government to put upon the Exchequer a larger share than 50 per cent." That is a

1459
specific question. Will he give the Committee the assurance that when we come to discuss that very important public question, it will be open to the council to deal with it and decide it on its merits, not only the total expenditure that is to be defrayed by the Exchequer on Local Taxation Account, but also the apportionment? That is all we want. Otherwise I say this is an instance where the form of his Resolution will prevent the free discussion by this House of a question of great public importance.
Mr. F. GOLDSMITH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the definite question whether under this Resolution it will be possible to move an Amendment to reduce the period by making the sickness benefit to begin on the first day, instead of the fourth day?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite wanted to know whether it will be possible to increase the half of the excess that could be charged upon the Treasury or the county council. No, it would not be possible if this Resolution is carried. He is under the impression that the county council can be compelled to pay half. That is the impression his speech gives. I want to point out that they need not pay half if they do not like. They will be in a position even to say, "Unless we get control we will not give half." And the Treasury is in that position.
Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I do not agree that it would be open, under the Bill as it is now framed, to the county council, to say, "We will not give half unless we get control." The measure of control existing under the provisions of Clause 43 is totally inadequate, and does not in the least justify the broad proportion that they can get control if they ask for it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely wrong. The county council has an absolute right to refuse—that is my view of the position—and the Exchequer is in a position to say that they will not give half unless better
representation is obtained. Therefore, both are in the same position. As to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. F. Goldsmith), it would cause an enormous increase of the charge. If it were possible to remove these restrictions it might involve an increase of millions in the next two or three years. I come next to the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I had it in mind, and I think it is a very important consideration. I shall point out later on, when the question arises, that it will be a charge on the fund, and to that extent it will diminish the amount which will be available in regard to insured persons. Therefore that is a consideration which must be taken into account, but it will not be a Treasury objection. Sub-section (a) would cover the case, and if it were found necessary afterwards, the Treasury would be able to increase the amount, as I think it will have to be increased eventually. It would be possible under Sub-section (a) for an Amendment as to the amount to be moved.
Mr. HAMERSLEY: May I ask whether the Amendments on the Paper that propose to reduce the contribution of the agricultural labourer will be in order if this Resolution is passed?
The CHAIRMAN: That really has nothing to do with this Resolution. Any Amendment to reduce what is moved today is in Order. The hon. Member can take that for granted.
Mr. HAMERSLEY: I have an Amendment on the Paper about domestic servants, reducing and taking them out of the category of the Bill. Will that be in Order if this Resolution is passed?
The CHAIRMAN: We discussed that this afternoon. The hon. Member can propose to have them taken out at the end of the Bill. I dare say it is not in order where the hon. Member has put it down, but he can do it if he does it in the right place.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 9.

Division No. 260.]

AYES.

[11.25 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Armitage, Robert

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Addison, Dr. C.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Barton, William

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Beale, W. P.

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Barnes, George N.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Boland, John Pius

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hayden, John Patrick

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hayward, Evan

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Higham, John Sharp

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Brunner, John F. L

Hinds, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hodge, John

Ponsonby, Arhtur A. W. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

Howard, Hon Geoffrey

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Cameron, Robert

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Radford, George Heynes

Carlile, sir Edward Hildred

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Johnson, W.

Reddy, Michael

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Jones, Engar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Chancellor, Henry George

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clough, William

Keating, Matthew

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kelly, Edward

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Robinson, Sydney

Cowan, W. H.

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Crooks, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crumley, Patrick

Leach, Charles

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Dairymple, Viscount

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowntree, Arnold

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lewis, John Herbert

Scanlan, Thomas

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lundon, Thomas

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

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sheehy, David

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dawes, J. A.

McGhee, Richard

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Delany, William

Maclean, Donald

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Devlin, Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. T. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Doris, William

Macpherson, James Ian

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Duffy, William J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Summers, James Woolley

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Tennant, Harold John

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Meagher, Michael

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Toulmin, Sir George

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Millar, James Duncan

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elverston, Sir Harold

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Esmonde. Dr John (Tipperary, N.)

Mond, Sir Alfred

Wadsworth, J.

Essex, Richard Walter

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Walters, John Tudor

Esslemont, George Birnie

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Falconer, James

Mooney, John J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Morgan, George Hay

Wardie, George J.

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Munro, Robert

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Goldstone, Frank

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Needham, Christopher T.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Neilson, Francis

Wiles, Thomas

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

Nolan, Joseph

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E (Dorset, E)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hackett, John

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Winfrey, Richard

Hancock, J. G.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Doherty, Philip

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

O'Dowd, John

Harwood, George

O'Malley, William

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Shee, James John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

NOES.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Pointer, Joseph

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Snowden, Philip

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Touche, George Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Lansbury and Mr. Jowett.

Ogden, Fred

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Friday).

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY [4th July].—REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Resolutions reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,541,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,955,400, foe granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Matériel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,365,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Adjourned at Twenty-six minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Excise Department: Alleged Overwork.
  Excise Department: Alleged Overwork.
  Postage Stamp Contract.
  Postage Stamp Contract.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  POOR RELIEF.
  POOR RELIEF.
  EXEMPTION CLAUSE.
  EXEMPTION CLAUSE.
  POOR LAW CASES.
  POOR LAW CASES.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIP).
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIP).
  REJECTED MEMBERS.
  REJECTED MEMBERS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MANUAL LABOUR.
  MANUAL LABOUR.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  OFFICIALS AND SALARIES.
  OFFICIALS AND SALARIES.
  Athlone (Civilian and Military Population).
  Athlone (Civilian and Military Population).
  Education (County Mayo).
  Education (County Mayo).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  County Council Election, Drogheda.
  County Council Election, Drogheda.
  Small-pox (Royal Navy).
  Small-pox (Royal Navy).
  Nigerian Expeditions.
  Nigerian Expeditions.
  Wearing Military Uniform.
  Wearing Military Uniform.
  Indian Civil Service (Punjab).
  Indian Civil Service (Punjab).
  National Sea Fisheries Convention.
  National Sea Fisheries Convention.
  German South-West Africa.
  German South-West Africa.
  University Colleges (Grants).
  University Colleges (Grants).
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Brussels International Exhibition (British Section).
  Brussels International Exhibition (British Section).
  Labour Exchanges.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Butter Industry (Ireland).
  Butter Industry (Ireland).
  Valentia Harbour (Telegraph Office),
  Valentia Harbour (Telegraph Office),
  Branch Post Offices (London Postal District).
  Branch Post Offices (London Postal District).
  Dava to Glenferness (Special Postal Service).
  Dava to Glenferness (Special Postal Service).
  Post Office Liftmen.
  Post Office Liftmen.
  Sub-Post Offices.
  Sub-Post Offices.
  Procurators of Burghs (Scotland).
  Procurators of Burghs (Scotland).
  Inspector of Poor (Scotland).
  Inspector of Poor (Scotland).
  Petition to His Majesty the King (Captain Blakeley, R.N.).
  Petition to His Majesty the King (Captain Blakeley, R.N.).
  Westminster Abbey.
  Westminster Abbey.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PADDINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPER-ANNUATION AND PENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
POPLAR BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPER-ANNUATION AND PENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
WESTBURY ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SOUTHAMPTON WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
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. 2 of the said Bill in the place of the Lord Belhaven and Stenton and the Lord Aldenham; read, and agreed to.

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.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

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.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

THE LAND REGISTRY.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the words of which I have given notice on the Paper, whether he can give the House any information as to the steps contemplated by His Majesty's Government for utilising the labours of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, and whether their recommendations for the improvement of the Land Registry will be carried out with a view to the extension of the system.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I am glad that this question has been put, and I think it is very desirable that there should be a discussion in this House upon the Report of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts. The inquiry has been one of great labour by very distinguished persons, with a very satisfactory result. But considering the number of misstatements that have appeared in the public Press on this subject it is very desirable that we should have a public discussion with reference to it, and I hope that the noble Earl will take steps, next week if he likes, for the purpose of commencing a public consideration of this subject.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I certainly will, subject to the convenience of His Majesty's Government and to the business that may be going on, take the earliest opportunity which may be afforded for that purpose.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Consideration of Clause 2 resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Page 22, line 33, after ("sessions") insert ("Provided further that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to a Bill to establish a separate Parliament and Executive for Ireland.").
The noble Marquess said: As the Amendment which your Lordships passed last night on the motion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition covers the Amendment standing in my name, I imagine that my Amendment will not be in order now. I indicated to your Lordships in the course of the debate last night that that was my view, and consequently my friends and myself devoted our speeches to that part of my noble friend's Amendment which related to Ireland. In these circumstances I do not move the Amendment standing in my name.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the following new subsection—
"A Bill shall be deemed to have been submitted to the judgment of the electors and approved by them if, after it has been passed by the House of Commons and rejected by the House of Lords three times

(1) a general election has taken place and the Bill is again passed by the House of Commons; or

(2) the Bill has been directly referred to the electors in manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament and has been approved by a majority of the electors voting."

The Amendment was withdrawn as consequential.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE also withdrew the Amendment standing in his name, which proposed to insert the words—
"Provided that every amendment inserted by the House of Lords in a Bill sent up to that House in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be considered by the House of Commons severally and separately."
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause the following words—
"And provided also that if the Bill rejected as aforesaid by the House of Lords be a Bill for the further limitation of the legislative powers of the House of Lords, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords unless it has been referred to the Joint Committee under this Act, he postponed until after the general election then next ensuing, and may then, if passed by the following Parliament, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not assented to the Bill."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will probably be recollected that at an early stage of our proceedings, upon an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ancaster, the views embodied in this Amendment were put forward in the shape of a question addressed to His Majesty's Government, and I am bound to admit that the reply which was then received from one of the triumvirate who represent His Majesty's Government on this occasion was not of a favourable and encouraging nature. But I am emboldened to think that the proposals in this Amendment are so fair and reasonable and moderate that I am justified in again bringing them before the notice of His Majesty's Government in the hope—possibly the vague and illusory hope—that they will look upon them with a more favourable eve than on the last occasion.
This debate has, in one respect at all events, shown a considerable amount of monotony. Every noble Lord who has spoken from these Benches, without exception, has expressed the opinion that this Bill constitutes single-Chamber government. I think it not improbable that from mere force of habit I may myself, perhaps, say the same thing before I have finished. But the replies made by the representatives of the Government have been characterised by equal monotony, because whenever an Amendment has been moved from this side of the House it has invariably been rejected upon two grounds—one, that it unduly interferes with the independence of the

285
House of Commons, and the other, to use the stereotyped phrase which is so common in Parliament, that it strikes at the root of the measure, the plain truth, devoid of all rhetorical embellishment, being that His Majesty's Government have been told by their so-called followers not to accept any changes whatever in this Bill, under threat of severe penalties.
I submit that the Amendment which I am moving at the present moment cannot be fairly described either as sapping the independence of the House of Commons or as being in the nature of a root-cutting Amendment. As a matter of fact, it preserves the Bill intact in its pristine shape and beauty; and I should like to point out that it has this recommendation, that it is perfectly consistent with the Amendment which was carried by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, last night, but should that Amendment not be carried into effect, with the alteration of a few words this Amendment is perfectly capable of standing by itself. We have been told, not once but on innumerable occasions, that this Bill in its present form represents the passionate desire of the British democracy, the British democracy being synonymous, of course, with the Liberal Party, although I am bound to say there does not appear to be any very passionate enthusiasm for the Bill amongst noble Lords who sit behind the representatives of the Government. I think the state of the Benches opposite at the present moment is a fair indication of the enthusiasm felt for this Bill. The Bill appears to resemble one of those delicate articles of export which suffer in the process of travelling. In the process of its journey from the House of Commons to this Chamber it appears to have lost a considerable amount of its attractions for a large proportion of noble Lords opposite, and. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that on no occasion on which the Government have divided against an Amendment to the Bill have they mustered in the Division Lobby, unless reinforced by noble Lords from this side, as many Peers as have been created since the Liberal Government assumed office.
Now, my Lords, this Bill represents more than the passionate desire of the Liberal Party for justice and fair treatment, or whatever it may be that they claim. It represents the climax, the quintessence I might say, of Liberal constructive states-
286
manship, and it is avowedly brought in to deal with a transitional state of things, which is only to last until a new Second Chamber is set up, to use the words of the Prime Minister, "as and when the proper time arrives." This Amendment of mine, as I have already said, leaves the Bill absolutely intact, and all that it provides is that any Bill which proposes to inflict further restrictions upon our legislative powers shall, at all events, not be passed until an opportunity has been afforded to the people, by means of a General Election, in the ordinary course of things to pronounce an opinion upon the subject, and to sanction the proposed change. The other day when I raised this particular point the noble and learned Viscount opposite, Lord Haldane, told us that he did not know any Party worth talking about, to use his own expression, who desired to tear up or to alter the Constitution. I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Viscount must have made use of this phrase in order to illustrate and to emphasise the isolation in which members of this House are supposed habitually to dwell with regard to all political questions. Is it possible that the rarified atmosphere which the noble and learned Viscount has been inhaling since he became a member of this Assembly has blinded him to the existence of some prominent politicians to whom he owes, directly or indirectly, a good deal of support?
The Olympian ignorance of the noble and learned Viscount reminds me of the ignorance which is occasionally displayed by the Judicial Bench, and which I certainly disclaim owning myself. I do not live in the least in the same atmosphere as the noble and learned Viscount opposite. The existence of those politicians in whom he disbelieves is painfully evident to me. I have no illusions whatever on the subject, and I have not the smallest illusions as to what the feelings of such a man as Mr. Keir Hardie or Mr. Snowden are on this particular subject, however ignorant the noble and learned Viscount opposite may be. I know perfectly well that the opinion of these gentlemen—an opinion which I do not think is shared by anybody in this House except my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—is that under this Bill we are treated in far too generous and kind a manner, that in fact we are getting a great deal more under the Bill than we probably deserve. It is just as well on

287
these occasions to look facts in the face, and to assume the worst. I will do so on this occasion, and assume that this Bill becomes law. It does not require much of a prophet in order to anticipate what certainly will happen. I do not share the somewhat fanciful apprehensions of some of my noble friends who sit around me. I do not imagine that the Crown will be swept away, or that some of the terrific contingencies which alarm them will take place. But what I feel perfectly certain about is this, that if under this Bill we exercise the statutory power of delay to which we are entitled and which really is the only safeguard we still possess, there will be immediately an outcry for restricting and taking away possibly altogether the powers of delay which we possess under this Bill. I do not think the most sanguine optimist, no matter on which side of the House he may sit, can feel any sort of confidence that if a demand of that sort is put forward in the House of Commons there is any certainty that it will be resisted by noble Lords who are members of the Government at the present time.
Under this Bill we are placed—I do not exaggerate in the least when I say so—absolutely at the mercy of the House of Commons. We are placed in a position which, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out last night, it; not occupied by any Second Chamber in the civilised world, and there is absolutely nothing in this Bill to prevent, not only further restrictive powers being used against us, but our being practically abolished altogether. I do not think that this is a question which needs much elaborate argument. I have never used particularly strong language about this Bill, but I confess it seems to me a perfectly intolerable injustice that it should be possible, as it undoubtedly is possible, to utilise a Bill brought in for dealing with a temporary situation in such a way that it may permanently destroy such future rights as we are accorded under this Bill. After all, if you submit yourself to a dentist, and allow au opiate to be administered to you for the purpose of dealing with a tooth, you do not authorise the dentist to take out every single tooth in both your jaws. Yet that is the position in which we are deliberately placing ourselves under this Bill.
Whilst I cheerfully acquit noble Lords opposite of any desire or intention of using
288
the Bill in the way in which I have indicates, unfortunately we know perfectly well that noble Lords opposite are not masters in their own house. That being so, it seems to me that without asking anything abnormal we are absolutely justified in asking for some safeguards against the dangers which I hare endeavoured to indicate, and all I ask under this Amendment is that the powers of the House of Commons shall not be utilised to further deprive us of such powers as we enjoy under the Bill until at all events the opinion of the country has been taken upon the subject at a General Election in the normal course of things. In conclusion, I can only repeat that the proposal which I venture to make seems to me so modest, so reasonable, and so obviously fair, that it is almost a matter of surprise to me that the Government have not given some indication of dealing with us in this matter without an invitation from me or from anybody else on this side of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after ("Lords") insert ("And provided also that if the Bill rejected as aforesaid by the House of Lords be a Bill for the further limitation of the legislative powers of the House of Lords, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless it has been referred to the Joint Committee under this Act, be postponed until after the general election then next ensuing, and may then, if passed by the following Parliament, be presented to his Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not assented to the Bill").—(Lord Newton.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, the noble Lord's Amendment is one which he said he thought he was justified in presenting to your Lordships. It is true that it goes very near to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, which we discussed and dealt with. We parted from that Amendment on the understanding that it would be covered by discussion on the noble Lord's Amendment, and there it was left. Still I do not say for a moment that the noble Lord is not justified in presenting this Amendment, but I could indeed have wished, from the point of view of legislative business, that he had left out some of the decorative facetiæ, which are quite harmless and with which we have become familiar. The noble Lord commented upon

289
our meagre numbers in the Division last and said that the minority was entirely composed of Peers who have been created since we came into office.
LORD NEWTON: What I said was that the number of Peers the noble Viscount was able to put into the Lobby last night did not amount to the number of Peers which have been created since the Liberal Government assumed office.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I will not discuss the bearings of the noble Lord's point, but, as a matter of fact, after one of those anxious scrutinies of the Division Lists which take place on both sides on the morning after an important Division, it appears that out of the forty-six noble Lords who voted against the Amendment twenty-seven only owed their Peerages to the present Administration. But that triviality of the noble Lord has no real bearing upon what is undoubtedly a serious Amendment. I admit that this Amendment is one of the very few Amendments—I am not sure it is not the only one—which does not directly contradict the fundamental principles of the Bill. But it is a very serious thing to go on piling up an indefinite number of new exceptions to the restrictions in the legislative power of the House of Lords. I say indefinite, because the words "further limitation of the legislative powers of the House of Lords" are vague and tremendously wide words. Everybody, and I am sure the noble Lord himself, will see that they are capable of an elasticity of construction which might undoubtedly involve a traverse of the principle of the Bill. On detail, as I have said, the words are vague and wide. But there are other points which, though they may be called technical, are of vital importance and which all make against the noble Lord's Amendment as it now stands.
The noble Lord will pardon me for saying that his Amendment would create, or might create, a really absurd position. Supposing there had just been a General Election raising points not very far distant from the points mentioned in this Amendment—if the noble Lord's Amendment were free from conjunction with the noble Marquess's Amendment there would be more to be said for it—and that that election showed that the opinion of the electorate was in favour of the measure which the noble Lord has in view "further
290
limiting the legislative powers of your Lordships' House," then according to this Amendment—notwithstanding that decision—another General Election would have to follow which might or might not reverse the previous decision. If the Amendment as it now stands were incorporated in the Bill you might have the absurdity of forcing a second General Election within a very short and measurable distance of time from an election which was just over. That is a point which the noble Lord, with his practical experience and his shrewd judgment about elections, will see is a fatal point against his Amendment. I do not want to detain the Committee on drafting points, but, after all, drafting points are very important, and the Committee stage is the stage at which you have to look at them. It would be extremely difficult to say whether any particular Bill did or did not come within the description of a further limitation of your Lordships' powers. I would commend this to the noble Lord, that if he has any chance of further pushing forward his Amendment he had better include the definite points which he would consider as further limiting the legislative powers of this House. I take it that the points he has in mind are the three sessions, the two years, and the duration of Parliament. If I were in his place I should regard those, as I think he does, as being the points to be covered, and I would therefore have them specially dealt with. If Parliament were to adopt the policy of the noble Lord's Amendment it would be far better to limit it in the way I have indicated. The Amendment probably should not take effect in cases where there has been a General Election during three sessions. It is a most important point, and if the noble Lord had expected, which he tells us he did not, that the Government would accept the Amendment, the wording would have had to be, in these and other particulars which I will not dwell upon, more carefully guarded and more fully thought out. I merely mention that as a point which would have to be considered if the noble Lord could successfully persevere with his Amendment. But certainly at the present juncture, taking the Amendment in conjunction with Lord Lansdowne's Amendment—which your Lordships have accepted by so enormous a majority but which we regard and must regard as fatal to the Bill—it is impossible for the Government to accept the proposal of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in the course of his observations the noble Viscount took my noble friend Lord Newton to task for what he described as a triviality of which he had been guilty in the course of his speech. The triviality in question was a reference on the part of my noble friend to the very meagre support received by His Majesty's Government from the large number of Peers whom they have lately added to this House. The noble Viscount may consider that point a trivial one, but I can assure him that it is one which is attracting a great deal of attention out of doors. What are the facts? As far as I am able to ascertain, His Majesty's Government have added to this House since they took office in 1906—I exclude from my calculations those Peers who were ex-Civil servants, Colonial Governors, and so on—about forty Peers. What has happened since we have been in Committee on this Bill? The supporters of the Government have varied in number from forty-four to forty-eight, and taking the number who voted last night—forty-six—I find that only twenty-six came from the category of those newly-created Peers to whom my noble friend referred. That is a very striking illustration of the manner in which the old Liberal Party in this House has been dissipated by the policy of noble Lords opposite, and also of the very hesitating support which they are receiving even from those who have been most recently rewarded with Peerages for their political services. When the noble Viscount tells my noble friend that this is a triviality, may I venture to remind him that comments of exactly the same kind were made from the Bench opposite when, for various reasons into which I need not enter, the famous Resolution of my noble friend Lord Rosebery was supported in this House by a majority considerably below its usual strength. So I do not think that my noble friend was out of order in referring to that matter. I am bound to say that I congratulate my noble friend, whose eloquence I always admire, upon the fact that on this occasion he has produced more effect on the Front Bench opposite than any of us during this long discussion have been able to produce. For the first time, if I may quote a phrase with which the noble Viscount is familiar—
"a ray of reason stole Half through the solid darkness of his soul."
The noble Viscount, in effect, admitted
292
that my noble friend's Amendment was in principle a perfectly reasonable proposal.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Not unjustifiable.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is quite good enough. We never have risen so high in the noble Viscount's estimation as that. But beyond all that it would, indeed, be a perfectly monstrous and intolerable proposition that any Government should take advantage of a Bill of this kind for the purpose of altering the machinery of the Bill itself. That is my noble friend's point, and, as he truly said, his Amendment, far from being aimed at the root of the Bill, is intended to protect the Bill against innovators even more audacious than those who now sit on the Front Bench opposite. The noble Viscount's criticism, which we had some difficulty in following, was of a somewhat technical description. I think he pointed out and he probably pointed out successfully, that in some particulars my noble friend's Amendment might not fit in exactly with the scheme of the Bill, and particularly with the scheme of the Bill if we regard it as including the Amendment which your Lordships carried last night. Those really are technical difficulties, which could probably be overcome without much trouble. That being so, I would venture to suggest to my noble friend that he might consider what was said by the noble Viscount in regard to these technical difficulties and perhaps bring up his Amendment on the Report stage in a shape which would meet the objections urged by the noble Viscount opposite. These are really little more than drafting difficulties, and I feel sure they could be easily overcome.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CROMER*THE EARL OF CROMER rose to move the following new clause—
.—(1) At the beginning of each Parliament a Joint Committee (in this Act referred to as " the Joint Committee") shall be appointed, consisting of the Speaker of the House of Commons, together with seven members of each House of Parliament, who shall be chosen by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons jointly in such manner as they think best adapted to provide an impartial tribunal for the purposes of this Act. The Speaker of the House of Commons shall be Chairman, and he shall have a casting vote only.

