Sitting of 18 July 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Westbury Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Hornsea Urban District Council Bill,
Central London Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—
Star Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

COMMONS REGULATION (WINTON AND KABER) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Winton and Kaber Commons, in the county of Westmorland and the North Riding of the county of York," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHEY.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitney): I beg to move, "That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and the Bill be read the first time." Perhaps I may offer a word of explanation on the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means in regard to this and the following Bill. The reason why they are delayed is that they have had to go twice before a Select Committee of this House. The Select Commit-
854
tee found some point which they desired to be modified, and the Bills had therefore to go back for further consideration, and it was only last week that the Select Committee was able to sit a second time and approve them in their modified form.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

COMMONS REGULATION (BURRING-TON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Burrington Commons, in the county of Somerset," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHEY.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Railway Communication (Europe and India).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the many varying schemes for railway communication from Europe and the Mediterranean to India which are now occupying the public attention, whether he would appoint a small committee of expert authorities on somewhat the same lines as the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Euphrates Valley Railway in 1871 and 1872, to consider and report upon the pros and cons of the projects, with special reference to the British-Indian and Imperial interests involved at the present day?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): It would not be desirable to adopt the proposal of the Noble Lord. The subject involves commercial, strategical, and political considerations, and has been dealt with in consultation with the Government of India, the Committee of Defence, and the different Government Departments concerned, all of which have access to what must remain confidential information.

  Portugal (Rights of British Subjects).
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked what protection will be afforded by the British Government to the rights of British subjects holding property in Portugal who have complied with the terms of the decree issued by the provisional Government of Portugal?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the decree issued on 31st December, 1910, by the Portuguese Government. This decree, of which a translation was published in the "London Gazette" on 25th April last, pronounced the forfeiture to the State of the properties of religious associations in Portugal, under certain conditions, and laid down the procedure which must be followed by any claimants desiring to establish a rightful title to the ownership of confiscated properties. His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon formally reserved all rights that British subjects might possess in respect of the properties affected. On further representations from His Majesty's Government, the Portuguese Government have given an assurance that any decision adverse to British claims may, at an early stage of the proceedings, be referred to arbitration at The Hague.

  Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked what is the reason why in the second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill, as originally presented to the House, the Union of South Africa was not mentioned in Clause 1, Sub-section (4); and why in the revised Bill the Union of South Africa is expressly referred to?
  Sir E. GREY: The words "Union of South Africa" were omitted by inadvertence in the Bill as originally introduced in the House.

  Consul-General in Egypt (Viscount Kitchener's Appointment).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked if anyone had been designated to succeed the late Sir Eldon Gorst in Egypt; and was the office of Consul-General regarded by the Foreign Office as a civil or a military appointment?
  Sir E. GREY: Lord Kitchener has been offered, and has accepted, the post of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt. It is a civil appointment. I am confident that the qualities possessed by Lord Kitchener, his special knowledge and experience of Egyptian affairs, and his
  856
  impartiality and capacity make the appointment one that should command general confidence.
  Sir W. BYLES: Would it not be better to keep our soldiers to their own proper job? Are we not fast becoming an army-ridden nation?
  Sir E. GREY: Lord Kitchener has shown great capacity not only as a soldier. The appointment in Egypt is an exceedingly difficult one to fill, as everyone knows. It requires special knowledge, special experience, and special qualities. I do not know anyone who possesses this special knowledge, special experience, and special qualities in so high a degree as Lord Kitchener.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is there any truth in the rumour that Lord Kitchener made certain conditions on acepting this appointment, and can we have those conditions made public?
  Sir E. GREY: No; there are no conditions at all made. The appointment was offered and accepted in the usual way. Of course, before Lord Kitchener goes out to Egypt, the policy to be followed in Egypt, and the questions which have to be dealt with in Egypt, would be the subject of discussion between him and His Majesty's Government; but the appointment was offered and accepted unconditional.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is all the money we have spent in making a soldier of him to be thrown away?
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is it not the fact that Lord Kitchener filled several appointments in the early part of his-career in the very country in which he is now appointed?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know what appointments Lord Kitchener has filled, but it seems to me whichever way the money has been spent, whether the career has been military or civil, it should be no bar whatever to his being appointed to a post for which he has special qualities.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: When the policy has been agreed upon, and the instructions to Lord Kitchener have been given, will these be submitted to the House of Commons?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not propose to depart from previous practice. Lord Kitchener's appointment does not involve any change of policy, but between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the representative in Egypt there is constantly dis-