293
(2) The Speaker of the House of Commons may, if he think lit, and shall, if so requested in writing by a Minister of the Crown or upon a Resolution of either House of Parliament in that behalf, call together the joint Committee for the purpose of deciding any question which under the provisions of this Act may be decided by them.
(3) The decision of the Joint Committee on any question so referred to them shall be final and conclusive for all purposes and shall not be questioned in any Court of Law.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not often detain your Lordships for long, and as this matter has been so thoroughly thrashed out and I am fully aware that your Lordships desire this debate to be concluded to-night, I will detain you even a shorter time than usual in moving the Amendment that stands in my name. We now have to deal with the very important question of the composition and mode of appointment of the Joint Committee of which we have heard so much in the course of this discussion. That Joint Committee, let me remind your Lordships, will have to deal with two classes of subjects. In the first place, it will have to decide whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill properly so-called. In the second place, it will have to deal with all the very important questions which are catalogued in the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, to which your Lordships assented yesterday. Those two functions are distinct, and although I may, perhaps, be in error, I think I am right in saying that the attitude which His Majesty's Government have assumed in respect to them is not quite identical. If I am wrong in that respect, I shall, of course, be corrected. The difference may not be very great, but I think there is a difference which is appreciable.
As regards the Committee fulfilling those functions which were set forth in the noble Marquess's Amendment yesterday, I understand, from what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, that he did not attach any importance to the composition of the Committee—that he cared very little whether it was composed in the manner I have proposed, or in the manner which is about to be proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, became he objected to a Committee of any sort or kind. Therefore I think I may infer that any minor alterations in the mode of the composition or the appointment of the Committee would not appreciably affect the noble Viscount's
294
position. But as regards the functions of the Committee in respect to Money Bills, I hope and believe that I am not wrong in stating that the position is not quite the mine. The noble Viscount, indeed, did on the occasion of our dealing with Clause 1 of the Bill criticise very adversely the composition of the Committee which I proposed. I think—though speaking from recollection I ant not quite sure—that he also criticised the method of appointment. He further said that he entertained strong objections to the functions which the Committee would exercise, more especially executive functions, and he also criticised the method of putting the whole of this machinery into operation. Let me say at once that I am not going to deal with the last point now, because it will come under your Lordships' consideration after this Amendment has been dealt with. Although the noble Viscount did criticise all these points, I hope I am right in saying that he did not, in the case of the Committee to deal with Money Bills, discard so absolutely the proposal of a Joint Committee as was the case in dealing with the functions under the noble Marquess's Amendment. He left us, with regard to that at all events, some glimmer of hope that on this point he was open to conviction and persuasion.
I am all the more desirous of going on with this, because I cannot forget that we had a very distinct admission from the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, that the Government were not absolutely wedded to making the Speaker the sole arbiter as to Money Bills, and that they would be prepared to consider proposals for any reasonable tribunal to take the place of the Speaker. I think I am correct in saying that the noble Viscount in the course of his remarks said he fully adopted what the noble Earl promised, but he coupled it with the condition that he and his colleagues must be persuaded. That is a very natural condition, but at the same time a very onerous and almost leonine one, although I do not abandon all hope of being able to persuade him. Before I go further, I must allude to one episode in regard to Money Bills which has occurred in the course of this debate. In spite of the very explicit declaration that I made in my first speech, and in spite of the fact that similar declarations have been made by noble Lords behind me on the Front Opposition Bench, there still appears

295
to be great misapprehension in the minds of noble Lords opposite and of the public generally as to what we are really aiming at in reference to dealing with Money Bills. There appears to be a suspicion, almost a conviction, that our avowed intentions are not identical with our real intentions. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War gave utterance to that feeling in the course of the debate yesterday. He said, in allusion more especially to some remarks that fell from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne and myself, that what we really wished to do was to invest the House of Lords with financial powers such as it had never possessed before. I really think that both the noble Earl and myself, as well as your Lordships collectively have some very fair reason to complain of that statement being made. I need hardly say I do not challenge it on any personal grounds, because I am sure the noble Viscount never intended anything discourteous. But I observe that that statement has been taken up by the whole of the Radical Press, who have rapturously echoed the noble Viscount's sentiments and criticised us sharply, not for proposals we have made, but for proposals we have never made, and proposals which I will undertake to say not one single individual on this side of the House has ever had the slightest intention of making. I repeat the emphatic denial which I gave to the noble Viscount's statement whilst he was speaking, and which was given again by the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, shortly afterwards on behalf of the Front Opposition Bench. We do not at all want to assert new powers. We do not even seek to retain those powers which we have hitherto possessed. All we want to do is to prevent tacking, and nothing more. I do not pursue this question further now, because although possibly our own proposals may be defective we shall have a further opportunity of discussing them on the Report stage of the Bill.
But besides that clause, which will come up for discussion on the Report stage, we have another anti-tacking proposal now before us—that is, the substitution of a Joint Committee in the place of the Speaker. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by going over again all the arguments which militate against making the Speaker the sole arbiter of whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill. The subject has been thoroughly thrashed out in both
296
Houses, and I think everybody who has paid the least attention to it must be perfectly familiar with the arguments for and against. I therefore proceed at once to the question of the composition of the Committee. The proposal I originally made, and which still stands on the Paper, was, as your. Lordships will remember, that there should be a Committee composed of fifteen members, the Speaker being the President and having only a casting vote, seven members to be elected by your Lordships' House, and seven members to be elected by the House of Commons. At the time I stated that although I attached great importance to a Committee of some sort I did not feel myself at all pledged to the particular details of the proposal I brought forward. I may now go a step further and say that when I put down that proposal I had very considerable doubt as to whether that was the best possible solution of the question, and I really put it down merely to form a basis for discussion. What I anticipated would happen has happened. The noble Viscount (Lord St. Aldwyn), who has very much larger Parliamentary experience I need hardly say than myself, has come forward with another proposal, and I wish to say, so far as the matter rests with me, that I accept that proposal, and I think that the noble Marquess, when he speaks, will say that he and the Front Opposition Bench are in favour of it also.
I will not forestall what the noble Viscount is going to say, but I should like to state very briefly why I think, on reflection, that the proposal of the noble Viscount is an improvement upon my own. I quite accept the criticism, which has been made from many quarters of the House, that the Committee ought to be a small Committee, and that my numbers are too large. My proposal is that the Committee should be composed of fifteen members. The noble Viscount proposes six. That is a large reduction. I wish to point out that there is one important change to a certain extent of principle made by the noble Viscount's proposal—that is, that whereas under my proposal, having an uneven number, the Speaker only has a casting vote, under the noble Viscount's proposal, having an even number, the Speaker will have two votes. I merely point that out, though not by way of taking exception to it. The noble Lord, Lord Courtney, in

297
the very interesting speech to which we all listened attentively yesterday, said, if I understood him rightly, that he thought six too many and that he would prefer four. I do not suppose that the question between four and six is one upon which it is possible to have any very strong opinion, and I hope that in the course of this debate the noble Lord will give us the advantage of his assistance and advice, and state the arguments which he thinks can be adduced against six and in favour of four. But I must say that, as at present advised, though I should like to keep an open mind on the question, I am rather inclined to think six a better number than four. My reason for holding that view is this. I cannot help thinking, although the number ought to be small, that when you get to such a very small number as four it will scarcely be possible to adequately represent on the Committee all those interests which ought to be represented. On that account I say, whilst keeping an open mind on the subject, that I rather prefer six, but your Lordships will be better able to judge on that point, which is, after all, only one of detail, when you hear the views set forth by the noble Viscount.
Again, although I think my Committee would be an impartial one—I certainly intended it to be so—I think perhaps the noble Viscount's Committee gives greater guarantees for impartiality, which is a point to which all of us must attach the greatest importance. When any Party man deals with these questions the first thing he asks himself is whether a proposal of this nature is likely to militate to the advantage of his own Party or to that of his opponents. I do not know that I am a very good judge in a matter of this kind, because I have very little experience of Party tactics and management, and to say the truth they are not matters that very largely interest me. But since the noble Marquess put down his Amendment I have conversed with several Party men on this subject, and I find this remarkable result, that whereas my Liberal friends rather object to the noble Viscount's proposal on the ground that the Committee is likely to be too Conservative, my Conservative friends, on the other hand, object because they think the proclivities of the Committee proposed by the noble Viscount will be too Liberal. I do not say that that testimony is a
298
conclusive argument in favour of the noble Viscount's proposal, but I think it does involve the pretty fair assumption that he has hit the happy mean. At any rate, he has deserved the greatest compliment that can be paid to an arbiter in drawing up a proposal of the kind, that he has failed to completely satisfy either Party.
I say, again, I bring this proposal forward in a spirit of conciliation, and although I have very little hope that it will be accepted I ask His Majesty's Government to deal with it in the spirit in which I have brought it forward. I have already made, in deference to the views particularly of noble Lords opposite, certain concessions, and I wish it to be understood that so far as I am concerned I have not yet said my last word. If I thought there was the smallest hope of arriving at some amicable and mutual arrangement with noble Lords opposite I would be content, speaking entirely for myself, to consider any further suggestions. This matter of the Committee is a matter which could be settled, and I think, with a little amount of good will and give and take, it could be settled. If it is not settled it certainly will not be my fault or the fault of the noble Marquess or noble Lords behind him; it will be the fault of His Majesty's Government. Let me explain that, according to what I am told by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, I ought, as a matter of procedure merely, to move the Amendment as it originally stood in my name. But your Lordships will understand that is a mere matter of form, and that after the noble Viscount has spoken I am prepared to withdraw all the latter part of my Amendment and substitute the words which he proposes in its place. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the most convenient course will be for the noble Earl to move his first subsection.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Yes, that is what I mean to do.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, insert the following new clause—
.—(1) At the beginning of each Parliament a Joint Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Joint Committee") shall be appointed, consisting of the Speaker of the House of Commons, together with seven members of each House of Parliament, who shall be chosen by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons jointly in

299
such manner as they think best adapted to provide an impartial tribunal for the purposes of this Act. The Speaker of the House of Commons shall be chairman, and he shall have a casting vote only.—(The Earl of Cromer).
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I do not propose to detain your Lordships more than a minute or two on this Amendment. When my noble friend says that he brings forward this Amendment with a desire for conciliation, we, of course, give him the fullest credit for that; but what an absurdity it is to think that there is anything conciliatory in bringing forward a proposal which involves from beginning to end a complete supersession of the principles of the Bill? Nobody is more anxious for conciliation than I am if I thought it could be reached at this stage, but he might as well ask us for the sake of conciliation to drop the Bill altogether.
THE EARL OF CROMER: We had Lord Crewe's pledge to consider our proposal.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I promised not to speak for more than two or three minutes, and I do not propose to go into that. It is not really relevant, if my noble friend will allow me to say so. It is ridiculous to say, Why do not we show a conciliatory spirit? for when it comes to the points on which conciliation is demanded we find that they are points which mean neither more nor less than destroying the structure of the Bill. We are reproached with being slow and sullen in the matter of concession, but I have gone through these Amendments more than once and if I could I would have been delighted to find an Amendment which would have been a fair subject for concession. A more keen eye than mine may find one, but up to this point I have been unable to find any Amendment which could be the subject of a concession which would not be a complete betrayal and traverse of the object of the Bill.
I only make one single point on what my noble friend has said to-day. We have gone over this ground in three sittings, but my noble friend again says that the impartiality of the fourteen gentlemen, whom he has now thrown overboard, might be trusted. Who are they? Seven Members of the House of Lords and seven Members of the House of Commons. Every one of those seven Lords and every one of those seven Commoners have, if they have been attending to their legislative duties, already
300
given votes for or against the Bill. How can it be pretended, therefore, that when they go into committee to say whether a question of great gravity has arisen, and that the Bill in question raises it, they are by their antecedents perfectly impartial and free to judge independently? We object to this Committee, either as regards a Money Bill or as regards deciding in respect of any other Bill whether it does or does not involve a question of great gravity, and whether the judgment of the country has been sufficiently ascertained with regard to it or not. We object to any such Committee, either as superseding the Speaker of the House of Commons, or as the solitary authority, or otherwise. Therefore it would really be a farce for us to-day to intervene in the discussion among noble Lords opposite as to which of the two kinds of Committee they would like to accept, whether that of Lord Cromer or that of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. That is your question. It is not ours. Our opinion is perfectly well known. We have recorded it in these debates, and therefore I hope it will not be thought impatience nor want of respect either to the noble Earl or the noble Viscount if I say that we must leave this discussion to those members of your Lordships' House who approve and desire the formation of a Committee.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN proposed to amend Lord Cromer's clause by substituting as members of the Joint Committee "the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, a Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or who have held high judicial office, and a member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker"; and by omitting the word "only" at the end of subsection (1).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have often been surprised at the attitude noble Lords on the Government Bench have taken up towards Amendments moved to this Bill, but I am completely astonished by the speech of the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount has said that the Amendment of my noble friend on the Cross Benches and my own Amendment in proposing a Joint Committee is a complete supersession of the principles of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: For the purposes indicated in the noble Marquess's Amendment and in the Amendment of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble Viscount did not add those words. I will deal with this, in the first case with regard to Money Bills, and in the second case with regard to the other matters. With regard to Money Bills, does the noble Viscount really mean to say that either the noble Earl's Amendment or my Amendment is as regards Money Bills a complete supersession of the principles of this Bill? Is it possible to suggest that?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I raise it most emphatically in regard to the Amendment carried last night by the noble Marquess.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am not dealing with that. I am endeavouring to address myself to the question of arbitration as to what is and what is not a Money Bill. Does the noble Viscount really contend that to suggest another tribunal instead of the Speaker to conduct that arbitration between the two Houses is to propose a complete supersession of the principles of this Bill?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The principle and working of the Bill I ought to have said.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble Viscount amends his language in rather curious ways, but I will address myself to what he has said. The principle of this Bill is that there shall be a distinction between the treatment by the House of Lords of Money Bills arid of other Bills, and that therefore there shall be a tribunal to decide what is and what is not a Money Bill. That, I admit, is the principle of the Bill. But is it the principle of the Bill that the Speaker shall necessarily be that tribunal? Can it be contended for a moment, that at the election of last December the country supported the proposal that the Speaker should be the sole tribunal for arbitrating what were and what were not Money Bills? It cannot be so contended, for the simple reason that only last December the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, distinctly told us that the proposal that the Speaker should be the arbiter was not vital to the principle of the Bill.
302
I will, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said, endeavour to address myself to this Amendment as a proposal which does not supersede the principle of the Bill. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said on the subject nor to repeat what was said by my noble friend Lord Cromer, who gave such good reasons for my Amendment that I really thought he might have moved it instead of his own. But I will venture to say that as regards Money Bills I have never been able to see how the Speaker could be a fair tribunal as between the two Houses. I am not questioning for a moment the impartiality in political matters or as between political Parties of the many distinguished men who have held the high office of Speaker. I have had the honour of serving in t he House of Commons under five Speakers, all of them but one held different political opinions from my own before they took their high office, and I venture to say—and I am sure that what I am saying will be approved of by all who served under those Speakers—that no one whatever his political opinions could, from the moment each one of those right hon. gentlemen assumed the Chair of the House of Commons, have told what their previous political opinions had been. There never was, as far as political Parties were concerned, any doubt as to the impartiality of the Speaker. Neither, my Lords, is there any doubt as to the duty of the Speaker. The first and foremost duty of the Speaker is to maintain the privileges of the House of Commons, and how an official whose first and foremost duty that is can possibly be considered a proper arbiter as between the two Houses in matters which directly and enormously affect the privileges of the House of Commons I confess passes my understanding. Therefore, my Lords, I have ventured to propose this form of joint Committee in place of the Speaker in regard to Money Bills. On that matter the Commit tee's duty will be solely to interpret the provision of the first clause of this Bill.
Now I come to the further duties imposed upon the Joint Committee by the Amendments which have been subsequently passed, because I first suggested this proposal when the sole question for the Committee was the decision as to what a Money Bill might or might not be. The Committee now, according to the decisions of your Lordships' House, would have to decide whether as

303
regards a Money Bill its governing purpose was financial or not; and it would also have to decide, under the proposal carried last night by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, whether a Bill affected the existence of the Crown or of the Protestant succession, whether it established a National Parliament or Assembly with legislative powers in any part of the United Kingdom, and whether it raised issues of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country had not been sufficiently ascertained. So far as regards the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession, or the question of Home Rule, which also must be a matter for interpretation, I can conceive no great difficulty in the way of members of the Committee addressing themselves to such matters; but I confess the difficulty in their way is greater to my mind when it comes to a question of what is the governing purpose of a Money Bill, and the further question of what is an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained. Speaking for myself, I very much doubt whether those proposals, if this Bill ever becomes law, will be retained. But assuming that they are retained in the Bill, and taking the Bill as it now stands, I venture to say that if it be possible to appoint any tribunal capable of dealing with such matters as these—matters not of the interpretation of a Statute but matters of opinion—the kind of tribunal I have suggested to your Lordships is the best that could possibly be framed. I have endeavoured in suggesting this tribunal to do two things—first of all, to suggest a tribunal which shall be absolutely fair between the two Houses as representing the opinions of both Houses and yet shall give a preponderance to the House of Commons; and, in the second place, to suggest a tribunal the members of which should by their ordinary duties be accustomed to decide impartially matters of grave importance affecting Parliamentary procedure or the interpretation of the law.
May for one moment, call the attention of your Lordships to the list of names which I have suggested for this Committee? In the first place, I have suggested the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord is not now in his place, and therefore in his absence I venture to say that I would trust his impartial decision in any matter referred to him judicially as much as that of any man I know. He is, no doubt, a member of the Government, and
304
as such not quite in the position of the other members of the Committee I have ventured to suggest. But it has always been the practice, the laudable practice, for the Lord Chancellor of the clay to separate himself as far as possible—while, of course, defending the measures of his colleagues—from Party controversy, and to deal even with subjects of Party politics with a more or less judicial gravity as compared with the manner in which they are dealt with by his colleagues. He is not only a Minister of the Crown but Speaker of your Lordships' House, and I venture to say that, being Speaker of your Lordships' House, he is qualified for such a position as I have proposed. Next comes the Speaker of the House of Commons. I need say nothing more with reference to him. Then the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords is also in a position in which he has to decide every day impartially as to matters of procedure in this House and matters of great importance with regard to private legislation, which places him in a position entirely apart from ordinary Party controversy. I next suggest the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, who is in a similar position to our Chairman. He never, I believe, votes or speaks on any Bill which comes under the consideration of the House, unless it be with regard to private legislation. Then I suggest that some one Peer should be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding, or who have held high judicial office. I need not dwell on the position which those noble Lords occupy in the estimation of the country and of the Empire, or of the nature of the judicial duties which they have to perform. Finally, I suggest as the sixth member of the tribunal a member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker. He would necessarily be someone experienced in Parliamentary work, and a man of an impartial mind, who would bring his best ability to the judgment of any questions referred to the tribunal. The Speaker would have, as the noble Earl on the Cross Benches has said, not only one vote, as one of the six members of this tribunal but a casting vote, so as to ensure the preponderance of the House of Commons.
I have not thought of what the political opinions might be of those of whom this tribunal would probably be composed, because I believe that they would be able,

305
in dealing with the matters referred to them under this Bill, to throw off their political opinions and act in a perfectly impartial manner. It would be far more difficult for the fourteen members proposed by my noble friend on the Cross Benches to take up such a position, because they must necessarily have taken in the other House an active part of some sort or another in the previous consideration of Bills that had cone before them, and therefore I think they would necessarily be somewhat prejudiced in dealing with them afterwards. I hope your Lordships will be pleased to accept this proposal. I do not say that it is by any means perfect. It is a matter of enormous difficulty to frame a tribunal for the purpose of dealing with the provisions of this Bill. But, such as it is, I commend the proposal for your Lordships' approval, and I wish to conclude by thanking my noble friend on the Cross Benches for the manner in which he has himself dealt with my Amendment.
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
In subsection (1), line 3, leave out from the first ("of") to ("tribunal") in line 7, and insert ("the Lord Chancellor, the speaker of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the house of Commons, a Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or who have held high Judicial Office, and a member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few minutes, not so much for the purpose of stating my opinion upon the grave Constitutional question which your Lordships are discussing as for the purpose of stating the effect that the Bill and the Amendments of Lord Cromer and Lord St. Aldwyn will have upon the position of the Speaker of the other House. I had the honour of being Speaker of the House of Commons for many years, and I can speak with some experience of the responsibilities which attach to that high office. I gladly recognise the approbation which the status of the Speaker has received at the hands of your Lordships during this debate, and I take
306
this public opportunity of expressing my grateful acknowledgment to Lord Curzon and to the Leader of the House for the kind words which they expressed with reference to myself personally.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is a responsible office. He undertakes that responsibility very willingly, but it is a little hard that his responsibility should be added to by any other duties of the kind proposed by this Bill. The Speaker has to decide questions of very great gravity arising within the House of Commons, and also in relation to questions arising between the House of Commons and your Lordships' House. I have tried to recollect what were the occasions on which I gave any decisions against your Lordships' House in maintaining the privileges of the House of Commons. I have found two instances only. One was in 1891 when, in the Elementary Education Bill, your Lordships introduced a clause for grouping elementary schools. I held it to be my duty to rule that if that Amendment of your Lordships was introduced it would increase the charge upon the public, and that if in any case the charge was exceeded in any particular school it was a clear violation of the House of Commons' privilege. The other case was in reference to a Local Government Bill. Your Lordships had made some alteration in the financial relations between the owner and the occupier, the result of which would have been to increase the charge upon the public. On those grounds I decided that your Lordships had committed a breach of privilege against the Commons, and the Amendment was disregarded. Those are the two occasions, and the only two occasions, on which. I gave any decision on the question of privilege as between one House and the other. I do not know whether the present Speaker has given any decision upon any question affecting the relations of the two Houses, but that he has decided questions of great gravity with great impartiality no one, I think, will deny for a moment. For instance, on the Redistribution scheme in the year 1905 when Mr. Balfour, who was then Prime Minister, proposed to substitute Resolutions for a Bill, the Speaker held that Resolutions would be incompatible with the privileges of the House, that he was not able to put the Resolutions before the House en bloc, and that discussion upon them could only be taken separately. No time, therefore,

307
would be saved in proceeding by Resolutions, and Mr. Balfour withdrew his Resolutions.
Your Lordships may ask, "What is the use of these precedents you have quoted?" I quote them only for the purpose of showing that the Speaker of the House of Commons may decide questions of privilege affecting the relations between one House and the other, and questions of privilege affecting the internal relations of the House of Commons, but to place upon him other duties is quite another matter. It would be impossible, in my judgment, for the Speaker to maintain his high position were such a duty as this Bill proposes saddled upon him. At present the Speaker is able to take advice from any quarter; he may consult anybody he pleases, but he is not bound to state the means by which he arrives at his decision. But this proposal, if accepted, would fetter, I feel sure, the responsibility of the Speaker and expose him to a suggestion of suspicion which would be unworthy of his character and position in the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons occupies a great position, and is recognised as a responsible officer. It is that responsibility which I believe attracts to him the admiration of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons, and it is the impartiality with which he exercises it that is at the base of the universal admiration and respectful affection in which the present Speaker of the House of Commons is held, and I should be very sorry indeed if at any moment the fair fame of the Speaker's character should be blown upon by a breath of suspicion, or if any alteration were made in his position which might derogate from his high office.
As to the Amendment now before the House, my objection to Lord Cromer's proposition is to the magnitude of the Committee he proposes. I think it is very important, if we are to have a Committee at all, that it should be a small one, for the reason that unanimity is a great object to be gained, and you are more likely to get unanimity by a small Committee than by a Committee of fourteen or fifteen. I would not despair at all of selecting fourteen impartial members from the House of Commons. I believe there are as good men in the House of Commons as ever there were, and that their character is as high, and I have not the least doubt that you
308
would be able to select as many impartial men from that House as you required. I need not say that I could say the same of your Lordships' House; and the method proposed by Lord St. Aldwyn for the selection of the members of the Committee guarantees, I think, the impartiality of the Committee quite apart from the number of members it is proposed to put upon it. It is a high question which I leave to your Lordships to decide as to what their duties should be, but that they should assist the Speaker in defining what is a Money Bill, for instance, is, I think, a most wholesome proposal. I do not wish to address the House any further, and I thank you for the kind attention with which you have listened to me.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, like a good many other Members of your Lordships' House I had the honour of serving in the House of Commons under the noble Viscount who has just addressed us. I have grateful recollections of the way in which he exercised his great Authority- as Speaker and of the respect and affection in which we all held him, without distinction of Party, and I am grateful to him to-day, as one who has recently left that House, for the tribute he has paid to its character, a testimony derived from his own observation of the way in which the old traditions are carried on to-day as they were carried on of yore. The weight of authority of the noble Viscount is very great. So is the authority of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, on a question of this kind. Speaking for myself, and, I think, for others, I say at once that we would rather that the question had not arisen of imposing the burden of new statutory judicial duties upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, but we know of no way out, and your Lordships appear to know of no way out. In dealing with the introduction of a statutory authority in the shape of a Joint Committee it may well be that it would be desirable to relieve the Speaker of the House of Commons, if he could be relieved, of this burden.
I do not rise to debate the general question—my noble friend has expressed all we have to say upon that—but I desire to point out that in the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, and, I think, throughout this discussion, what to us is the dominant

309
consideration, the dominant difficulty, has been ignored. It is not merely a question of setting up the Speaker as a judicial authority who, before a Bill conies to this House from the other House, has to give a certificate, but of setting up an authority who is to decide and to give guidance as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not—not a Money Bill in the abstract, but a Money Bill of the kind described in subsection (2) of Clause 1, a Bill which may be one of a number of different species. One of the unavoidable peculiarities of this position is that in the course of its passage through the House of Commons a Bill may alter its character. Having begun as a Money Bill, it may cease to be a Money Bill and become a general Bill, subject to Clause 2. If that happens the whole finance of the year may be thrown into confusion. A Budget Bill may thus come under Clause 2, and then we may have the legitimate exercise of your Lordships' rights in that case and the Bill hung up for an indefinite time. That is just the situation which we look upon as impossible, as reducing the financial stability of this country to a state of confusion. The noble Marquess did not agree with me when I made the statement before, but perhaps he will consider the real force there is in what I am saying now.
Unless you can get somebody who can give authoritative guidance right through all the stages of the passage of a Bill through the House of Commons confusion is unavoidable. For example, take a Budget Bill. In the Committee stage there are all sorts of discussions and Amendments by private Members, and it is very easy to turn a Bill which originated as a Money Bill into a general Bill which comes under Clause 2. The Government of the day may wish to make Amendments. It may be most desirable to do so, because there may be slips to be rectified and necessary improvements to be made. As I say, unless there is authoritative guidance as the Bill goes along, guidance which can be relied upon to steer its course correctly, confusion and uncertainty seem to be unavoidable, and there would be a serious risk of the passage of the Budget Bill of the year being delayed. That is one cogent reason why we have adopted our plan. We quite recognise that a burden is being placed upon the Speaker, but somebody must be entrusted with the duty, and unless the authoritative exercise of the
310
Speaker's functions is employed right through from beginning to end of the Bill there is no certainty that confusion will not result. These questions arise from hour to hour. How can you get a Committee of the kind together from time to time to deal with the points as they arise? It is on that ground particularly that we object to this Amendment. If the deciding authority in the House of Commons could always exercise the influence over us all and command the confidence of us all in the way recent Speakers have done, as the present Speaker has done, and as the noble Viscount who has just spoken has preeminently done, then I think your Lordships would be satisfied to accept the authority of the Speaker. We must hope that the great traditions of the past will be continued in the future. It is better to put up with a mere question of the balance of convenience and inconvenience than to set up machinery which would put the financial stability of this country in peril.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just sat down I had the honour of sitting for many years under my noble friend Viscount Peel, and I should have hoped that the Government, after hearing what the noble Viscount with his great experience has said and the strong reasons which he urged against the duty that is proposed being cast upon the Speaker, would have at least intimated their readiness to give careful consideration to the Amendment now before the House. The remarks which have just fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, are therefore very disappointing. His speech, moreover, makes the prospect, if possible, even more alarming than it was before, because I understood him to say that during the course of a Budget Bill through the House of Commons additions might be made to it which would make it a Bill coming under Clause 2, and yet your Lordships were to be precluded from dealing with it, although those additions introduced into the Budget Bill might refer to anything on earth. That is a very alarming prospect.
My noble friend opposite repeated an argument which seems to me—and I speak from having had the honour of sitting for, more than 30 years in the House of Commons—not to have any foundation whatever. He has told us this evening, not for the first time, that it is necessary to have an authority at hand

311
which would determine from day to day whether an addition to a Bill left it a Money Bill or made it an ordinary Bill, and that unless this were done the finances of the country might be thrown into confusion. I venture, however, to say, and I appeal to other noble Lords who have had seats in the House of Commons, that there is a complete answer. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a Bill is brought in quite properly as a Money Bill and that provisions are introduced into it which, in the opinion of this Joint Committee sitting at the end of the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, bring the Bill under Clause 2, and that in the opinion of the Government it was most important that it should remain a Money Bill and that they should be able to pass it without coining to this House. I venture to say, and I doubt if any noble Lord who has had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons will contradict me, that all that need happen would be that the Government would move that the Bill should be recommitted, that the clauses in it which prevented it from being a purely Money Bill should be omitted, and then the Bill would go through without coming to this House at all. If I am correct in that statement, what becomes of the argument of my noble friend opposite that it is necessary to have a decision from day to day, the only alternative being that it would throw the finances of the country into confusion? If the account is right which I have ventured to give of the procedure in the House of Commons, I submit that no such confusion need arise, and I would ask any one of your Lordships who has had a seat in the House whether he can deny that the description as to procedure which I have given is a correct one.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, after the very grave pronouncement of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, I think it might almost have been well if we could have suspended for a while our proceedings and bethought ourselves what effect his statements should have on the future progress of this Bill. I enter upon the discussion under the influence of the statement of the noble Viscount with much hesitation, and with grave consideration, I hope, of what I am about to say. I must at the outset say that I regret that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War should
312
have given us—and on this point I agree with my noble friend who has just sat down—a perfectly imaginary statement with regard to the conduct of a Bill through the House of Commons. I have had the honour of presiding over Bills in Committee in the House of Commons, and I was never aware that the Speaker was always at hand to determine what was the nature of any Amendment that was moved, and to rule from day to day upon the character a Bill might assume. That guidance is not given, and it is not wanted.
I deduce from at all events the first part of the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel—under whom I also had the honour of serving—a very different moral, and one which seems to me more appropriate to the Bill as it stands. What did Lord Peel tell us? He told us that he had examined the records of his own action as Speaker and found that on two occasions, and two occasions only, had he pronounced on the question as to the action of your Lordships in relation to the money privileges of the House of Commons, and that those pronouncements were explicitly accepted in the House of Commons and observed and respected by your Lordships. In other words, the experience of Lord Peel confirms the statement that the Speaker has been in the past the real arbiter of the question whether the action of this House has or has not been interference with the money privileges of the House of Commons, and his sole and independent decision has been accepted as final.
What the noble Viscount has said is a confirmation of the view that I ventured to submit in the first discussion that arose here—that the only real solution consonant with the practice of the past and with the maintenance of the privileges of the Commons, which we must hold to have been asserted at two successive General Elections, is to accept the scheme of the Bill in respect to Money Bills, and leave to the Speaker, and to the Speaker alone, the absolute authority of determining what is a Money Bill. There was, as I admitted, some little risk that in the future there might be a deterioration in the character of the Speaker, and that your Lordships would lose under the Bill now before us the power which you did nominally possess, but never until 1909 exercised, of rejecting a Money Bill. But taking into

313
account all the considerations on the one side and on the other—and, I am pleased to be fortified by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel—it would be wise, in my opinion, to maintain the first part of the Bill as it stands, and leave to the Speaker the sole determination of what is and what is not a Money Bill.
Now I come to the composition of the Committee in relation to the subsequent part of the Bill. Here I am pleased to be again supported by Lord Peel in my view of the great importance of having a very small Committee. The noble Viscount did not intimate any opinion as to whether six would be too many, but he much preferred the smaller number because he thought there would be not only a greater feeling of responsibility but greater authority on the part of individual members, and that you might hope to secure greater unanimity. I do not think you could look for that so much with six as you could with four, and I hold strongly that the proposal of the noble Viscount opposite would be unproved if he consented to a reduction from six to four. In the first place I would cut out—I hope the noble Earl who is presiding over us to-night will forgive me for saying so—the Chairman of Committees of this House and the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons. I propose that, not merely because of the greater responsibility that will be created by having a smaller Committee, but because by including those two officers you are making an entirely new departure. These two officers hold their office on different tenures.
I dare say your Lordships read in The Times the other day the history of the position of Chairman of Committees in this House. I think I am right in saying that our Chairman of Committees is formally voted to the Chair every Session, but when he gets there his tenure may be said to be life-long. But in the House of Commons the Chairman of Ways and Means is voted into the Chair at the commencement of a Parliament and only holds his position during the duration of that Parliament, and until very recently the position of Chairman of Ways and Means was filled by a Party man. Lord St. Aldwyn has told us that that officer now very rarely votes still less speaks on what may be called a Party discussion. It used to be quite the custom to vote,
314
but I am not sure how far the process was carried. When I was Chairman of Ways and Means I always abstained from voting on the Second Reading of a Bill Over which I was going to preside in Committee if it raised any question of Parliamentary importance, but there was no such duty recognised on the part of a Chairman of Ways and Means in those days and he is still largely looked upon as a Party man. He is displaced when a change of Party arises in the House of Commons. He does not sit, as the Chairman of Committees does in this House, through successive Ministries. He holds his office at the will of the House of Commons, so to speak, at the commencement of a Parliament, and if he fails to be re-elected at a General Election he is displaced. I remember looking up the past history of Chairmen of Ways and Means, and I found that during thirty years riot one of them had ever been re-elected at a General Election, so unlucky had been their experience. Somehow or other they do not come back. These considerations, therefore, lead me to think that it would be as well if these two officers were excluded from the Committee. They do not add to the weight of it, but by appointing them you do add to the Committee persons who, for the reasons I have stated, are subject, at all events in some measure, to considerations which make it desirable to my mind that they should not be on the Committee.
Then the noble Earl on the Cross Benches said—I do not know that it was repeated by Lord St. Aldwyn—that it was as well to have a sufficient number on the Committee to represent all the interests involved. I strongly deprecate the suggestion of interests in this matter. What you really want on this Committee are men with a large knowledge of affairs and as much aloofness from Party considerations as possible—men who have been accustomed to look at things in a broad way, and who would be able to bring to the determination of the questions submitted to them large and broad views of policy and of national movement. I am talking perhaps too vainly, because there emerges out of this discussion the determined and uncompromising attitude of His Majesty's Government. But I do not despair. I still think that if the Government could by any means bring themselves to recommend to the House of Commons the

315
appointment of the Speaker as the sole authority to decide what is a Money Bill, and again as to other Bills, should, assisted by four persons of presumably the highest character, decide, not whether a Bill is to be defeated or even to be set aside, but whether before its finally becoming law it should be approved of by popular vote, we might still have a solution of this question. But I think it can only be done by having a very small Committee.
Two members have been indicated—the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons. I will not at this moment traverse the suggestions the noble Viscount made, but I do not much like, as I said on a former occasion, the introduction of the Law Lords as the electors of one member of the Committee. I think it would be better for the third and fourth members of the Committee to be elected, one by your Lordships' House and the other by the House of Commons and not by the Speaker. If your Lordships at the commencement of a Parliament elected a member of your House to the Committee the act of election would be a very serious business, and you certainly would choose one who would command the respect of all. The same may be said of the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, and two other members elected in the way I have suggested would form a Committee to which the questions involved in the Amendment of the noble Marquess might well be referred. I conclude with the feeling that I have been occupying the attention of your Lordships too long, not because I am diffident of the propriety of what I have submitted, but because I really fear that the determination of my noble friends below me shipwrecks all hopes of arriving at a solution of this question by compromise.
LORD NORTHCOTE: My Lords, may I be permitted to supplement the remarks of my noble friend Lord Avebury with a single observation addressed to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War. I wish to remind him—he must know it from his long Parliamentary experience—that the class of Amendments which may transform a non-Money Bill into a Money Bill or vice versa are necessarily much more often moved when the House of Commons is in Committee than in the full House, and, as Lord Avebury pointed out, when the House is in Committee it has not the
316
advantage of the immediate guidance and direction of the Speaker. The noble Viscount, therefore, can hardly claim that the Speaker will be constantly there to advise the Government at a moment's notice. As we know, Amendments are accepted in the course of Committee—the Government are obliged to do so—on the spur of the moment without having the opportunity of consulting the Speaker as to whether they are changing the character of their Bills in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord. Courtney, spoke somewhat despondently of the general attitude of His Majesty's Ministers with regard to this Bill. May I make an appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House? He told us last night that compromise and concession were two great political jewels. Will he not take the present opportunity of exposing those jewels to the open air, or is he afraid of tarnishing them? I must confess that the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, appears to me to be of a most reasonable and nonpartisan character, and if His Majesty's Ministers will not accept an Amendment of that kind I really think the noble Viscount opposite might spare himself the trouble of praising compromise and concession.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, under the Bill as it stands the whole working of the measure may at any time be brought to a standstill. We all remember how his late Majesty was disabled on the eve of his Coronation, and even Speakers are not immune from such commonplace complaints as influenza and colds, which for a time may render them quite incapable of attending the House. There is no provision of any sort in the Bill for anyone to take the place of the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker is not mentioned, and if he were the Deputy Speaker is not the same thing by any means as the Speaker—instead of being chosen by the House he is the nominee of the Government of the day. These difficulties are disposed of if the functions of arbiter are given to a Committee instead of to the Speaker, and I think that point of some importance in this consideration.
LORD FABER: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, but I was not quite certain at the close of his speech whether he was in favour of the Speaker being the sole arbiter or whether he preferred a Committee. I should think,

317
however, that after listening to what Lord Peel said as to the great burden that this additional duty would impose upon the Speaker he was inclined to the opinion that the Committee was the better solution. The noble Lord suggested that the number of members should be reduced from six to four. It will not have escaped him that in Lord St. Aldwyn's proposal the Speaker has a casting vote. When there are six members on a Committee a casting vote is powerful, but when there are only four it becomes much more powerful still. I do not know whether that point has been considered.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, two speeches which we have heard this evening from this side of the House certainly received, and I think deserved, the earnest attention of your Lordships. I refer to the speech of my noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn, and the speech delivered by Viscount Peel, to whom the House listened with attention and pleasure. Lord Peel, speaking with the immense weight which attaches to his record and position, told your Lordships that in his view it would be impossible for the Speaker to maintain his high position if the duties which this Bill contemplates were imposed upon him. That seems to me to be a warning of the utmost significance. What was the reply that was made by the noble Viscount opposite? He said that there was no other way out—I think those were his words. We have endeavoured to show that there is another way out, and I do not think that anything which has yet been said has been sufficient to show that the way we have ventured to indicate is one which might not safely be pursued.
The noble Viscount who leads the House, it is true, dwelt upon certain difficulties of procedure which were likely to arise during the passage of a Bill through the House of Commons if our proposal for a Joint Committee were adopted. His argument was, I think, to the effect that the complexion of a Bill might alter during its progress through the House of Commons, and that at any moment or at any hour a question might arise as to whether a Bill was a Money Bill or not. I speak with great deference upon this subject because it has been my misfortune never to have held a seat in the House of Commons, but I am led to believe that what would happen would be this. The Speaker would
318
still watch over a Bill during its progress through the House, and if at the end of that progress the result of any changes which had taken place was to convert the Bill from a Money Bill into a Bill which was no longer a Money Bill, or to raise a doubt upon that point, he would then call the Committee together and obtain their decision upon the matter.
Then there is the question of the composition of the Committee. We are inclined upon the whole to think that the composition suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, is preferable to that suggested by Lord Cromer, and, indeed, I understand that Lord Cromer has withdrawn his proposal in favour of Lord St. Aldwyn's. But, my Lords, I venture to say that the composition of the Committee, though no doubt very important, is not a matter which is really fundamental in this case. I can conceive many ways of constituting a body of this kind. But surely what you want, and what it should not be beyond your power to obtain, is some small body of cool-headed, clear-headed and experienced men who can—I think the phrase was Viscount St. Aldwyn's—throw off political prejudices when they address themselves to the important task which is imposed upon them. Viscount St. Aldwyn suggested that although his Committee might be a very suitable Committee for the purposes of Clause 1 of the Bill, he was not equally convinced of its fitness for the duties which Clause 2 would impose upon the Committee under the Amendment which your Lordships agreed to last night. I cannot help thinking that there is a certain amount of misapprehension as to the functions of the Joint Committee, and as to the place which it would occupy in our political system. One misapprehension, for I think it is one, is that the services of this Committee would be constantly invoked. I believe myself it would be upon the rarest occasions that recourse would be had to it.
I noted that the noble Viscount last night, when criticising our proposal that the Committee should deal with the gravity of questions which might come before them, said—
"You are contemplating a measure which has been three times rejected by the House of Lords, and is it conceivable that such a measure should not be a crave measure?