  857
  cussion. It takes place every year when the Consul-General returns home on leave, and of course will take place before he goes out there this year.
  Mr. PEEL: Was not Lord Cromer a soldier also?
  Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that this appointment does not designate any change in the general policy of His Majesty's Government in Egypt?
  Sir E. GREY: Certainly, it does not designate any change in the general policy of His Majesty's Government in Egypt. It simply means that the knowledge and experience and capacity which Lord Kitchener has in a very high degree are to be utilised by the State.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Why was not that knowledge and experience given to the War Office?

  Albania.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received intelligence from consular or other sources that 16,000 Albanian shepherds with their flocks have been penned in on the plains, which are swampy and malarious, below Drina, and are suffering hardships and sickness through lack of provisions and medical aid; and whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain permission for Red Cross League operations to be undertaken in that district without delay?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Cettinje reports that, on account of the insurrection in Northern Albania the Turkish troops this summer prevented some hundreds of Albanians, who had descended with their families and flocks in the winter to the marshy district south of Scutari, from returning to their homes in the mountains. According to a statement of the Turkish Minister in Montenegro, these people were free to return to their homes some weeks ago. I have no official information to the effect that they are in want of food or medical aid, though I am aware that very distressing accounts of sufferings in Albania have come from private and independent sources. It is not possible for His Majesty's Government to undertake relief operations, but they would do their best to secure facilities either in Montenegro or Albania for any private and independent organisation that desired to collect and distribute relief to non-combatants.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the consular report will be received?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, but I will inquire.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate to the House any despatches received from his Majesty's Minister at Cettinje showing the number of Albanian refugees in Montenegro, and whether they are being fed by the Montenegrin Government or by private gifts; and whether he will endeavour to utilise the services of His Majesty's ships in supplying canvas tents for the encampments of the women and children who have been driven from their homes by the Turkish troops?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Cettinje reports that the most correct estimate which can be given at the present moment of the number of Albanian refugees in Montenegro is 10,000. They are receiving half a kilogram of maize per head as daily rations from the Montenegrin Government, but nothing else, the gifts of money from the Montenegrin authorities having ceased some months ago. The refugees on the frontier are no doubt assisted to some extent by the villagers. I have already in my previous answer replied to the last part of this question.

  Indian Medical Service (Promotions).
  Mr. CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that Brevet-Colonel Bannerman, Indian Medical Service, has been nominated as Surgeon-General to the Madras Government; if so, can any explanation be given as to why that officer has been promoted over the heads of several officers who are his seniors in the service, and have not only higher medical qualifications, but have greater administrative experience, some having distinguished war service in addition, which Colonel Bannerman does not possess?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is "No"; the second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. CROFT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why one of the senior officers has not been appointed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member's question was whether ray attention has been called to the fact that Brevet-Colonel Bannerman has been nominated as Surgeon-General to the Madras Government. My attention has not been called to the fact, and I have no information whatever.
  Mr. CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry in this case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is no vacancy in the appointment, and as it is the duty of the Madras Government to deal with the matter, I think it is better to wait until the name has been submitted.