319
I think it is perfectly conceivable that it might be very far from being a grave measure. Let me take a measure which we were discussing not very long ago and which occurs to me at the moment—it dealt with the camping grounds of gipsies or some subject of that kind. A Bill of that nature might be three times rejected in this House, but it would still remain a measure of second or third rate importance, and would certainly, if our clause were reasonably interpreted, be regarded as in no sense a grave measure. What has to happen before the Committee is invoked? There must be three rejections in this House and a lapse of two years, and surely after a question has been as thoroughly discussed and debated as it must have been during that period the Minister, or the House, or the Speaker of the House of Commons—the three authorities who can invoke the assistance of the Committee—will have had ample opportunities of considering whether it is really worth while setting the Committee in motion, and they would not do so unless the matter was of such importance as to require the solution of the knot by a tribunal of that kind. Neither the Minister, nor either House of Parliament, nor, I venture to think, the Speaker of the House of Commons, would be likely to risk what would be a kind of rebuff at the hands of the Committee, if they sent to the Committee a measure which the Committee did not consider of sufficient moment to deserve their investigation. And, my Lords, not only will both Houses of Parliament and the Minister consider what the Committee is likely to say when the subject comes before it but they will consider what the people of this country are likely to say supposing the Committee sends the measure to a Referendum. Therefore, everything points to this, that this piece of new machinery will be handled very cautiously, and that it will not be set in motion except when there are quite sufficient reasons for doing so.
Then we are told that the appointment of this Committee indicates that we have a complete distrust of the House of Commons. Surely that is an unreasonable imputation. If the proposal indicates distrust at all—and I do not admit that it does—it indicates distrust of both Houses equally. The Committee has to decide between the two Houses, and is that not a fairer arrangement between House and House than the
320
arrangement contemplated by this Bill, under which, when the two Houses differ, it shall always be assumed that one House is right and the other House is wrong? I may remind your Lordships that, unfair as the procedure of the Bill is as between the two Houses, we accept that procedure except in the special circumstances covered by the Amendment which your Lordships have accepted. And when we propose that the issue should go to this Joint Committee be it remembered that we are going to a body not independent of the two Houses, but a body which draws its very existence from, which has delegated authority accorded to it by, the two Houses of Parliament. It is a kind of reasonable arbitration, as Lord St. Aldwyn said, between the two Houses when they differ. In these days we are all great believers in arbitration. We are at the present moment much interested in the project of a new Arbitration Treaty between ourselves and the United States of America. Is not this a case where we may safely submit ourselves to arbitration? Be it remembered that there is this difference between our proposal and a proposal for arbitration in the ordinary sense of the word, that if you go to the arbitrators and they decide against you their decision is final; there is no more to be said; but if you go to our arbitrators the worst thing that can happen is that you are referred to the country, and it is the country who decides which is right and which is wrong. As I said before, we prefer the Committee suggested by Lord St. Aldwyn and if he goes to a Division we shall certainly support him.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed new clause agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN then moved that the word "only" at the end of the first subsection of the Earl of Cromer's new clause be deleted, thus giving the Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee, a vote, as well as a casting vote in the event of the Committee being equal.
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
In subsection (1), line 9, leave out ("only").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, we have now to deal with subsection (2) of my proposed new clause, which treats of the manner in which the Joint Committee is to be put in motion. Your Lordships may observe that a change of some considerable importance has been introduced into this Amendment since I first put it down on the Paper. The first proposal was that there should be two means of bringing this Committee into operation. One way was by the action of the Minister of the Crown, and the other was by a resolution of either House of Parliament. I now propose to add a third method, and to allow the Speaker of the House of Commons to put the machinery in motion on his own initiative if he should think fit to do so. As regards the Minister of the Crown, the noble Viscount opposite has said that it is quite unnecessary to put him in because ex hypothesi he will never wish to summon the Committee. I agree to a certain extent. His insertion is the least important, but I think it is better to put him in, as before proposing any measure such as would come under the noble Marquess's clause the Minister might like to consult the Committee. Then with regard to the next method—upon Resolution by either House of Parliament—that was intended to deal with a situation arising where there was difference of opinion between the two Houses. I do not think I need say any more on that point. The other method is by the action of the Speaker himself. I put that in because, even before the criticisms of noble Lords opposite, I had noticed that as there was no machinery for bringing this Committee into operation where both Houses were in a majority in favour of a measure, there was no means of safeguarding the rights of a minority. That was a defect that certainly had to be remedied. There are only two ways of doing so—either by allowing a certain minority in one or both Houses to have a right to enjoin the Speaker to set the Committee in motion, or the way I suggest. Lord Weardale in the course of the debate yesterday proposed, as I understood, that a minority of 200 should be allowed to set the machinery in operation. I have no objection to a minority power of that description, but there are certain objections to it. If once you begin to say that a minority can put the machinery in motion, you at once have to consider what is to be that minority, whether it is to be 50, 100, 150, 200, and so on. I do
322
not suppose anyone would suggest that the Committee ought to be summoned by a very small and insignificant majority—10, 15, or 20 people; but when you get above that number the difficulties become considerable, because the moment a thing of this sort is proposed all the Party wire-pullers and managers put their heads together and ask themselves whether it is conceivable that their Party in the House would ever sink below the required minimum. I do not consider that a fatal objection, but it is a thing to be considered. It would be wiser, I think, to leave the decision of the question to the Speaker. He is always in touch with all Parties in the House; he would be perfectly impartial in this as in other matters; and he would be able to judge whether there was a substantial minority in the House of Commons in favour of bringing the Joint Committee into operation. For these reasons I think that this matter might confidently be left in the hands of the Speaker. I beg to move that subsection (2) of my proposed new clause be here inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, insert the following new subsection—
(2) The Speaker of the House of Commons may, if he think fit, and shall, if so requested in writing by a Minister of the Crown or upon a resolution of either House of Parliament in that behalf, call together the Joint Committee for the purpose of deciding any question which under the provisions of this Act may be decided by them.—(The Earl of Cromer.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I only rise to put in one word of caution. The noble Earl proposes that the Speaker should have the sole right of intervening on behalf of a possible minority in the House of Commons whom the Speaker might think were entitled to have a reference to the country of a particular Bill. That appears to me to be an impossible task to place upon the Speaker, and I propose on the Report stage to move an Amendment in the sense of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's proposal—that a certain number of Members of the House of Commons should be entitled to summon the Committee. I do not think that anyone in the position of Speaker of the House of Commons would for a moment undertake the duty the noble Earl wishes to place upon him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I now move that the third and last subsection of my new clause be added to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, insert the following new subsection—
(3) The decision of the Joint Committee on any question so referred to them shall be final and conclusive for all purposes and shall not be questioned in any Court of Law.—(The Earl of Cromer.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and new clause as amended added to the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Page 3, insert the following new clause—
—(1) Whenever a Bill is, under the provisions of this Act, to be submitted to a poll of the electors, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to issue writs for the taking of the poll which shall be taken throughout the United Kingdom on the day appointed by the writs. The writs shall be directed to the persons appointed to be returning officers for the election of members returned to Parliament.
(2) Every person whose name appears upon the Parliamentary Register of Electors in force at the time a poll of the electors is taken shall be entitled to vote once and no more on such poll. A person shall not vote or ask for a ballot paper or voting paper for the purpose of voting more than once at one and the same poll of the electors, and if a person acts in contravention of this provision he shall be guilty of personation within the meaning of the enactments relating to personation and to voting.
(3) The ballot papers shall be in accordance with the form set out in the schedule to this Act.
(4) if it shall appear that on the poll of the electors a majority of the electors voting (not being less than twenty-five per cent. of the total number of persons on the Parliamentary Register of Electors) have voted in favour of the Bill the Bill shall be presented to His Majesty and on receiving the Royal Assent shall become an Act of Parliament as provided by this Act, but otherwise a Bill which has been submitted to a poll of the electors shall not be presented to His Majesty or become an Act of Parliament without prejudice to such Bill being introduced as a new Bill in any subsequent Session.
(5) A poll of the electors shall, as far as the circumstances admit, be conducted in the same manner as the poll at a contested parliamentary election is by the Ballot Act, 1872, directed to be conducted, and subject to the modifications prescribed by regulations under this Act, the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1863 to 1883, relating to a poll at a parliamentary election shall apply to a poll of the electors under this Act.
(6) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make regulations not inconsistent with this Act prescribing all matters which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this section.
324
(7) Before any Order under this Section is submitted to His Majesty in Council a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days present an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order. Every Order in Council made in pursuance of this section may be revoked, amended, or varied in like manner as made, and shall, while in force, have effect as if enacted in this Act.

Form of Ballot Paper.

POLL of the PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS of the UNITED

KINGDOM, BALLOT PAPER.

Counterfoil No.

Bill.

Yes.

No.

(1) The counterfoil is to have a number to correspond with that on the back of the ballot paper.

(1)

(2)

If you wish the above-mentioned Bill to become law, place a cross under the word "Yes."

(2) Here insert the short title of the Bill submitted to a poll of the electors.

If you do not wish that the above-mentioned. Bill should become law, place a cross under the word "No."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Saltoun has informed me that he does not propose to move this Amendment.
Clause 3:
Certificate of Speaker.
3. Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
On Question, Clause 3 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after Clause 3, the following new clause—
.—(1) In every Bill presented to His Majesty under the preceding provisions of this Act, the words of enactment shall be as follows, that is to say—
"Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, and by the authority of the same, as follows."
(2) Any alteration of a Bill necessary to give effect to this section shall be made, in the case of a Money Bill, by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and, in the case of any other Bill, by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and for the purposes of this Act shall not be deemed to be an amendment thereof.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I propose to take subsection (1) of the Amendment first. The second subsection really relates to machinery, and I will not trouble your Lordships with if at this moment. This clause, or some such clause, is absolutely necessary in consequence of the new kind of Act of Parliament which is created for the first time by this Bill. Hitherto all Acts have been passed after obtaining the consent of both Houses, but under this Bill, as I say, there is to be a new kind of Act. This Bill says that a Bill shall become an Act of Parliament "notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill. "In those circumstances it is quite clear that the enacting formula to which we are accustomed is absolutely inapplicable. The existing formula runs as follows—
"Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, …"
This Bill departs from that altogether, and creates a wholly new kind of Act of Parliament.
It would have seemed hardly necessary to argue a thing of this kind before your Lordships had it not been for the extraordinary conduct of the Government in the other House. A clause very similar to the one I propose was brought forward in the House of Commons and objected to there. It was to a certain extent argued in Committee, but when it was renewed on Report the statement was made that the clause had already been considered and rejected, and it was thereupon again voted down. It is worth while, I think, to point out the action which the Government have taken with regard to this matter and the line of argument they have followed. The Attorney-General opposed the insertion of this
326
clause. He began by admitting that it was necessary to deal with the matter, but he ended by saying that it was not necessary now. His words were—
"One aspect of the policy of the Government is to avoid making any distinction between Bills which are passed under the provisions of the Parliament Bill and Bills which are passed in the ordinary way. … What we desire is to accept no formula which would make a different formula to be applied to Bills passing under the Parliament. Bill and to Bills passed under the ordinary procedure."
In other words, a Bill passed by one House alone and a Bill passed by the two Houses are to be described by one and the same formula.
Let me examine those two statements. Why is it not necessary to make this change now? If the change has to be made and to be made by Statute, as was admitted, why not insert it in this Bill? This Bill is the proper place in which to put an amendment of this sort. You are creating a new kind of Act of Parliament altogether, and therefore you must create a new formula to describe it if you wish to describe it correctly. With regard to the other argument of the Attorney-General—that they would accept no formula which would make a different formula to be applied to Bills passed under the Parliament Bill and Bills passed under the ordinary procedure, and that they did not wish to recognise any distinction between those two kinds of Bills—the question is not whether the Attorney-General wishes to recognise a distinction between the two kinds of Bills. The Government have by this Bill created that distinction. They have introduced an entirely novel Act of Parliament different altogether from that to which we are accustomed, and what we want now is some means of stating it correctly. I quite understand the motive of the Government in offering this opposition, which appears to me factious and not very much to their credit. Their desire is to conceal from the public as far as they can the revolution which they are making. We are accustomed to that line of argument from them. It has been adopted over and over again in this House.
Noble Lords opposite deny that they are creating a one-Chamber Act of Parliament. We are not a set of special pleaders refining upon the meaning of individual words. What we are dealing with here are facts. And what are the facts? This Bill deals

327
with cases in which the Lords decline to pass Bills. It is limited entirely to cases in which this House declines to pass a Money Bill within a month or rejects other Bills three times during two years. The very words of this measure state that the particular Bill referred to is to be passed "notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill. "What do your Lordships think of a formula which says that this Bill is passed "by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, "when the Lords Spiritual and Temporal have not only not given their consent but have done everything in their power under the Constitution to resist the passage of the Bill? I am reluctant to use strong words, but so far as I can see no words will describe an action of this sort except to say that it is enacting a deliberate falsehood, a falsehood which is patent upon the very face of the Bill which contains it. So far as I know there is no precedent whatsoever for legislation of this sort, or for enacting a formula which obviously does not apply to the cases for which it was made to apply. If there be anything approaching to a precedent I can only find it in the ridiculous Preamble of this Bill—a Preamble which contains all kinds of things which the Bill does not deal with, and which holds out a kind of shadowy promise that things will be dealt with which noble Lords opposite know quite well in their own hearts their most extreme supporters will never permit them to deal with.
I have mentioned the way in which the Government treated this matter in the other House. The Bill has now come to this House, and I am submitting an Amendment to your Lordships which appears to me accurately to describe what will take place under this Bill with regard to any measure which is passed under it, and until I hear it I will not believe that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will insist upon supporting the enactment of what I have already described as an untrue statement. We know that the present leaders of this House are willing to destroy as far as they can, and possibly it may be in their power to curtail or destroy, the liberties of this House, but I will not believe that they will insist upon retaining the present formula as the formula to precede Bills passed under the Parliament Bill. If they do, they will be really doing what amounts to calumniating this House. I beg to move the first subsection of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, insert the following new clause—
.—(1) In every Bill presented to His Majesty under the preceding provisions of this Act, the words of enactment shall be as follows, that is to say:—
"Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, and by the authority of the same, as follows."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I do not propose to spend one sentence in replying to the language which the noble Earl has permitted himself to use as to the motive and spirit and falsehood on the part of the Government. The noble Earl raises a very natural and good point which is independent of all that ugly declaration. It was admitted to be a good point in the House of Commons, and, although the noble Earl will perhaps not believe what I say, it is true that great pains and trouble were taken in discussing this question before the Bill was laid before the House of Commons. It is not an easy point to settle off-hand, but we admit, and it was admitted by the Attorney-General, the necessity of altering the enacting words. What was said was that it was desirable—and I do not believe any noble Lord will deny that it is desirable if it can be done—that we should have one common form of enacting words for all Acts, and it is proposed, and we shall try as hard as we possibly can, to find a formula of that kind. It is a great deal less easy than the noble Earl thinks. Let me say only one word more. The occasion cannot arise for two years. There can be no case of a measure becoming an Act under this Bill before then, and it ought not to be beyond the wit of man, and of lawyers especially, to find out before the need arises a formula which will meet the perfectly just objection the noble Earl has made.
THE EARL OF CROMER: In the case of a Money Bill the occasion may arise in six months.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: It is not only a question of what is desirable with regard to a formula. It is infinitely more desirable that Parliament should speak the truth, instead of saying that an Act is passed in one way when it is nothing of the sort.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: The noble Earl used most appropriate words

329
in proposing his Amendment, for it would not be a truthful statement to say that such a Bill was passed by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. I think he might even make his Amendment a little stronger than he has done by adding words saying that it was passed without their advice and consent.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I am not sure that the words of my noble friend's Amendment are complete, because it might be that after the two years the House of Lords withdrew their objection to a Bill. There is not a syllable here as to the absence of the consent, and therefore I am disposed to think that my noble friend should put in some words to make it complete.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I merely rise to ask, How does it require two years in the case of a Money Bill? I should have thought that it might arise in six weeks.
EARL STANHOPE: Supposing this House rejects a Bill and two years hence that Bill becomes law. The noble Viscount says that before that time he will bring in some phraseology altering the enacting part of the Bill. This House may refuse to accept the alteration, and so far as I can see this situation will arise. The Bill has been refused three times by this House, but under the Parliament Bill it will become law, though the enacting part will not have been then accepted by this House. Unless you bring it in at the same time the two years will not run from the same period, and the Bill will then become law "by and with the consent of your Lordships" although that consent has been got practically at the point of the bayonet. I do not pretend to understand anything about legal matters, but I ask the noble and learned Viscount opposite, if he has got consent at the point of the bayonet, whether at law such consent is of any value whatever; and I should like further to ask him whether an Act passed against the consent of this House and with the present enacting clause really becomes an Act which the general public need take any notice of at all.
LORD STANMORE: The strongest point in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment is that every year there must be a Finance Bill. If it is not passed by this House "within one month," is it supposed to be passed with our advice and consent?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, considering that you are about six to one of us I think your Lordships might approach the consideration of this Bill upon the hypothesis that we really do not necessarily wish to include lies in an Act of Parliament. Of course we do not want to do anything of the kind, and it can be no profit to any human being to put in a formula which is not an accurate statement of the facts. Surely there can be no deep design in our objecting to an Amendment of this kind. It is quite clear that something will have to be provided either in this Bill or in some other Bill. That has always been admitted in the House of Commons. If you like to put this Amendment in, it may be considered necessary on Report to alter it; but as to asking our consent, it seems that it does not matter in the least what the Government say. We are told repeatedly that we are desperately wicked and will not consent to this, that, or the other, but your Lordships have the power and can do exactly as you think right.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we do not wish to argue this matter upon the footing which the noble and learned Lord has just described. What we do feel is that we ought not to asked to agree to the use of an enacting formula which will not only be absurd hereafter but will place this House in a very false position indeed. My noble friend said that the formula would be untruthful, and the noble Viscount had to admit that Lord Camperdown's point was a natural and good point. He said that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to meet the point by legislation, and that they hoped to be able to discover a uniform formula which would be applicable to all legislation. He further observed that he hoped to discover it before any case could arise under the Bill we are now discussing. Upon that my noble friend on the Cross Benches pointed out very pertinently that in the case of a Money Bill the issue might be raised long before the expiration of the two years, or whatever period the noble Viscount had in view. What we want to know is, How are you going to deal with a Money Bill next year? Do you propose to use the old formula, which I venture to describe as in the circumstances a very misleading and absurd one?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer of my noble friend about the two

331
years, for which I may say I was responsible, was really in relation to Bills coining under Clause 2. As regards Clause 1, if a Money Bill is not accepted by your Lordships within a month by that time I should think we would be able to draw up a formula which would contain no misstatement. But I hope there is no probability of your Lordships throwing out another Money Bill within the next two years.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I jump at the first notion of any offer of conciliation. I am quite willing to accept what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I will withdraw my Amendment on the present occasion. But I repeat that every word I have said is justified by facts. With regard to the noble Viscount's idea that he can invent one formula which will correctly describe Bills passed by one House and Bills passed by the two, he has, as we know, a very fertile mind, and I have no doubt, if anybody can, that he will succeed in drawing up a formula of that sort. But I do say that this Amendment ought to be inserted, because you are creating by this Bill a new kind of Act of Parliament. That is an undoubted fact, and if you apply the existing formula to the new kind of Act of Parliament you will be stating that this House has given its consent when it has done nothing of the sort. It is not sufficient to say we must look forward to some alteration in the future. I always observe when there is anything brought home in this House to noble Lords opposite and remedies are proposed, we are relegated to the dismal and uncertain future to have them carried out. I venture to hope, therefore, that on Report the noble Viscount will be successful in producing a formula. No one will be more pleased than I shall if he succeeds. I will withdraw my Amendment on this occasion, but will put it down again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Saving for existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
4. Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Duration of Parliament. 1 Geo. 1 stat. 2, c. 38.
5. Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "five years" and to substitute" two years."
The noble Lord said: As I believe only about a dozen noble Lords agree with my view, I should perhaps be unwarranted in pressing my Amendment merely to air my own view on the subject of the duration of Parliament, my belief being that if the duration of Parliament is to be shortened at all it should be shortened very much more than is proposed. I therefore do not move the Amendment standing in my name.
On Question, Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD BARNARD*LORD BARNARD moved the insertion of the following new clause—
"A Peer shall not, by reason of being a Peer, be disqualified from being elected, or, if elected, from serving as a Member of the House of Commons for any constituency in the United Kingdom, but a Peer shall not be entitled to sit or vote in the House of Lords while he is a Member of the house of Commons."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask your indulgence for a few moments while I call attention to the proposition which I have placed on the Paper. I shall not attempt any flights of eloquence, but will tell you in a few plain words the object I have in view. Neither shall I weary you by quoting pages from Lecky and other distinguished authors, and I hope I shall be saved from the temptation of referring to such a remote subject as marriage with a deceased wife's sister, as has been done in the course of the debate in the last few days. I do not think that the point to which I wish to call attention has been previously referred to.
Under Clause 1 of this Bill your Lordships will be deprived once and for all of the privilege, enjoyed by almost every British citizen, of having a voice in the taxation of the country. Your Lordships are expected to pay taxes and perform all the duties of citizenship, but you are being relegated to a class of political outcasts. You are not allowed to express any opinion whatever on the taxes which are to be laid on your shoulders. And Clause 2,

333
although to a lesser extent, will also considerably affect and reduce your right as British citizens of a voice in the management of the affairs of the country, and I am surprised that a Party professing themselves as the champions of liberty and enfranchisement should be guilty of practically disfranchising 600 of His Majesty's subjects. I am surprised at the indifference—I might say the almost callous indifference—displayed by the Government in this matter, I wonder what would be their attitude if we were depriving a considerable number of seamen, or dockworkers, or railway men, or any other class of the body politic of their rights or their votes. When it comes to Peers, however, it seems to be regarded by His Majesty's Ministers as a matter of no account whatever. I am sure they will pardon me if I say that I can only attribute it to some vindictive purpose—I hope I am wrong—to pay out members of this House for not agreeing with them in their political opinions by saying that in future they should not enjoy the same political rights as are now enjoyed by the humblest working men.
What have your Lordships done that we should be utterly deprived of this right? Can anyone for one moment assert that members of this House are any less intelligent, or less honest politically, or less honourable, or—may I add—even less patriotic, than the rest of our fellow-countrymen? Reference has been made this evening to the considerable number of additions to your Lordships' House since the present Government has been in power. I wonder what those newly-made Peers think of the Government's proposals. I wonder if they have any sense of the fact that they will be freed from all duties and all responsibilities to the public in the future, or practically so. I wonder what their feelings are on entering a House so emasculated and deprived of all powers and functions of government. In some cases they may not be sorry; it may afford them an opportunity of devoting the whole of their time to amassing wealth; and in the case of younger men the opportunity may be seized of saying, "Nothing is expected of us. We will therefore devote our lives to pleasure and amusement; we have no longer any responsibility to the State or the country," and probably what will happen will be that they will spend the money their father made.
I hope His Majesty's Ministers will not meet my proposition with a mere statement that they cannot accept or even entertain it. Personally I will not be satisfied with being denied what I consider are my rights as a British citizen, and if I am deprived of those rights on the present occasion I shall not cease to take every step I can to have them restored to me. The reasons which have been given by the Government in objecting to some of the other Amendments do not apply in this case. This is not a root and branch Amendment and does not affect any of the principles of the Bill, and I hope I shall not be told that I am proposing a Constitutional revolution. I admit that it would be a large Constitutional change, but, as we have been told in the course of this debate, no change could be of greater Constitutional importance than the one proposed by this Bill. If we embark on revolutionary changes of this kind nobody must be surprised if further changes are proposed to meet the altered circumstances. I sincerely hope also that I shall not be told that this matter will receive consideration on some future occasion. On the very day that any Bill of this nature becomes law our rights and privileges as British citizens will be to a large extent taken from us, and I maintain that we are entitled to have at least some part of them restored to us.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
.A Peer shall not, by reason of being a Peer, be disqualified from being elected, or, if elected, from serving as a member of the House of Commons for any constituency in the United Kingdom, but a Peer shall not be entitled to sit or vote in the House of Lords while he is a Member of the House of Commons.—(Lord Barnard.)
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of the Amendment. I think it should be received favourably by His Majesty's Government, as it affects particularly one part of the great Constitutional question which is now troubling us. The Government are always telling us that there is a great difference between the numbers of noble Lords who support them and those who support the Opposition, and it seems to me that if this Amendment is adopted the position will be changed, because noble Lords on this side will think it very little use sitting in this House with the restricted powers proposed by the Bill whereas the opinion of noble Lords opposite is that there are still

335
valuable duties which can be performed here. In those circumstances it seems to me we shall see a depletion of the benches occupied by the noble Marquess and his supporters, and in a very short time I have no doubt the numbers on both sides would approach equality. I put that forward as a reason why the Government should accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, this is to me a very interesting Amendment, because I recollect in my earliest days in the House of Commons bringing in a Bill enabling Members of this House to get seats in the House of Commons. I forget why I did not proceed with it, but I do remember an ultra-Radical saying that he did not think he would support my Bill, because, as he said, "those men will be very awkward customers to us as rival candidates, and you had better leave the matter alone." There is one feature in Lord Barnard's proposal which I never thought a possible element in any operation of this sort. I refer to the words which seem to imply that after a Peer has tried to get into the House of Commons, or has got in and has afterwards been put out by his constituency, he is to come back to this House——
LORD BARNARD: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment to explain? I did not contemplate anything of that kind, and I must apologise if the phraseology of the Amendment gives that impression. I would withdraw any words of the Amendment which foreshadows any idea of that kind, for I certainly did not contemplate it.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: At a later date, in connection with another Bill, if this proposal comes forward I hope the House will adhere to what was my view in those days, that if a Peer once sits in the House of Commons he practically, in clerical language, unfrocks himself as a Peer for the rest of his natural life. All these points, however, are really irrelevant to-night, because they are wholly outside the scope of the Bill. This is a Bill for limiting some of the powers of your Lordships' House. It deals with powers and not with qualifications, and the noble Lord is surely wholly wrong when he says that this is a Bill disfranchising members of this House. There is not a word in the Bill which justifies that implication.
LORD BARNARD: Will the noble Viscount tell me what rights members of this House would have in controlling the financial regulations of the country by which they are taxed?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: We propose to limit the powers of this House over finance. That does not disfranchise noble Lords.
LORD LOVAT: I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division. At the same time I trust he will make it clear that he means to shut out the possibility of noble Lords who have stood for and taken a seat in the House of Commons coming back to this House, because it would be grossly unfair if they could change in and out after losing an election. I would point out to the noble Viscount opposite that he has rather sold the pass on one point. Members of the other House have been constantly in the constituencies heaving abuse on noble Lords here. We have been called "backwoodsmen" and described as quite inefficient for our duties, whereas it has just been admitted by the noble Viscount himself that we would prove very dangerous as rival candidates at an election. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The Peers must either be the fools they are represented to be or efficient individuals able to fight an election, and I would point out that if this contention of the noble Viscount is correct—that they would be dangerous rivals in the constituencies—the treatment accorded to them by His Majesty's Government is even more harsh than one at first imagines. The Government are going to take away their powers and at the same time make them the only individuals who cannot take any active and real part in the government of the country. As to this question being outside the scope of the Bill, I am quite ready to concede that, but unless we fight for getting this done now we shall never have a chance of getting it done in the future. I therefore advise the noble Lord to go to a Division now while we still have a portion of our powers left. I trust that this Amendment will commend itself to the Front Bench below me. We on the Back Benches never know whether the Front Bench are going to sell the pass or not. We see them constantly going to the Table and thumping upon it with simulated enthusiasm in favour of one thing and another, but we never know whether they are going back on what

337
they have said, and we should like to know whether any noble Lord who wishes to continue his Parliamentary life will have an opportunity of exhibiting his forensic ability elsewhere.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I confess I sympathise with a good deal that has been said about this Amendment. There is no doubt that His Majesty's Government are proposing to take away most valuable legislative privileges from the members of this House and leave them absolutely without the power of representing either their own interests or those of their fellow-countrymen in dealing with the taxation which the other House will alone impose. That is a grossly unjust position, and to my mind it is the strongest argument that can be brought forward for the very early introduction of a Bill giving those Peers who cannot obtain seats in this House the opporutnity which the noble Lord desires for them of seeking a place in the other House. Having said that, I hope the noble Lord will not prejudice his case by pressing this Amendment. I think it is impossible for any reasonable person not to see—and it was admitted by the last speaker—that this proposal cannot come within the scope of this Bill. I therefore think the noble Lord will only prejudice his own case, which I admit is an extremely strong one, if he asks us to divide on this Amendment.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, there is only one suggestion I would make to noble Lords opposite, and it is this. It does appear to me that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment made out a practically unanswerable case, but at the same time he himself admits that his wishes are not fully expressed in his Amendment and that it will have to be altered before it will carry out his intention. As the noble Viscount opposite has just said, this Amendment does not come within the scope of the Bill, and I would therefore suggest to noble Lords opposite that as they have the Government in a yielding mood on this point they should carry out their object by trying to induce the Government to help forward in the House of Commons a Bill on the lines suggested by the Amendment of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, it is always a little difficult to follow the line of argument of noble Lords who have
338
just taken their seats in this House, because on this particular question they gave us no assistance whatever in the House of Commons when they were there and when we were endeavouring to obtain this very reform. I am glad to find myself for once on this subject in agreement with the noble Viscount behind me. Some years ago when three members now sitting on this Bench did their utmost to obtain this very reform, the noble Viscount told them in the bluntest manner that they were glad to get rid of them in the House of Commons, and that they had better stay in this House and be content.
There is no question whatever that my noble friend Lord Barnard has a very strong case indeed. I venture to say there is not a man on this side of the House who does not regard his position under this Bill, if it passes, as being an intolerable one. I do not think noble Lords opposite can appreciate the vehemence of our feelings on this subject. Money Bills represent one-third or one-fourth of our legislation, and yet a Peer is to be shut up here and debarred from touching them; and with regard to the remaining legislation, three-fourths of the power which this House has is to be taken away from it. And yet you ask a number of men who have had long experience of the House of Commons and long public experience in office and in this House to sit down under these limitations, to be content with them, and to thank the Government for what has been left to them. We do not believe that this can be permanent. Your proposal is so one-sided that in the last week you have not been able to establish it in debate. Indeed, we have reason to complain that some members of the Front Bench opposite were not present when the most important parts of the debates have been going on, and we know that some of their supporters have not been present here at all. The Government have created Peers for the purpose of supporting their measures in this House, and they have shown by not being present that they do not appreciate the legislation which you have asked them to support. I repeat that forcing us to remain here in these large numbers, unable to do anything effective for the legislation of the country, creates an intolerable position and one which cannot continue. However, I quite agree with the noble Viscount behind me, Lord St. Aldwyn, that it would be impossible to reconcile

339
this particular provision with the Preamble of the Bill. That being so, I trust my noble friend, being fully assured—however bad the opinion which Lord Lovat entertains of the backbone of the Front Opposition Bench in this particular—that we are to be relied upon to carry out to the full the view which he has expressed and which has already found its place in my noble friend Lord Lansdowne's Bill—will not think it necessary to divide.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say two sentences in allusion to the absence of members of the Government from this debate? I am afraid the noble Viscount was alluding to my absence yesterday. I can only tell your Lordships that I began work yesterday morning at a quarter past eight and worked until 8 o'clock at night managing arrears of administrative business, which is very heavy at the present moment. If I had been present here I could not possibly have got through my work, and it is not possible for me to get through it unless I do take some time to myself.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I had no intention of making any personal allusion to the noble and learned Lord, but we do feel, quite apart from the noble and learned Lord, that for other Members of that Bench who are accustomed to take part in debate to allow discussions to go on for six or seven hours without a word being said for the Government view, is entirely unreasonable.
LORD BARNARD: Although I am not entirely convinced that my Amendment, is outside the scope of the Bill, I shall, of course, bow to the opinion of the Front Bench below me, as well as to that of the Front Bench opposite and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. And in doing so I would express the hope that the course events may take will not compel me to do something more in the matter at an early period.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to insert the following new clause—
"The provisions of this Act shall continue in force until such date as the House of Lords is reconstituted under an Act which has been consented to by both Houses of Parliament, and no longer."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in my opinion this Act must only be a temporary one, and therefore my proposal is that whenever a measure has passed both Houses of Parliament for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber this Bill should at once lapse. My chief reason for the proposal is this. Very often when there is another Bill brought in there is a tendency on the part of the Government to only repeal some portion of the previous Bill. That creates a lot of confusion in the future. It also seems to me very important indeed, when you are going into the question of the powers of the Second Chamber, that you should start with an absolutely clean slate, and that everything should be embodied in one and the same Act of Parliament. The Secretary of State for War assured us that this Bill was only a temporary one, and that His Majesty's Government were going to bring in a Bill to reconstitute the Second Chamber. Feeling as I do that there should be an absolutely clean slate I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and I think it will very much simplify the procedure when the time arrives.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
.The provisions of this Act shall continue in force until such date as the House of Lords is reconstituted under an Act which has been consented to by both Houses of Parliament, and no longer.—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, it may or may not be desirable that the provisions of this Bill shall not extend beyond the period of the reform of this House and the constitution of a new House. But there is plenty of time for all that. You cannot tell whether you would or would not apply the provisions of this Bill until you knew what sort of a House was the result of the process of reconstitution. Certainly at the present juncture my own view is that we ought not on any account to bind ourselves by a statutory provision against the continued life of this Bill. Therefore we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am very much surprised—I will not say disappointed—at the reply to which we have just listened. My noble friend behind me, it is true in only a few sentences, has raised a very important

341
question, and one which I think might well have been deserving of rather serious and long discussion at the hands of your Lordships. My noble friend has placed an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the provisions of this Act shall continue in force until such date as the House of Lords is reconstituted under an Act which His Majesty's Government have promised to introduce. That really is a question of the most vital moment, because it raises the whole issue of the nature of the pledge given by the Government for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber.
As to the period within which that pledge is to be redeemed and as to the question whether this Bill is or is not regarded by the Government as a transitory measure, I would not presume upon the first question to doubt for a moment the sincerity of His Majesty's advisers. The words of the Prime Minister, over and over again repeated in the House of Commons, assure us that in the view of the Government it is a pledge of honour on their part that they will introduce a Bill for the reconstitution of this House. But when we come to the question of the date at which that promise is to take effect, His Majesty's Government have spoken in more uncertain tones. I could, if I had the time, read out to your Lordships various obscure and indecisive and sometimes inconsistent utterances by His Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons on the matter; but they have committed themselves to this undertaking— that they will within the lifetime of the present Parliament introduce a Bill for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber.
But no promise has been given to carry such a Bill through the House of Commons. The mere promise to introduce the Bill there within the next four years does not carry us very far, because there is not one of us who does not know—allowing everything for the good faith of His Majesty's Government, as I am quite willing to do—that considerations will be at work in the House of Commons which will militate against the fulfilment of that pledge. There are plenty of supporters of His Majesty's Government in the House of Commons who will be anxious to extend the period of interregnum in order to get as much of the legislation that they favour carried within
342
it as they possibly can, and I doubt very much oven in the most favourable circumstances, if His Majesty's Government could command the numbers and the strength to enable them to carry a Reform Bill of this kind in the House of Commons. If that be so, how extremely important it is that now, on the last occasion that is open to us, we should get some indication from His Majesty's Government of what their real views are as to the temporary or permanent nature of these provisions. The whole; case of the Government up to this time has been that these powers are being withdrawn from the House of Lords and added to the House of Commons because of the opinion they hold as to the character, composition, and prejudices of this House. Is it not clear, therefore, that if you constitute a new Second Chamber on a more representative and democratic basis the case for restoring those powers is complete? I would ask His Majesty's Government when we may hope to receive their Bill, and whether they accept our interpretation of their case that the provisions of the Bill are temporary provisions only?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: We adhere to everything we have said on the subject.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should have been sorry if the noble Viscount did not; otherwise I should have been tempted to say that His Majesty's Government had been guilty of a breach of faith to the country. We are all of opinion that these provisions are temporary only, and I think we should have some acknowledgment of the fact. I am not quite certain that the noble Viscount's words carry out fully his own intention. He proposes that the provisions of the Act shall continue in force until such date as the House of Lords is reconstituted under an Act which has been consented to by both Houses of Parliament and no longer. But, even allowing to the fullest degree the serious intentions of His Majesty's Government, it is quite obvious that if for any reason they are compelled to postpone the fulfilment of their pledge this Bill might remain in operation for five years or for an indefinite length of time, and I am sure that is the last thing that my noble friend desires. I would therefore

343
suggest to him whether he might not amend his Amendment with a view of introducing into it some specified period within which His Majesty's Government might reasonably be asked to carry out their own undertaking. The sort of suggestion I have in view is this, that we might amend the Amendment as follows—
"The provisions of the Act shall continue in force for three years"—let us say—"or until such time as the House of Lords shall have been reconstituted under an Act which has been consented to by both Houses of Parliament and no longer, whichever is the shorter period."
I do not know that I attach overwhelming importance to the suggestion of three years, but surely that is a reasonable period within which, if His Majesty's Government remain in power, to ask them to carry out their pledge and send up the Bill they have promised to this House. I think those words will carry out the intention of my noble friend better than the words he has put on the Paper, and I submit them to His Majesty's Government in the hope that they will give us some clearer indication of their views as to the transitory nature of this Bill.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Viscount withdraw his Amendment? [Cries of "Divide."]
THE EARL OF CROMER: The attendance is rather thin to divide on an important matter like this. Would it not be better for the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment now and bring it forward on the Report stage when the attendance will be greater? [Renewed cries of "Divide."]
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I move the words I have read out as an Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Curzon, proposes the following Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Viscount—namely, to leave out, in the first and second lines, the words "until such date," with the object of inserting the words "for three years or until such time."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be convenient for me to say at this stage that this subject will come up upon the Preamble—I do not mean to say effectively—in the form of an Amendment. If the noble Viscount wishes to press the Amendment so be it, but, as I say, the subject will come up when the whole of the Preamble is discussed. However, I am quite ready in a few sentences to state our view upon it now. Everybody knows what the nature of our proposals with regard to the Preamble is. The noble Lord has referred to them, and, of course, we adhere to what was said. As regards the question how long this Bill is to remain in force until the other Bill is brought in, I would point out that these two Bills are what I may call twin Bills. It is the same as happens with redistribution on one side and representation on the other. When you bring forward redistribution you are told that you will have to remedy representation, and if you bring forward representation you are told that you have to deal with it together with redistribution. When Mr. Gladstone was faced with the question of Disestablishment in Scotland he said, "I am prepared whenever the Scottish Members will support Disestablishment to bring forward a measure," and each Scottish Member in his constituency said, "I am prepared whenever Mr. Gladstone brings forward a Bill to support that Bill in Parliament, and not before." We think it best to do one thing at a time. We have commenced with the powers of this House, which to our mind is the most important and also the most pressing matter. We do not wish, and do not intend so far as we can help it, to be diverted from that branch of the subject until we have completed it, and when we have done that we intend to take up the other branch of the subject—the reconstitution of your Lordships' House. That is an open statement of our position, and I do not think there is any difficulty in understanding either the strategy or the necessity for it.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, it is a great thing to be an after-dinner speaker, not only in ordinary life, but in this House. I think I can say without egotism that I am an after-dinner speaker, but only in

345
this House. It falls to my lot, I think, more often than to that of any other member of this House, to keep a debate going until their Lordships have returned from refreshment. But very different qualities are required to speak after dinner in ordinary life from what are required to speak after dinner in your Lordships' House. Although those qualities are different, I think they are equally deserving of credit and approbation. As a matter of fact, those qualities are precisely the reverse of each other. To be a successful after-dinner speaker in ordinary life you need to be brief, you need to be witty, and you need to be to the point in your remarks. But to be an after-dinner speaker in your Lordships' House you need to be precisely the reverse. You have to be prolix, perhaps even to the extent of being tedious; and with that, of course, it is impossible to be witty, for brevity is the very soul of wit, and generally it is impossible really to be very much to the point when you are obliged to fulfil the condition I have named.
I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Government Bench (the Lord Chancellor) will forgive me if I address myself to him, seeing that with one exception he is the only representative of His Majesty's Government present at this moment. It is also the case that he was the last speaker before the adjournment for dinner. As far as I remember, what the noble and learned Lord said was this. He called the Bill which we are discussing and the Bill which is foreshadowed in the Preamble twin Bills. That is a new idea, and it certainly struck me very much indeed when he gave utterance to it. It is one to which I think it is worth while to call attention in order that we may get at the meaning of the noble and learned Lord, for I confess his meaning was not entirely clear to me. I believe the noble and learned Lord was somewhat hampered by his courteous consideration for the convenience of members of this House. He knew that noble Lords were in a hurry, and he did not explain himself so fully as he usually does. When I say that, I am far from suggesting that the noble and learned Lord ever says a superfluous word. I am not going to flatter—it is not my custom to do so—but I really mean that there is no member of your Lordships' House who is more concise, more concentrated, and more clear in his language.
346
The noble and learned Lord proceeded to illustrate what is meant by twin Bills. The illustration he gave us—I hope he will correct me if I misquote him—was one which was concerned with Mr. Gladstone and a Scottish Disestablishment Bill. He told us Mr. Gladstone said of that Bill that he would do what the Scottish Members wished, and the Scottish Members said they would do what Mr. Gladstone wished. That was an interesting story, but I confess that since I heard it I have been puzzling my mind very much as to what on earth was the point in it. What was the allusion which the noble and learned Lord wished us to gather? I can only put one interpretation on it, and it is this—that it is the most frank, perhaps the only, admission we have yet had of the relations which exist between His Majesty's Government and the members of the Irish Nationalist Party. If we are to follow the illustration, the Government say they will do what the Irish Nationalist Members wish, and the Irish Members, according to the noble and learned Lord, say they will do what His Majesty's Government wish. Here surely is log-rolling extraordinary. It is a real illustration of the old and homely adage, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." I really think the Lord Chancellor is a little bit over-sanguine. I can well believe, in fact I have not the slightest doubt that His Majesty's Government will do what the Irish Nationalists wish. We all know that. We have never had the slightest doubt about it, although there have been denials. But I am not so sure that the Irish Members will do what His Majesty's Government wish, and it is in that respect I think that the noble and learned Lord is over-sanguine. I think that there his illustration fails.
The Lord Chancellor went on, to explain, in terms which were far too brief and which were unhappily cut short, that the Government are proceeding by stages in this matter; that they are dealing with this grave Constitutional question in two stages. The first is to deal with the powers of the Second Chamber and the second is to deal with the composition of the Upper House. The noble and learned Lord said that with tremendous solemnity, and for a moment I was almost deluded into the belief that he was enunciating some statement of policy which was new to us, and was of great importance. But after a