  Burmah.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has any official information as to the cause of the attack made last November by 800 men on the village of Myinma in Burmah; whether the alleged insurgents are being prosecuted before a military or a civil court, and upon what charges; whether they have any right of appeal if convicted; and can he say whether the Secretary of State has received any report showing in what way the inhabitants of the forty-seven villages upon whom additional police have been quartered for two years were concerned in or responsible for the attack made by these 800 men?
  Mr. MONTAGU: When my hon. Friend put down his former question on this subject the Secretary of State telegraphed to the Government of India for a report, and I gave to the hon. Member last Tuesday the substance of their reply. I am not in a position to give any further information pending the receipt of the report which the Government of India say they are sending by post.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask whether they have got hold of the real offenders?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know anything about it except what is contained in the telegram which was read to the hon. Member. When I get further information I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Dinapur Railway Accident.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to give the House any information concerning the railway accident at Dinapur on 5th April; and whether any political significance can be attached thereto.
  Mr. MONTAGU: At 5.35 a.m. on the 5th April an express from Delhi to Howrah was derailed between Neoza and Sadisopur on the East India Railway, five coaches being overturned. It was found that an outside rail had been removed from the down line, and the up line had been tampered with. One person was-killed, three seriously injured, and twenty-nine slightly injured. On the information acquired so far the Bengal Government consider that no political significance can be attached to the outrage, which appears to have been perpetrated by train thieves with the object of loot.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the India Office are considering what action they ought to take to put an end to the circulation of misleading reports on matters of this kind, and whether the India Press Law cannot be applied to Reuter's Agency and similar agencies which circulate false information?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is always a rash thing to attribute motives for outrages and crimes, and no one deprecates more than the Secretary of State the habit of attributing to such outrages in India a political significance which does not attach to them.

  Military Aeroplanes.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can now state what steps the War Office have taken, or are proposing to take, to develop the use of the aeroplane for military purposes, particularly with regard to the following points: the training of officers and men as aviators at civilian schools, the enlistment and training of an adequate corps of aeroplane mechanics, the adequate remuneration of officers and men employed in this hazardous service, and the offering of prizes and other inducements to civilian manufacturers who are prepared to design and construct special aeroplanes in accordance with War Office specifications and requirements?
  Mr. SANDYShad given notice of the-following question: To ask the Undersecretary of State for War whether it is intended to give a bonus to officers who obtain pilots' certificates privately, and, if so, what sum is to be allowed them; and whether representations have been made that extra pay should be given to officers of the Air Battalion corresponding to submarine pay in the Navy?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The question of