347
little reflection I realised that we have known that for a very long time. Not only have we heard it before, but we are actually faced by the fact. We can see it for ourselves. I was disappointed with the statement of the noble and learned Lord for what we wanted to know, and what he did not tell us, was whether the second stage—the stage of dealing with the composition of the Second Chamber—would involve any modifications of the first stage. That is the point of this discussion, and we wish to continue the discussion on the Amendment of my noble friend in order that we may elicit a little more information on that point. It is really of immense importance.
On the face of it this Bill is a temporary, a provisional, and transient measure, and we cannot doubt that what is written in the Bill expresses the intentions of His Majesty's Government. If that is so, surely we have a right to know what the next stage will be. If this is a temporary and provisional expedient, surely before embarking on a policy of such immense importance and so far-reaching in its effect His Majesty's Government, as all statesmen or men of business or men of common-sense would do, have looked a little ahead and have seen what the next step will be. Why do they not take us into their confidence? I venture to suggest it is hardly frank, it is hardly fair, either to this House or, what is still more important, to the country at large. You are seeking to alter the Constitution of this country which has existed for eight centuries, and to alter it in a manner which, to put it briefly, for I do not want to dwell on the point, has absolutely no parallel either in history or in the present circumstances of any other civilised country. Yet while doing this you will not tell us what the next step is to be. Either His Majesty's Government have a plan for the reconstitution of this House or they have not. It is hardly conceivable that they have no such plan. If they have a plan, why in the name of common-sense will they not tell us what it is and what it involves? Surely that is the only frank, the only fair the only honest and statesmanlike course to take. At least they should tell us what are the reasons for this secrecy.
There has not hitherto been such reticence or secrecy in regard to domestic legislation. We can understand His Majesty's Government preserving a discreet
348
silence in regard to any matter affecting international relations or diplomacy. We can understand them maintaining an air of secrecy on a strategical question in connection with the conduct of a campaign; but in regard to domestic legislation of such enormous importance as this, I say with sincerity and candour that this secrecy is really absolutely incomprehensible. I think we have a right, not only on our own account but on account of the people of this country, whom so far as we are members of a Second Chamber we represent, to demand that that information should be given to us. That is all I have to say in reply to the noble and learned Lord, who no doubt would have made a fuller statement if the arrival of the dinner hour had not unfortunately cut short the interesting speech which he had commenced. But in regard to this point I should like to remind the House what the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, has said, because the question has arisen once or twice before and we have pressed him on it. I hope I am not parodying what he said, but the effect of his words on each occasion has seemed to me to be this, that the Government could not say now what their intentions were as regards the permanence or otherwise of the provisions of the Parliament Bill, but that they must retain a free hand. That, again, seems to me to be a very ingenuous, but a very disquieting admission. It means, if I understand the English language at all, nothing more and nothing less than this. If the Radical Party cannot get a Radical House of Lords when the process of reconstitution and reform takes place, then they will do their best to withhold from the new Second Chamber those powers which are accorded to Second Chambers in every decently-governed civilised nation in the world. But if they succeed by debate, by discussion, by fair means, or means which are not fair, in getting a Second Chamber which is Radical in its complexion, then they will be perfectly willing to accord that new Second Chamber the powers accorded to Second Chambers in other countries. I ask, Is that statesmanship? Is it in accordance with the traditions of statesmanship or good government either in this country or in any other civilised country in the world? I say without the slightest hesitation that it is naked, shameless, Party opportunism.
The Liberal Party in the past have often been warned by their great leaders to keep

349
on the straight path of principle. They have been warned that if they leave the straight path of principle and go into the devious byways of Party and political expediency, then they are running to destruction and ruin. It seems to me that is what they are doing at the present time. They have no principle; at any rate, they will not tell us of any principle on which they are acting. Everything they do, everything they say, leads us irresistibly to the conclusion that their only concern is the present transitory expediency from their own Party point of view. Is that straightforward as regards this nation? When His Majesty's Government tell us that they are dealing first of all with the powers of the House of Lords and secondly with its composition, I am irresistibly reminded of a riddle. I wish the noble and learned Viscount the Secretary of State for War were here, because the riddle which I have in my mind is a German one which he, at any rate, would appreciate. Teutonic wit is not always appreciated in this country, but I remember in my young days this was thought an exceedingly good witticism. The riddle was this, "How do you make a cannon?" The answer was, "You take a hole and pour molten iron round it, and then you get your cannon." It seems to me that in dealing with the question of the reform of the Constitution in the way adopted by the Government you are proceeding in accordance with this German prescription for making a cannon. You arrange your powers first, powers which are intangible and immaterial, and pour round them the material and tangible substance of the composition of the House. A cannon made in that way will not be solid, will not be lasting, will not be effective—in fact, I doubt whether it will take shape at all.
To turn to another point, I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they think this policy will help them to anything more than a temporary retention of place and power? Will it help them with the solution of the Irish problem, in regard to which we know the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is tremendously in earnest? Will it enhance the credit of the Radical Party? Is it, I ask again, in accordance with the traditions of the old Liberal Party to preserve this reticence not to say what you mean, what you intend to do, or what you have in your mind? I am again reminded of an old saying that
350
"Honesty is the best policy." I believe that for the Radical Party at the present time it would be far the best policy to take the nation into their confidence and say exactly what their intentions are and how they mean to carry them out. If we cannot be told what those intentions are, at any rate let the Government give us some explanation why they cannot tell the people of this country what they intend to do, how they intend to do it, and when they intend to do it. I for one cannot believe for a moment that the nation will long rest content with the answer "Wait and see," which is given in response to every suggestion we make, however reasonably it is put forward, and however conciliatory and temperate may be the tone in which it is submitted. In spite of the fact that suggestions are made in accordance with our duty to Parliament and our duty towards the nation, the only answer we get is, "Wait and see." That may serve for a while, but I cannot believe, for I have a strong faith in the robust common sense and the innate appreciation of fair play of the people of this country, that the nation will long rest satisfied with being put off with such an answer on a matter of the most vital and important concern to the nation.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, as the debate was interrupted by the dinner adjournment before I had the opportunity of rising again, I think it only right to say at this juncture that I am very glad to-accept the Amendment to my Amendment proposed by Lord Curzon and to incorporate it in mine.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have not, I think, elicited the opinion of His Majesty's Government on the Amendment which is now before the House. The original Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Galway was, for reasons which seemed obvious to us, considered inadequate to effect the purpose which he had in view, and an Amendment in a different form was suggested by my noble friend Lord Curzon. Under that Amendment, as I understand it, the Bill on the Table, were it to become law, would have a limit assigned to its operation, not a single limit as proposed by my noble friend behind me, but a two-fold limit. It would remain in operation either for a period of three years, or until such time

351
as His Majesty's Government have been able to effect the reconstitution of the House of Lords; and my noble friend stipulates that that limit should be whichever of the two periods is the shorter. That is a very important proposal, and surely it is one which deserves some examination at the hands of noble Lords opposite. We have already elicited this from the noble and learned Lord. He regards the Bill on the Table, the Bill which is in existence, and that other Bill which is not yet in existence but which is to be called into existence before long—the Bill dealing with the reform of the House of Lords—as twin Bills. That is a very remarkable expression. It is a very unambiguous expression. I do not suggest that it is a case of Siamese twins, but twins in the usual sense of the word. We have throughout insisted on that view. We have throughout insisted that it was impossible to deal with the question of the alteration of the powers of this House except in connection with the other question, that of the reconstitution of this House.
Therefore we have again and again insisted, and I do not think we have been really contradicted by noble Lords opposite, that we were justified in treating the Bill on the Table as merely a provisional Bill. It must be obvious to anybody that if this Bill is to be defended at all it can only be defended as a provisional and interim arrangement. After all, what is the real point against the House of Lords? It is that it is unfairly constituted as between the two political Parties, and that we have taken advantage of that unfair constitution in order to obstruct the progress of Liberal legislation. We do not admit the charge for a moment. But assume that that is the charge. Is it not quite obvious that from the moment when the inequality is removed, from the moment when this House is fairly reconstituted as between the great political Parties, the necessity for imposing upon this House the extraordinary disabilities, the humiliating disabilities, which this Bill contains ceases to exist and disappears? That seems to me such an obvious proposition that I really cannot conceive that noble Lords opposite would seriously dispute it. What was the noble Viscount's comment upon that proposition? The noble Viscount will correct me if I do not quote him accurately. He said that in
352
the view of His Majesty's Government it may or may not be desirable that the policy of this Bill shall be made to extend beyond the period of restriction. May or may not be desirable! That is, it seems to me, a most unreasonable demand for latitude on the part of His Majesty's Government, and it is the more unreasonable because the noble and learned Lord told us earlier in the evening that His Majesty's Government have got their plan for reforming this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Marquess will pardon me, I do not think I made that observation. I neither affirm nor deny it; but I do not think I made the observation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble and learned Lord used words which would certainly suggest that idea. At any rate, I will assume that His Majesty's Government have given some thought to their plan for reconstituting this House.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Twin Bills!
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: How, as my noble friend suggests, could one of the pair have been produced apparently in full vigour—though not a very ornamental infant I must say—whereas the other twin is apparently in a dormant and suppressed condition? I will not pursue the metaphor, because I see a noble Lord on the Back Bench (Lord Ilkeston) who would probably find some fault with my metaphor if I did. But I do venture in seriousness to say that our claim that this should be treated as a provisional measure and that therefore a time limit of some kind should be imposed is a most reasonable claim. We suggest a time limit which appears to us to be reasonable and appropriate. That is really the effect of the Amendment as amended by my noble friend Lord Curzon, and it is an Amendment on which we desire to obtain some expression of the views of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have unfortunately trespassed against a precept which was instilled into me in early youth at the great college with which the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, Lord

353
Camperdown, are not, unfamiliar, by a very great master. He said, to me, "Never make use of any metaphors." I have made use of a metaphor, departing from the injunctions which were laid upon me, and the noble Marquess has made a very adroit use of it. When I spoke of twin Bills I meant, of course, that the one Bill is here in the body and the other is projected in the Preamble; and whether my metaphor was accurate or not, I think the sense of what I meant was pretty clear. The real truth is, of course, that we are bent on dealing with one side of this subject—namely, the powers of the Second Chamber. I think the noble Marquess will recognise that when you have this task on hand you will immediately divert attention and produce endless controversy and dialectics upon the other side, which has not yet been brought forward or discussed at the instigation of His Majesty's Government, if you hamper the present discussion by a forecast of what may come hereafter. In accordance with the dictates of the most common prudence we wish to keep our attention for the present fixed on the one side of this question. In the Preamble we have stated our intentions. They are, of course, the intentions of the Government and have been confirmed by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in language that is quite clear. While apologising for making use of a metaphor and expressing the hope that it may never occur again, I cannot add anything further to what has been said.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Apparently I can only speak again with the leave of the House, and I am not anxious to continue the discussion; but we are really left in rather a peculiar position. The noble and learned Lord opposite employed a metaphor at an earlier stage of the evening contrary to the advice given to him by his Oxford mentor and mine. But do not let the House conceal the fact that the disappearance of the metaphor from the scene has left us with no real information as to His Majesty's Government's intentions. We are driven back now on the Preamble and the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the Preamble, but these statements, explicit as they are as to the intention of the Government, give us no guarantee whatever as to the length of time during which these provisions are to apply. That is the difficulty which I sought to meet by my Amendment to the Amendment of the
354
noble Viscount behind me, and it is an Amendment which I believe the majority of your Lordships' House would not only be willing to consider, but to carry. I feel, however, a certain difficulty in asking your Lordships to proceed to a Division on an Amendment which I think is important in a House so sparsely attended, and when, owing to the hour at which we are sitting, some prominent members are absent. My suggestion, therefore, would be that my noble friend should not proceed with the Amendment at the present time, but that we should read in print the words of the Lord Chancellor spoken a little earlier in the evening and reserve to ourselves the right, if it seems best after consideration, to bring up the matter again on Report.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment now and ask leave to raise the question on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert the following new clause—
"Nothing in sections one or two of this Act shall apply to any Bill founded upon petition to either House of Parliament or subject to Standing Orders of either House relating to Private Bills or to any Bill for confirming a Provisional Order."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a very simple one. It is merely for the purpose of clearing up exactly what is meant by a Public Bill. As this Bill was originally drawn the word "Bill" alone appeared in Clause 2, but after discussion in the other House the word "Public" was added. It does not appear quite certain that the words "Public Bill" exclude private Bills, or at all events private Bills which are half public and half private. There is also another form of Bill known as a Provisional Order, which is carried out by means of a Bill, and which I believe is not intended by the Government or by any one to be included. I am not at all confident that the terms of my Amendment are quite right, but it is a point on which I think the Chairman of Committees could very likely give the House valuable assistance. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, feels himself in a position to say anything with regard to the Amendment, but if he can I think he is the person who is most likely to tell us what really ought to be done in a matter of this sort.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
. Nothing in sections one or two of this Act shall apply to any Bill founded upon petition to either House of Parliament or subject to Standing Orders of either House relating to Private Bills or to any Bill for confirming a Provisional Order.— (The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As the noble Earl has specially appealed to me, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say in three sentences how the matter strikes me. I have, of course, consulted my advisers on the point, and we have come to the conclusion that, whilst the private; Bill procedure of your Lordships' House would not come under the provisions of this Bill, there are certain Bills which, in the language of the noble Earl's Amendment, are founded upon a petition to either House of Parliament which might come under this Bill. Some of these proceed as private Bills and some do not. On the other hand, there is no doubt whatever that Provisional Order Bills, although practically private Bills in their procedure, are public Bills and would undoubtedly come, we think, under the provisions of this Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: On that I should like to ask the noble Earl if he could point out what is objectionable in the form of this Amendment, or if he will suggest anything to us. If he is not in a position to do that at the present moment I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, and consult with him afterwards and bring it up later in a form which is not open to objection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill is intended to deal with public Bills in the sense we ordinarily know them. If there is any question of the kind indicated by the Lord Chairman or by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, we certainly will look into it. I think the best course now would be that suggested by Lord Camperdown, that the matter should stand over so that we should all be able to look into it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Should I, then, communicate with the noble and learned Lord himself, or with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees? The Government are responsible for this Bill, and it is probable that they would themselves prefer to put down an Amendment which is required for the purpose. If the
356
noble and learned Lord will undertake to communicate with the Lord Chairman I shall, of course, withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will communicate with the noble Earl himself, and also, of course, with the noble Earl the Lord Chairman. It is a thing we ought to look into and will look into.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH LORD ELLENBOROUGH had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the following new clauses—
A.—His Majesty, notwithstanding any Constitutional usage which has hitherto obtained, may, without the advice of a Minister, submit to the Parliamentary electors by means of a Referendum any question; but at least one hundred and eighty days shall elapse between any two submissions to the electors under the foregoing provision. Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent any Referendum during such period taken in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister.
B.—His Majesty, notwithstanding any Constitutional usage which has hitherto obtained, may, at any time without the advice of a Minister, dissolve Parliament, but at least one year shall elapse between any two dissolutions under the foregoing provision. Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the dissolution of any Parliament which has lasted less than one year if that Parliament is dissolved in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister.
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I wish to add the words "or Joint Committee" after the words "Prime Minister" at the end of my proposed Clause A. A year ago I should never have thought of putting such clauses on the Paper. But from the time that the Government introduced their Parliament Bill the whole of the conditions of our Constitutional existence have changed. Written laws are now to be substituted for custom. If part of our Constitution is to be written, the whole of it must be reconsidered and not merely such portions of it as may suit one Party. I expect to be told that my Amendments attack the whole theory of the British Constitution. But the Government is bent on destroying it root and branch by upsetting its balance and depriving the people of any chance of exercising their right of being consulted before the passing of important measures, as they leave no body, either hereditary or elected, with the power of insisting that they shall be consulted when the powers of this House are curtailed.
The Government are throwing the whole of the Constitution into a witches' cauldron which already contains such noxious ingredients as "Gag," "Guillotine," and "Kangaroo" closures. What will eventually come out of it in three years' time it is hard to know. I understood the noble Viscount to say that he disapproved of the Referendum because it would over-ride the opinion of the House of Commons. Well, that is exactly what it ought to do. A vote of the House of: Commons cannot have anything like the moral authority of a vote by Referendum until seats are redistributed according to population and proportional voting is established. At one stroke the Referendum gets rid of the over-representation of Kilkenny and of the Irish Home Rulers, and of the under representation of Romford and of Irish Unionists. Incidentally it also abolishes plural voting, which ought to recommend it to democrats.
From the speech of the noble Viscount on Lord Avebury's Amendment, I think it is now perfectly clear that the majority of the House of Commons mean to keep the power of prolonging their own existence up their sleeve, ready for use in case of a Party emergency. If they never mean to exercise that power why insist on taking it? The noble Viscount said that that Amendment showed a complete distrust of the House of Commons. But the demand of the Government is merely a political form of the confidence trick by which foolish young men are induced to trust their purses to strangers in public houses. If this Bill passes unaltered we shall be at the commencement of what may or may not be a Long Parliament. There is nothing but the discretion of the present Government to prevent its becoming so. History shows that when rulers have commenced great reforms they become maddened at the idea that statesmen not in sympathy with their ideas may succeed them and prevent their intentions from being completely carried out. When in that frame of mind, it is easy for them to think it right to take any steps, however wrong they may be. Under such circumstances absolute Monarchs have killed their eldest sons. The Government at present declare that neither they nor the members of the other House would think of prolonging the life of a House of Commons, but in a year's time they may be in such a position as to have to declare that "circumstances alter cases." The Long Parliament began with excellent intentions and did useful
358
work during the first five months of its existence, which is more than I can say of the present Parliament. But it would not allow fresh elections to take place for fear of its work being undone.
The reason that I cannot put any trust in the discretion of the present Government is that I consider they commenced their career in this Parliament by deceiving the people. When they went to the country they declared to win on the "abolition of the hereditary principle in the Second Chamber." It is true that the Parliament Bill had been printed before; the election, but it had not been completely discussed in either House, and the chief cry on their platforms was "Abolition of the hereditary principle." But the moment that all the votes or seats that, they had wished to get had been duly booked, they scratched "Abolition of the hereditary principle," turned it out to graze in a clover field, and declared to win with "Single Chamber" in the first race, and "Home Rule" in the second race. They have further intimated that "Abolition of the hereditary principle" is to remain at grass for an indefinite period. From what the noble and learned Lord said I gather it is now their intention to take it from grass and put it into training again, but no exact date was given when that is to be done. Such conduct would not meet with approval on a race-course. Having strayed so far from the path of rectitude at the very commencement of their rule, to what depths may they not descend in the course of a year or two? Able to bribe the members of the existing House by an offer to double or treble the present salaries of £400 a year, with a firm conviction that their own prosperity and that of the people is bound up with their continuance in office, what likelihood is there of their being able to resist the temptation of putting aside their quinquennial innovation and making a permanency of the present House of Commons? If this Bill passes, what is there to prevent the House of Commons making itself into a close and self-elected corporation, and filling up its own vacancies? We have been told that public opinion would never permit such a usurpation of authority. But if all legal means of preventing a prolongation of the life of the House of Commons is taken from the people, what remedy is left to public opinion but that of raising barricades and using rifles in the streets? Hitherto the people of this

359
country have been a law-abiding people, but it is hard to say what they will do if you pass unjust laws without giving them an opportunity of rejecting them. Whether the War Minister has in him the making of a Cromwell and whether he would be, able to put down any such rising with a new model Territorial Army entirely composed of Socialists I do not yet know, and I would rather not have the opportunity of ascertaining.
From the legal point of view the King can do no wrong. But this maxim is singularly at variance with the generally accepted theory of our hitherto unwritten Constitution, which is that the King can do nothing at all without the advice of a Minister, with, perhaps, the single exception of dissolving Parliament. But if, under present conditions, the King were to dissolve Parliament in defiance of the advice given by the present Prime Minister, or of that offered by a future Prime Minister chosen from the ranks of those who are now sitting on the Opposition Benches, I am certain that he would be accused by some people of acting unconstitutionally. The Government is engaged in destroying part of our Constitution, and it proposes nothing in the way of reconstruction. The power of consulting the people must reside somewhere outside a Single Chamber. If these clauses are accepted they will tend to prevent conflicts arising between the House of Commons on one side and the King and people on another. It has been loudly declared that if this House does not accept this Bill in the exact shape in which it left another place, 500 Peers are to be created. Next year if this House refuses to pass a Home Rule Bill this threat is certain to be renewed. You surely do not expect that Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon will continue to give you their support for two years after you have passed a Home Rule Bill that has not become an Act of Parliament. They will insist upon its becoming law at once, and a fresh Constitutional crisis will arise. Ought not His Majesty to have the Constitutional power of consulting his people if approached by a Prime Minister with such a demand, or by demands still more outrageous—such as the prolongation of the life of an unpopular House of Commons beyond the statutory limit, or a Bill for the total abolition of the Second Chamber?
The objection, has been raised that if this clause became law and the Crown
360
were to insist on, a Referendum the Prime Minister would resign and the Opposition would not dare to take office. I think that in most cases the Prime Minister would prefer to remain in office, as is the practice in Australia when polls of the people go against the Government. At any rate a Dissolution would settle the question. But the consequence would be that the wishes of the people would be carried out in all important matters, whereas if the Parliament Bill becomes law in its present shape this is most unlikely. The knowledge that the King might either call for a Referendum or a Dissolution would make a Prime Minister more cautious as to what advice he gave, and therefore I think that the Crown would seldom require to make use of these clauses. If these rights were only exercised once in fifty years it would be a sufficient justification for these Amendments. I look upon, these clauses as a support to the Throne, and I think that on some future occasion they may prevent its being involved in the fall of some unscrupulous Prime Minister. I have heard that Louis Philippe was in the habit of saying that reigning in a Constitutional country was a very simple matter. All that he had to do was to ask Ministers, Messieurs, avez-vous une majorité? If the answer was Oui, he replied Alors, j'irai me promener. If the answer was Non, he said to them Allez-vous promener. Unfortunately he acted on this plan too often, and the result was that the Monarchy disappeared at the same time as an unpopular Minister who had a majority in Parliament but not in the country.
As we are legislating for all time and not merely for the present generation I have, in drawing up this clause, put a time limit to the number of polls of the people or Dissolutions for which the King should have Constitutional authority. I have done this to prevent a dead-lock occurring, which might happen if a very obstinate King were to inherit the Throne at some future period. I scarcely expect these clauses to become law this year, but as there is no finality in, the present Bill I think that the principle of these clauses is one deserving of consideration, and that it should receive attention before these matters are definitely settled, and that some modification of them may eventually form part of our new Constitution. I look upon them as a possible alternative if the

361
Parliament Bill is amended a year hence, and as providing a Constitutional method by which the King could obtain the opinion of his people as to whether he ought to act on the advice of a factious Prime Minister.
My object in moving these Amendments is to make such appeals to the people not only legal but undoubtedly Constitutional. The ancient form of words Le roi s' avisera meets the case exactly, only in this case the advice that he will be able to take will be that of his people direct without the intervention of a Parliamentary caucus that may have lost its influence in the country. There is one point in the manner in which this debate has been carried out which should not escape notice. All through this debate those who sit on this side of the House have been championing the rights of the people. We say that they should be consulted on matters of importance, whereas the Government insist that they shall not. The effect of the Parliament Bill, if passed unaltered, would be to make it possible for the present House of Commons to keep the Government in power for ever. They insist that there shall be no power in the State with a Constitutional right to appeal to the people, and yet they declare that they represent democracy! I move Clause A first.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
A.—His Majesty, notwithstanding any constitutional usage which has hitherto obtained, may, without the advice of a Minister, submit to the Parliamentary electors by means of a Referendum any question; but at least one hundred and eighty days shall elapse between any two submissions to the electors under the foregoing provision. Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent any Referendum during such period taken in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister or Joint Committee.—(Lord Ellenborough.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I confess that I rather welcome the two proposals of the noble Lord. There is a kind, of nautical freshness about them which relieves the monotony of ordinary debate. I wonder if anybody has mastered the proposals of the noble Lord. I think the best answer to them is to read the substance of the two new clauses which he proposes. [The noble Viscount here read the two proposed new clauses.] I am sure your Lordships will have gathered the purport of these most remarkable clauses— perhaps the most remarkable clauses that
362
have ever been presented to either House of Parliament since Praisegod Barebones. I cannot imagine anything more remarkable, and I hope the noble Lord will not think me disrespectful because of what I say upon them. The noble Lord says, by the way, that he does not expect these new clauses to be brought into active operation immediately, but I should say they will not come into active operation until a very short time before the Day of Judgment. To put it quite simply in a single sentence, both these new clauses propose that there should be a statutory direction to the Sovereign to act without the advice of any Minister. Such proposals, I submit without much fear of contradiction, are hardly consistent with the usages which have governed the administration of the affairs of this country for a very long time. I am, therefore, afraid we cannot accept the clauses.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My answer to that is that the Government are altering a great many usages, and the only way to put things straight is to alter some more. I wish to provide a Constitutional harbour of refuge for the Monarch in times of difficulty and danger, and if the Monarch acts on the Referendum that is surely taking advice direct from the people without the intervention of a Minister. It is a great alteration, but as noble Lords opposite are throwing the whole Constitution into the melting-pot, and as nobody knows what the Constitution will be five years hence, I brought this subject forward so that people might consider it. Any sudden thing like this will receive no support at the moment, but by and by it will, and I daresay in five years time. With the permission of the Committee I will withdraw the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I have an Amendment on the Paper, but I am not quite sure whether at this how of the night I ought to propose it. Rightly or wrongly, I feel it is a duty to do so. Indeed, I find myself on the horns of a most unpleasant dilemma. If I refrain from moving my Amendment because the House is practically empty, I lay myself open to the charge of want of modesty in not speaking because there is not a good enough House; but if I move it in spite of the emptiness of the House I am considered a

363
bore. And if I withdrew the Amendment it would be taken that I was not sincere in putting it forward, so on the whole I prefer to be thought a bore but sincere than regarded as immodest and insincere. I therefore beg your Lordships' attention to my Amendment. I move to insert the following new clause—
"This Act shall cease to be operative on the 1st of January, 1913, whether or not an Act of Parliament has then been passed altering the constitution of the House of Lords and regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament."
This Amendment must be read together with the Amendment that I have on the Paper to the Preamble, and I express the hope that your Lordships have read them together.
These Amendments are somewhat different from the one which was proposed by my noble friend Lord Ellenborough and which we have just discussed. They are in fact, certainly in intention—I will not speak dogmatically about the effect—more in the nature of a proposal for a compromise between the two great Parties than an attempt to amend the actual Bill. I hope it will not be considered presumptuous on my part to suggest the basis of a compromise between the two Parties in the State. What has led me to do so is the fact that for many weeks past, in common I suppose with most other Members of this House. I have been anxiously brooding over this difficult problem and endeavouring to contribute my humble mite to a possible solution of the question, which I think is causing anxiety not only to the Unionist Party but also to the members of the Party in power. I put forward these Amendments for discussion principally to ascertain what are the objections to them. I presume that, like every other proposal, they are open to objections, and I sincerely desire to know what those objections are. I hope it is not presumptuous in me to entertain the idea that it might possibly be worth while to know what His Majesty's Government think of such a proposal, because it has happened more than once that a suggestion from insignificant and humble individuals has started important ideas in the minds of statesmen.
The proposal amounts to this. I will paraphrase it. The Bill is to be passed in the form in which it left the House of Commons—that is an assumption on which
364
I proceed in this Amendment—but it is only to be operative for eighteen months, during which time the reform of the House of Lords, which is now the object of the two great Parties in the State, is to be discussed in Parliament on the initiative of His Majesty's Government. The object of my several Amendments is to enable a fresh start to be made without prejudice in the consideration of a measure which alone can solve this Constitutional problem—that is to say, a measure for the reconstitution of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that if this proposal were adopted, though I am not so presumptuous as to suppose it will be, the effect would be this—it would be a drawn match in this great Constitutional struggle, and the match would be drawn in favour of the Radical Party. There would be an armistice in which the Party in power would have the advantage, and that, of course, I admit is only right. After that armistice a fresh match would have to be started. The hostilities, or, as I prefer to call it, the competition of Parties, could be resumed without loss of time, without humiliation, without disappointment on either side, and, above all, without prejudice to the future solution of this immensely important question.
Thinking out this idea, I proceeded on certain assumptions, and I feel confident that I can prove that those assumptions were not unreasonable. The first assumption was that the Government would be willing to find some compromise, at any rate that they would not be unwilling to listen to and discuss any suggestion for compromise which was made in a reasonable way. That is the first assumption, and if it is a wrong one I hope I may be corrected at once. His Majesty's Government surely cannot wish to leave behind a settlement of this question bitterness and humiliation, anger and resentment, in the hearts of their opponents—and their opponents, mind you, are not only in this House and in another place but they are half the people of this country. A question settled in that way, leaving such bitterness, humiliation, and disappointment, cannot possibly be final. Surely it is not unreasonable to assume that His Majesty's Government wish for a final settlement of this question, which has caused them more trouble than it has caused to us. They say, indeed, that this settlement is the one thing which delays all those great

365
objects which they have at heart and with which they wish to proceed. That is my first assumption, and I hope that it will be accepted as reasonable.
My second assumption is that His Majesty's Government sincerely intend to carry out the promise contained in the Preamble, and that they have a plan for doing so. If they have no plan, it seems to me incredible that they should have endeavoured to make a pledge. You do not promise to do a thing which you cannot perform. That is surely a matter of honest dealing and commonsense. If you promise to do a thing you know how you can do it, and you know how you are going to do it or to try to do it. Therefore I assume that His Majesty's Government intend to carry out that promise and that they have got a plan. The third assumption is, their intention being perfectly sincere and honest, that this Bill is merely a transient and provisional expedient. I do not see that that is an unreasonable assumption, and I cannot understand how they can possibly deny it. It is written on the Bill itself. The very first words of the Bill seem to imply that it is a temporary provision, that it is purely a tentative measure. What is the effect of the Preamble put into ordinary language? His Majesty's Government say that because it is necessary to reform the House of Lords and not possible to do so at once, they have, therefore, to make a certain arrangement. If that does not mean a temporary and provisional arrangement I do not understand the English language. That is my third assumption.
And the last assumption is this, that His Majesty's Government and the Radical Party generally have been perfectly sincere in saying on platforms and in Parliament that this question must be settled without delay. That has been to my mind the one burden of their speeches. They say that nothing can go on, nothing can be settled, until you have disposed of this House of Lords question. Some representatives of the Party opposite said that it must be settled before the Coronation. I do not think any member of the Radical Party of any importance has failed to say that this question must be settled with all possible speed. Will any member of His Majesty's Government or any noble Lord opposite say that any of the assumptions that I have ventured to set forth are un-
366
justifiable, unreasonable, or, to use a term which is oftenest on the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, ridiculous? If so, which of them is unreasonable? Which is unjustifiable? Which is ridiculous? That is what I should like to know, because if any of them are I am perfectly willing to stop. It is no use going on. But if I may assume that they are fairly reasonable then perhaps I may go on.
The only doubtful point is whether the Government would be willing in any circumstances to consider a compromise. That seems to me the only doubtful assumption, and perhaps on that point they would be good enough to tell us rather more than we have heard already. All we want to know is whether it is any use suggesting a compromise. Will they entertain any sort of compromise? If they cannot possibly entertain the idea, if they say, "we are not going to have any compromise," then it is merely wasting our breath and wasting your Lordships' time even to attempt to suggest anything. But if they are willing to listen to proposals for a compromise, if their attitude is that which I have just suggested, then I ask what possible objections can they have to stating more clearly and defining more precisely what they declare in their Bill to be their intentions, promises, and pledges. Is there anything unreasonable in that? Let me explain it more exactly. Why not say in the Bill that the House of Lords is to be reformed, and to be reformed as soon as possible. That is the intention; it is what you have said not only in this Bill but everywhere else. What is the objection to putting in your Bill a few words to make it a little more clear? You have said it all over the country; it is nothing new. Why not say a little more clearly that this Veto Bill is provisional? You say it is in the Preamble. You do not deny it when we ask you. Why not make it quite precise, why not make it more definite in the Bill itself than you have done, and say it is to tide over an interval until you have settled what you admit to be the vital points of reconstructing the House of Lords?
Lastly why not fix a limit of time? If this is a provisional measure, why not fix a limit of time. Surely it is necessary to put some limit to all this unrest, all this uncertainty, which is producing bad feeling all over the country, impeding

367
the consideration of every other important question, and undoubtedly doing harm to trade, commerce, finance, and everything else on which the prosperity of the people depends? That unrest will continue until this Constitutional question and the reform of your Lordships' House is settled. The grievance of the Radical Party, one cannot repeat it too often, relates to the composition and not to the powers of this House. That is a complaint which noble Lords opposite have made all over the country. To put it in popular language used by every Radical speaker, they say—"We do not want a hereditary House of Lords. Why should a man make laws for you or assist in making laws because he is the son of his father?" That is the way it is presented to the mind of the people, and they understand it. I maintain stoutly that that is the one idea present to the minds of the people, whose grievance is that there is a permanent overwhelming Unionist majority in this House. Will any one deny that that is a fair statement of the case? That is a grievance we admit. We cannot deny it. It exists. We understand it because we are human like other people and we realise that it must be vexatious and galling to you, and we say frankly that we are willing to do our utmost to remove the disability under which your Party labours.
But you are not going to remove that difficulty and that grievance by this Bill. It does not attempt to remove it. You are not attempting to remove that grievance about which you have complained and on which you have roused the indignation and wrath of the people. The Veto Bill only mitigates the grievance for three years, and during the last two years the whole of this complaint revives again in its fullest force. It is the composition of your Lordships' House, not the powers of any possible Second Chamber, which is the subject of complaint in the country and which has been the subject of political discussion for the past five years or more. What His Majesty's Government are doing, so it seems to me, is to ignore the grievance to which they have drawn attention and concerning which they have excited public opinion, and to establish a form of single-Chamber government—they must forgive me for calling it so, because that is the opinion we all of us hold—which has not been demanded by the country. There,
368
again, surely nobody will contradict me. To reform this House and reconstitute it in such a way as to be fair to all Parties is a matter on which we are all agreed in principle. The Radical Party have long advocated it. The Unionist Party have now agreed to it. Your Lordships' House is absolutely committed to some great change in principle. In this respect, circumstances have enormously altered since the Government first embarked on the policy indicated in this Bill. Surely reasonable men in all walks and conditions of life, alter their attitude, their policy, their method of business, in the face of altered circumstances. That surely is a matter which one need not dwell upon or argue. As a "man in the street," as a "backwoodsman," as a Back Bencher, as an ordinary man, I ask, Why not take advantage of that common ground for a national settlement of a national question? I can quite well imagine the sort of answer I may get from some of His Majesty's Ministers. They will say, "That is not our policy."
Let me try and suggest how these Amendments would work. You would pass your Veto Bill. That is the great object you have in view. That is a point of honour with you. You have pledged yourselves to pass it. You would do that. Your honour would be satisfied. There would be no loss of dignity. Your Party would have that satisfaction. On the other hand, the Opposition would have the satisfaction of knowing that, although they had given way to that extent, the Veto Bill would be harmless except in the matter of finance, and on that point I think that there might very well be an honourable understanding between the two Parties. How could you justify this to the people of your own Party? You could fairly say that your veto policy, as would be a matter of fact, had very largely had the effect you desired. It had brought about a recognition of your demand for reform. You have got the Unionist Party to recognise that it is fair to make some alteration in the constitution of this Chamber. You have accordingly passed the Bill for which the people gave you a mandate. "But circumstances have changed," you could then say, "It is agreed by all that there should be reform, and therefore we must try something else. We have passed your Bill, and now we ask you to agree to our fresh proposals for meeting the real difficulty

369
—the reform of the House of Lords." Surely there would be no loss of dignity in an attitude of that kind. On the other hand, the Unionist Party might say to their supporters, "We have had to give way before superior force, but the Bill is not going to do any harm to the questions which we all hold dear and have at heart. We have had the satisfaction of bringing about a state of affairs favourable to that final settlement of this question which is desired by every reasonable and patriotic man in this country. We have had the satisfaction of avoiding a grave crisis." So I imagine it would be possible for the leaders of both Parties to explain their action in the possibly inconceivable circumstance of His Majesty's Government accepting an idea of this kind. There would be no loss of dignity about action of that sort, and next year, without bitterness, anger, or humiliation in either Party, we could all set to work to make a fresh start, without prejudice, and devise a Second Chamber which would be satisfactory to all Parties.
We have pledged ourselves in this House to some measure of reform, and it seems to me that there is no more convincing evidence that some change is necessary than our experience during these debates. The very existence of this House has been at stake. No more important question has ever been discussed here; yet half the members of this House are absent. I say this just as much against my side as against yours. It is clear there are a large number of Peers who are superfluous, as far as the discharge of legislative duties in this House is concerned. Surely it is only right, only reasonable and economical, to relieve these members of duties for which they have no time or no inclination, and leave the work to be done by those, who are ready and willing to devote themselves to it.
I quite realise that these proposals of mine are unusual, but, as has been said by many others, the Bill itself is unusual in character and therefore cannot be touched in any way except by unusual suggestions. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, at the conclusion of his speech in reply to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, challenged us to say whether any of us seriously and candidly believed that it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to accept Amendments of the
370
kind suggested by the noble Marquess. I confess I did, and had I not been reluctant to interrupt the noble Viscount I should have answered him in the affirmative. I may have been foolish to entertain any such idea, but in all sincerity I prefer to believe that there are still men in the Radical Party who are open to reason, who are patriotic enough to forego a full measure of Party victory or Party revenge, or whatever else you like to call it, for the national good, and who prefer a peaceful solution of a question of admitted difficulty. It is in that belief, whether foolish or not, that I humbly and respectfully submit these suggestions of my own. I want His Majesty's Ministers to tell me what the objections are. Of course, I do not intend to press them. I have only put them forward for discussion and in order to elicit any reasons that may exist for regarding them as unreasonable, or unpractical, or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, would say, ridiculous.
Amendment moved.
Insert the following new clause—
. This Act, shall cease to be operative on the 1st of January 1913 whether or not an Act of Parliament has then been passed altering the constitution of the House of Lords and regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament.—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The prospect of conciliation, reconciliation, or compromise is always inviting, but the noble Lord must realise that at this stage of this controversy it would be quite impracticable to commence an attempt to solve the whole Constitutional difficulty in that way. It has not been for "the fun of the thing" that the Government have brought forward this Bill. We have brought it forward because we believe that there is a great and real public necessity for it. The noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks that we have put forward in the country the composition of the House of Lords as the primary object to be considered. The history of the question is very short but very significant. We proposed to limit the powers of the House of Lords. Thereupon it was from the Conservative side that the project was started, as a substitute for the limitation of powers, that there should be a change in the composition of the House. As always happens when a course of that kind is taken, instead of being a substitute the proposal became a supplement, and both of these projects

371
have been before the country. But although both have been in a degree mentioned, the primary and main one was that relating only to the powers of the House in the first instance. The subject has been very fully discussed in the course of this controversy during the past eighteen months. There have been further proposals put forward which I will not discuss now or further characterise; but may I respectfully suggest that they are more revolutionary than anything contained in this Bill. Remember this, when once you begin pulling down something that is old and familiar you may find yourselves engaging in a very difficult enterprise and committed to it. But without the least desire to return to old stories or old grievances, I must say that it was not we who commenced the innovations upon Constitutional usage. I pass from that subject to say that I am afraid that the proposals of the noble Lord in this Amendment are quite incompatible with the maintenance of this Bill. With that he will agree. He put his Amendment forward in a spirit which everybody must respect—in the hope that it might lead to a compromise on the whole subject. I am afraid that this is a stage at which it is impracticable to anticipate any good results from a project of that kind.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is not, I think, necessary to say more than a word or two upon the few remarks to which we have just listened. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, was, I think your Lordships will agree, quite justified in moving his Amendment, not only because of the excellent arguments with which he supported it, but because of the spirit by which it was animated and the nature of the appeal he made. The noble Lord told us that he made his proposals solely in the interests of compromise and in the hope of eliciting some statement in reply from His Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, gave us, not for the first time—and I very much doubt whether it will be the last—his version of the history of the last few years. I do not know whether my view of history is distorted or whether I look through a different end of the telescope from the noble and learned Lord, but I confess my version of recent events is quite different from his. But inasmuch as he apologised for what was not a novel but still an irrelevant disquisition, I shall
372
not have the necessity of following him. Other and better opportunities will occur of placing our version of history before this House and the country.
The main point of the noble and learned Lord's remarks was the obstinacy with which he refused to consider the idea of compromise or solution. I do not imagine any of your Lordships, perhaps not even Lord Ampthill himself, supposed that the suggestion for that purpose embodied in the Amendment would be accepted by the Government, and therefore I do not express surprise at this refusal. What I should like to take this opportunity of confessing some surprise in regard to is that the attitude of uncompromising refusal to which the noble and learned Lord has just given expression has not been confined to this case, but has been equally offered to every proposal, however reasonable and by whatever arguments supported, that has been advanced by noble Lords on this side of the House. And this is the more disappointing to us because on one occasion we had our views enforced by the powerful authority of one of the greatest Speakers of the House of Commons who ever sat in this Chamber. But those words fell upon deaf ears on the other side. Then, again, we had positive encouragement from the actual words of Ministers opposite. I allude, of course, to the often quoted remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Crewe. But although we had that encouragement, we meet with a stubborn refusal. And we leave this discussion, the present stage of which is now drawing near to the end, with feelings of natural bitterness on our side. We are satisfied at the opportunity we have enjoyed of stating our case. But we do feel that His Majesty's Government have not, so far, treated us in the matter with that courteous consideration which they led us to expect and which we had a right to receive.
There was another aspect of the noble Lord's Amendment which an opportunity will arise of discussing later on. One portion of Lord Ampthill's Amendment proposed that this Act should cease to be operative after a certain space of time. The space of time named was not the same as that suggested in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Galway. The question of an attempt to secure a limit to the operation of the Bill will again come before your Lordships upon the Report stage.

373
We have a good many arguments which we have not used to-night to enforce that point, and we hope that they may then receive the considerate attention of His Majesty's Government.
LORD AMPTHILL: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Short Title.
6. This Act may be cited as the Parliament Act, 1911.
On Question, Clause 6 agreed to.
Preamble:
Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:
And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:
And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords:
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved the omission of the two last declarations. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have not taken any part in this discussion because from my point of view the Bill is a hopelessly bad one. I am not very much in favour of trying to make a sieve hold water, and although we have had a large number of able speeches and the debate has been carried on at a very high level the net result, it appears to me, leaves the Bill still a hopelessly bad one. But although I have not wished to take part in the discussion on the Bill itself, I must say that I think this Preamble deserves the title "ridiculous," of which the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, is so fond, and I do not think it ought to become part of the Statute without strong protests from this House. There are only three points on which I shall trouble your Lordships with regard to this Preamble. In the first place, it is not the custom, I believe, of your Lordships' House to put Preambles in your legislation. At least it has not been done of late years, and I know of no
374
particular reason why you should select this Bill for a breach of your usual custom. In the next place, the Preamble, according to all precedent so far as I can understand, is absolutely out of order, because it has not the smallest reference to anything in the Bill itself. I cannot understand how this Preamble can have passed the purview of the Chairman of Committees in another place without being ruled out of order.
I ask your Lordships, especially those of you who have had experience in the Lower House, to consider this. Supposing this Preamble had been put forward as an Amendment to the Bill, can it be doubted that any one who moved such an Amendment would be told it was out of order? But because apparently it was part of the original Bill as it emerged from the Cabinet Council this utterly irregular Preamble has been allowed to pass. This remarkable Preamble says—
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords," and so forth.
Who intends? This is an Act of Parliament, or is going to be. It is not an expression of opinion from the Bench opposite. Of course, originally it is the Cabinet who intends. Who are the Cabinet? The Cabinet are a body unknown to the Constitution, to begin with, and they are of all bodies the most ephemeral. They only exist as a rule for a few years, and, as far as my experience goes, if they exist at all for a protracted period they invariably fall out amongst themselves. We have been told to-night that "the Government intends," so that when this precious production left the Cabinet the Government adopted it. I wonder whether when the Cabinet framed this Preamble they ever thought of the old proverb of the way to a place which we never mention to ears polite being "paved with good intentions." I wonder whether they thought that perhaps their intentions would lead to a condition of things in this country not altogether foreign to the character of the place to which I have alluded. But they appear to have contrived to get the House of Commons to say also that it "intends." The House of Commons is a rather more permanent institution than the Cabinet of the Government, but even the House of Commons is very liable to be changed from time to time. What business has the House of Commons to put into an Act of Parliament that it "intends"?
But there is a much more serious question raised here. Are we going to pass this and say "we intend"? Remember what it is that we say we intend—
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis."
I have heard a good many speeches in this House with regard to the reconstitution of the House, but I have never heard your Lordships as a body, or even any considerable proportion of your Lordships, say for one moment that you even thought of putting the Second Chamber on a popular instead of a hereditary basis. Upon that ground alone, if on no other, I say that your Lordships cannot pass this Preamble. Whatever other part of the Bill you agree to you must reject this Preamble as it stands now. I protest altogether against intentions. I say with all due respect that this House has hitherto been, and will be still, more stable than either the Cabinet, the Government, or the House of Commons, and I say that this House has no right to speak of its intentions in an Act of Parliament. You have no right to commit posterity. It is the commonest A B C of every other body that has anything to do with administration that it cannot commit its successors. I observe that the noble and learned Lord assents to this proposition. Then how does he defend this Preamble? Let me remind your Lordships that this is a Preamble expressing not the intentions of the Government but the intentions of Parliament. Parliament has a perfect right to legislate for the day, but it has no more right to commit posterity than any administrative organisation. It would make the whole of legislation ridiculous if we were to put into Acts of Parliament that we intended to do this, that, or the other. When I heard the noble and learned Lord say that the Government had not brought this Bill forward for fun, I could not help wondering whether they had not brought forward the Preamble for fun. I have given your Lordships my reasons for altering this Preamble. In the first place, we do not in ordinary usage place Preambles in our Bills; secondly, this Preamble is out of order because it does not relate to the subject-matter of the Bill; and, thirdly, we have no right to commit posterity and to speak of our intentions. We ought to reject this Preamble, and if I can get a teller I will divide upon it.
Amendment moved—
In the Preamble, page 1, line 4, leave out ("And whereas it is intended").—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD HENEAGE: As I have an Amendment on the Paper which is practically included in the Amendment moved by the noble Duke, perhaps it would be more convenient if I said what I have to say now. I am ready to accept all that has been said by the noble Duke with regard to the Preamble, but I will confine myself to the second paragraph of it, which reads—
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but"—
And I wish to emphasise these words—
"such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."
Whatever may have been the case at the time this Bill was drafted—some fifteen or sixteen months ago—it cannot be said now that "such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."
A great many things have happened in the last fifteen months. Indeed we may take it that it was fifteen months ago when the Bill was drafted, because the Prime Minister said on February 21 of last year that the Bill had not been submitted to the House of Commons. That was in reply to an inconvenient question asked by one of his supporters. But after it had been printed and submitted to the House of Commons nothing more was heard of it, and then came the Conference. The Conference lasted for nearly six months, and according to the best authorities there was substantial agreement at one period of the proceedings. Although we do not know officially on what points there was that substantial agreement between the members, or what was the particular rock upon which they split, we have had a good deal of circumstantial evidence since which to those who follow public affairs affords a pretty good glimpse of what was agreed upon and the rock upon which they split. I am one of those who have done a great deal of magisterial business for fifty years, and those who have had similar experience know that a train of circumstantial evidence which is not direct evidence is very often of greater force than the evidence of a witness who may be able to give direct evidence but who may be wrong in what he says. But the Conference having resulted in no decision, the Resolutions

377
of Lord Rosebery and of Lord Lansdowne wore immediately proceeded with, and they were passed, if I recollect rightly, without a single Division—passed unanimously by the whole House. They were then put into a Message to the House of Commons and sent to them. But the door was slammed in their face and there was a Dissolution. The General Election took place within three weeks of the passing of those Resolutions, and the country was thereby deprived of knowing what the House of Lords were prepared to do to meet the Government on the question of the reconstruction of this House. And this Election was taken on an old register, thus depriving the new electors of an opportunity of voting.
The Bill which we are now discussing and the House of Lords Reconstitution Bill are practically twin Bills, about the same age, having been brought into this House, within a fortnight of one another. Therefore this Bill has no great precedence over the other Bill, either in age, weight, or authority. I should like to know this. If at the time this Bill was drafted it had been known that the House of Lords was willing to agree (1) that a hereditary Peerage should not give the right to sit in this House without some sort of election or nomination, (2) that the number of Parliamentary Peers should be reduced by at least one, half, and (3) to arrangements being made for Joint Sittings, with the Referendum on very grave subjects—would not that have made a great difference? I think it would have done. With all these facts before us it is impossible truthfully to say, as is said in the Bill, that "such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."
I do not wish the House to be guided entirely by what I have said. I would refer your Lordships to the speech made by Sir Edward Grey at the National Liberal Club on June 1, when Earl Carrington was in the chair. Sir Edward Grey said—
"If the other side had been prepared to, agree that there should be a Second Chamber in which one Party should have for a term of years as good a chance as the other, that the Second Chamber should be smaller in numbers than the House of Commons, and that there should be some adjustment between the two Houses by which when the House of Commons had a substantial majority its will should prevail … it was much more likely they would not have been divided as they were at the present moment."
378
I think that is a very significant speech. It was made after the two Bills had passed the Second Reading, and though I have, no doubt that Sir Edward Grey had not seen it, it was after my Instruction had been put down on the Paper on the Second Heading, but which, unfortunately, from circumstances over which I had no control, I was, unable to move. I can conscientiously say that I cannot vote for putting these words into this Bill. The words may have been appropriate when the Bill was drafted, but they are not appropriate now; they are not true now, and we cannot put them in. Therefore I shall support the noble Duke if he goes to a Division, and if his Amendment is not accepted I shall move the omission of these particular words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment moved by the noble Duke opposite is, of course, in accordance with the view that he has expressed about this Bill consistently and from the commencement, and also consistent with the view that I think he expressed with regard to the Bill of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. I am sorry if I am wrong; but the noble Duke regards this Bill at all events as a thoroughly bad Bill. He thinks the principle is wrong. The noble Duke, therefore, has taken no part, or very little part, in any of the discussions in Committee. I think also that the noble Duke's attitude towards the Bill of the Leader of the Opposition was not of a friendly character.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I do not know why we should enter into any question that is not before the House. With regard to the Bill of the noble Marquess, I have never expressed any opinion whatever upon it. I have often expressed an earnest desire for a reform of this House, but I have never expressed any opinion as to the particular way in which the noble Marquess wished to effect his object.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not desire to make it in any way a subject of complaint, and if I am wrong I am sorry, but I have been under the impression that the noble Duke did not take a favourable view of that particular proposal. Accordingly it is not to be wondered at that he not only dislikes this Bill but particularly dislikes the Preamble. The

379
Preamble states the intentions of the Government and asks Parliament to state its intentions also. [Several Noble Lords: "No."] Well, it asks Parliament also to state its intention to effect a reform of the constitution of this House in accordance with the terms of the Preamble. I agree that it is unusual to preface a Bill of this kind by a Preamble of this kind. I make that admission freely. But there is no rule, either of the Constitution or anything else, to prevent you from making an appropriate Preamble in an appropriate case. We think that this Preamble is appropriate in the particular circumstances in which we stand—namely, that we are bringing forward a Bill relating to one side of a subject alone; and we did not anticipate that we should meet with censure from noble Lords opposite because we also ask Parliament to announce its intention of dealing with the other side of the subject, to which they themselves attach importance.
Parliament, of course, cannot commit its successors, and we do not ask Parliament to attempt to commit its successors. It is this Parliament that we ask to express an opinion in regard to this particular Bill, and of course it will not bind any future Parliament if the other Parliament think proper to differ from it. If I rightly understood the noble Lord, Lord Heneage, his view is that at present it is not true to say that it is impracticable immediately to bring forward the Bill referred to in the Preamble. He must be more sanguine than I am. All I can say is that at present we have got our hands pretty full in carrying this Bill through Parliament. The task of drawing up and framing a new constitution for either one or both Houses of Parliament is one of extreme complexity and extreme difficulty. It has been found in many countries that to draw up a constitution for the Upper House of Parliament is no easy task. I do not believe that the noble Marquess opposite, in framing his Bill, found it an easy task, and with all respect to him I was not very satisfied with the result. When we bring forward a Bill we shall have to preface it by a great deal of labour, and we shall be confronted with a great many difficulties with which the noble Lord himself must be pretty familiar. If he thinks it is a light and easy task I am sorry to say I cannot agree with him. The Preamble was inserted by the Government; it has been
380
supported by the House of Commons, and, of course, we adhere to it in this House. Your Lordships are able, if you think proper, to do as you have done on former occasions and strike it out, or put another in its place, but we cannot be assenting parties to that course.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: This is a curiously drafted Bill. As has already been said, the word "whereas" generally refers to something past, but in this case it refers to something which has yet to come. The third paragraph appears to be absolutely inconsequential. It commences—
"And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber,"
and then it proceeds—
"but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords."
What on earth has the latter part to do with the former? It may be necessary to define a new Second Chamber but how is that necessarily connected with its being expedient to make provision entirely limiting the powers of the House of Lords? The formation of a new Chamber is one thing; limiting the powers of any such Chamber, or a future Chamber, is quite another. The provisions in this Bill appear to have no connection at all with the first part of the sentence which I have quoted. I certainly think that a Preamble like this, which has such a very shadowy connection with the subject matter of the Bill, is one that had far better be left out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words with regard to this extraordinary Preamble. The noble Duke pointed out the absurdities and anomalies in the Preamble, but I do not think he said what he might have said on this point. Where is the precedent for such a Preamble as this to be found? A Preamble, of course, should refer to things which follow it in the Bill. Undoubtedly in the usual course of legislation the Preamble to this Bill ' would run—
"Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. Be it therefore enacted," etc.

381
That is a Preamble of the ordinary sort which would be followed by the Bill. But when the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, came to answer my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland, he appeared to me to turn away altogether from the question which the noble Duke raised. He made no answer to the remarks about the Preamble, but began by saying that he believed the noble Duke did not agree with Lord Lansdowne's Bill—a matter which was not before the House. Then he proceeded to talk about this Bill, but said nothing in defence of what I venture to assert is a most ridiculous Preamble. If it appeared before any Committee of your Lordships' House upstairs it would be struck out without the slightest mercy, simply because it has no reference to what follows in the Bill and contains many things which are not to be found in the Bill.
The Preamble refers to all kinds of things. I shall not speak of its ridiculous grammar. Its grammar is simply beneath contempt. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to say he was at a great college of which I also happened to be a humble member. I would like to ask him what he would say if this had been read to him—
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."
There is grammar for you! We have often heard of the grammar in Kings' and Queens' speeches, but no noble Lord in this House ever heard of grammar approaching to that. The use of the word "but" is perfectly inappropriate. The next paragraph runs in the same way—there is another "but." I wonder whose invention this Preamble was, or which member or members of the Cabinet would claim the glory of having written it? We know that draftsmen are a long-suffering race, but when the draftsman was told to put this Preamble in the Bill he must have blushed with shame. If it was the noble and learned Lord who ordered him to do it, I am afraid he must have mentally observed that he thought the Lord Chancellor worthy of better things.
The Amendment of the noble Duke proposes to delete this Preamble. Of course it ought to be struck out. It is
382
perfectly ridiculous from beginning to end. It is not worthy of anything but ridicule and condemnation. But then comes this further question about this precious production. Is it worth while to strike it out? It is all of a piece with this Bill. Any one who reads this Bill and then reads the Preamble would probably say to himself, "The men who wrote this Bill are just the sort of people who would write a Preamble of this kind." I cannot find words strong enough to express my sense of the absurdity of this Preamble, but I ask the noble Duke, Is it worth while to strike this nonsense out? On the whole, if we are to look at it from a Party point of view, I should say, taking one thing with another, it is better to keep this trash in the Bill than to strike it out. Taking that view, I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment to a Division, though so far as the merits of the question are concerned I confess I entirely agree with him.
LORD NEWTON: I do not profess to have more intelligence than anybody else, but I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind as to the origin of this Preamble, or how it got into the Bill. It is perfectly obvious to me that the Government made up their minds that it was expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. In the original Bill the portion proposed to be omitted by the noble Duke did not appear. Thereupon, some members of the Government said, "What is the meaning of this? There is nothing about a Second Chamber in your Bill. It only deals with the relations between the two Houses. You must, have a Preamble of some kind dealing with the construction of a new Second Chamber." It is so obvious. That accounts, not only for the curious language of the Preamble, but also for the fact that it has no relation whatsoever to the rest of the Bill. I was about to make the same suggestion as did my noble friend, Lord Camperdown. What the noble Duke said was perfectly accurate. I do not think he exaggerated the case. The Preamble is illogical. It is unnecessary. As far as I can see it is serving no useful purpose except that it satisfies the consciences of the so-called Second Chamber members of the Government. But the point of the whole thing is, Is it worth making a fuss about I should like to

383
support Lord Camperdown's suggestion. The Preamble need not be taken seriously, and nobody will care whether it was taken out or left in.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It would be scarcely respectful if I did not say a few words with regard to the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland. I think he entirely made good his indictment of the Preamble. He said it was unusual to affix a Preamble of this kind to a Bill, and that count was admitted by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. Then my noble friend said that he believed the Preamble was out of order. I should have thought that it was certainly out of order to mention in a Bill dealing with one subject your intention of legislating upon another subject, although the two subjects may have some connection. I am sure my noble friend Lord Camperdown is right when he says that the grammar of the Preamble is more than suspect. I also agree with the noble Duke in holding that it would be most unreasonable that we should be regarded, by accepting this Preamble, as in any way pledging ourselves or pledging anyone else to legislation exactly corresponding with the principle of the first section of the Preamble—I refer to the reference to a Second Chamber constituted on a popular basis, by which I suppose is meant a merely popular as distinguished from a partly hereditary basis.
But, like my two noble friends who have spoken last, I regard the matter less seriously than does the noble Duke. After all, this Preamble has no enacting effect. It is a mere recital of the intentions and policy of His Majesty's Government, and I believe everyone is perfectly aware of the circumstances in which that recital was accepted and grafted on to the measure. We are not responsible for this Bill, nor are we responsible for the Preamble. We think the Bill a bad Bill, and the Preamble a bad Preamble. But there is one other point about the Preamble which, perhaps, has not been sufficiently noted. It does contain a definite pledge on the part of His Majesty's Government that they will—and we know that they mean to do so at an early time—produce a measure dealing with House of Lords reform. I am very anxious to hold
384
them to that pledge. Until we know what that measure is, we shall not be able to pass final judgment on their policy as a whole. Therefore I see some advantage in retaining these words in the Preamble because they embody a pledge to which we desire to hold noble Lords opposite.
With regard to our own intentions as to House of Lords reform surely there need be no misapprehension, because we have embodied them in the Bill which has been read a second time by your Lordships' House. Therefore we are in no way, it seems to me, prejudiced if we allow the Preamble to stay where it is. In these circumstances I cannot help thinking that my two noble friends are right in believing that it is really not worth while to wreak our vengeance on the Preamble. We have made one or two serious suggestions for the improvement of the Bill, and I confess I should be sorry, particularly in a somewhat thin House, to strike this portion of it out. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his Amendment to a Division.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am sorry to address your Lordships again, but after the appeal which has just been made to me it would not be respectful if I did not say one word. I am very sorry, but I do not understand the argument. We are passing an Act of Parliament. We have not, as we might have done, ignored this measure altogether and taken no part in its amendment, leaving the entire responsibility to the Government. I do not know whether that would have been a satisfactory course or not. At any rate, the argument of the noble Marquess was that we are not responsible for the words of the Preamble or of the Bill. That might have been fitly argued and might have been upheld if we had ignored the Bill. But your Lordships have undertaken to amend the Bill. I cannot understand how we can make ourselves responsible for various amendments in a Bill of this kind and then when we come to the Preamble say, "Oh it is perfectly true there are things in the Preamble which we do not believe and which are contrary to our intention, but we are not responsible and we will leave them in." I would impress that upon your Lordships. If you pass this

385
Preamble, particularly after you have undertaken to amend the Bill, you are responsible for saying that it is your intention to have an elective Second Chamber. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said he was anxious to keep the Government to their pledge to deal with this question of a reformed House. I should have thought that after what has fallen from the Government Bench they were sufficiently pledged already, and I humbly submit that to put things with which you do not agree into an Act of Parliament is not a regular or proper way to pledge Governments. I am
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
House resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It might be convenient to your Lordships if the noble Viscount would tell us when he proposes to take the remaining stages of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN:I would have liked to take the Report
extremely sorry to differ from the noble Marquess. I quite feel the gravity of the action I am taking in differing, not only from Lord Lansdowne but from my noble friends Lord Camperdown and Lord Newton; but I really do think that I cannot withdraw this Amendment but must take a Division.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Preamble,
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Dinevor, L.

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

Radnor, E.

Egerton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Gwydir, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Bedford, D.

Hindlip, L.

Sutherland, D.

Churchill, V.

Kenyon, L.

Haldane, V.

Lawrence, L.

Bath, M.

Middleton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Newton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Allendale, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ampthill, L.

St. Davids, L.

Carrington, E.

Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

Sanderson, L.

Eldon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Fortescue, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Seaton, L.

Granville, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Southwark, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Welby, L.

Lytton, E.

De Mauley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Halifax, V.

Hylton, L.

Mowbray, L.

Normanby, M.

Addington, L.

St. Levan, L.

Cathcart, E.

Blythswood, L.

Sandys, L.

Devon, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Sempill, L.

Lovelace, E.

Deramore, L.

Stanmore, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Forester, L.

Torphichen, L.

Morton, E.

Hathorton, L.

Wynford, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Heneage, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Preamble agreed to.

stage on Monday, but a certain number of members of this House, for good reasons, will be absent, and therefore I propose that we take the Report stage on Thursday, July 13. That I believe will be held to be ample time. As to the Third Reading I hope the noble Marquess will allow me to postpone the date for that till we see how we get on with the Report stage.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 128.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SEAMEN'S ALLOTMENT) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, this Bill has been through the House of Commons without any amendment at all. It is a small Bill to remove certain doubts as to the true interpretation of certain sections of the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 and 1906. It is now made clear that by agreement with the master an allotment note may be granted to a seaman providing for payment of a greater sum than one half of the wages, and for payment at a period earlier than one month from the date of the agreement with the crew and at intervals more frequent than one month. This will be an advantage to seamen trading on long voyages, and
388
as I understand that the Board of Trade favour this Bill I hope your Lordships will see your way to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Nunburnholme.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.