  861
  offering a prize or prizes for aeroplanes suitable for military use is receiving careful consideration, but there are difficulties to be overcome, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this point. The Army Council has been carefully considering the numbers of trained observers necessary for our present war requirements, and has come to the conclusion that eighty or one hundred officers who are also pilots are required. As our present arrangements do not admit of opportunities for training so large a number, the Army Council is in communication with the various civilian schools of aviation in regard to the training of selected officers and the terms they would consider sufficient; and it is proposed to make a grant in aid of the expenses of such training. This covers the first point raised in the question of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys). When these officers have obtained their pilot's certificates and been finally approved by the military authorities as skilled airmen they will be classed as Army airmen and a distinguishing mark will be placed opposite their name in the Army List. They will be attached to the Air Battalion for refresher courses at specified intervals. The training of so large a number will necessarily take some time, but a commencement will be made with the least possible delay. A considerable number of mechanics with special knowledge will eventually be necessary, and they will be enlisted as required. As regards remuneration, officers of the Air Battalion and aviation officers when attached will receive engineer pay in addition to regimental pay, and it is proposed to give such further pay or allowances as will in the opinion of the Army Council make the total remuneration adequate. The Army Council is in communication with the Admiralty and the Treasury as to this, and I hope to be able shortly to make a further statement. This covers the second point raised in question No. 26*. The question of the grant of special non-effective allowances to officers and men in cases of accident when engaged in aviation is under consideration.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask, in regard to the first point, whether, whilst the War Office are considering and making up their mind on the special features of an ideal aeroplane, which may take some time, they will consider the advisability of purchasing an adequate number of machines of such types as have been proved as thoroughly suited to military requirements
  862
  by foreign Governments, who have more experience in this matter than we have?
  Colonel SEELY: We have recently purchased some more aeroplanes, and we will continue to purchase them as and when required, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the advance of this science is so rapid that to buy a great number would be a very great mistake.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask whether steps are being taken to train officers simply as observers, apart from the expensive course of making them pilots?
  Colonel SEELY: As I explained in the more important part of my reply, it is proposed that from eighty to 100 officers shall be trained as pilots. Of course, their principal purpose will be to observe, but they will also be pilots.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether there are now on Salisbury Plain only five sheds available for aeroplanes; and whether it is intended to provide additional sheds for the "Valkyrie" machines recently presented by Mr. Barber?
  Colonel SEELY: There are five sheds now on Salisbury Plain belonging to the Army, and they will hold seven aeroplanes. Another double shed to hold four aeroplanes will shortly be built.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether there are at present on Salisbury Plain only three qualified aeroplane mechanicians; and whether, for the safety of officers and others engaged on aeroplane work, this number will be increased immediately?
  Colonel SEELY: There are three qualified aeroplane mechanicians at Salisbury Plain and another will shortly be sent there. There are two more at Farnborough on probation.
  Mr. SANDYS: Are we to understand that there are only to be five mechanics in the immediate future?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, no! In my previous answer I said that these special mechanics with a knowledge of this work will be enlisted as required.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the official statement that five officers of the Air Battalion are at present engaged in aeroplane work on Salisbury Plain, employing Government aeroplanes, he will state the names of such officers with a list of the aeroplanes at present in use by them?
  Colonel SEELY: There are six officers of the Air Battalion engaged on aeroplane work on Salisbury Plain, namely, Captains Fulton and Burke, and Lieutenants Cammell, Reynolds, Barrington-Kennett and Connor. The aeroplanes there are one Farman biplane and three Bristol biplanes. Two more Bristol biplanes are to be delivered there this week and another in three weeks' time.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether any officer has been engaged on a machine' of his own and not on a Government aeroplane?
  Colonel SEELY: There is more than one officer who has a machine of his own, and it is very desirable that there should be.

  Coronation Medal.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the troops on duty during the Royal visits to Edinburgh and Dublin will be given the Coronation medal on the same terms as those who were on duty in London at the Coronation?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not in a position to make any statement on this point at present.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider this question in relation to the troops employed at Carnarvon under similar circumstances?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise put of the answer.

  Rifle Clubs (Ammunition).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secre-tary of State for War whether he can now state if arrangements have been made to sell obsolete ammunition to rifle clubs at reduced prices; and whether the distribution will be made through the county associations or through the National Rifle Association?
  Colonel SEELY: It has been decided to sell old ammunition to rifle clubs at reduced rates varying with the age. The precise details are now being considered.

  Army Special Reserve Officers.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether officers of the Special Reserve have to fire a revolver course; and, if so, whether the ammunition for the same has not been available at the Ordnance?
  Colonel SEELY: Revolver practice for the Special Reserve was only approved last May. This involves a large increase in the amount of ammunition required which is not yet available, but the supply will be expedited.

  Ammunition (Reserve Store).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary for War with what ammunition he intends to replace the existing reserve store of ammunition, which has been depleted and is being used up for current practice?
  Colonel SEELY: Steps have been taken to obtain a further supply of Mark VI. ammunition to fill up the reserve until the issue of resighted rifles and Mark VII. ammunition commences.

  Trench Cutting in Camps.
  Captain FABERasked whether instructions have been given to officers commanding, allowing them discretion as to cutting trenches round tents of men in camp in wet weather?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of digging trenches rests with the discretion of the officer commanding the camp, provided that in the case of hired land the terms of the hiring do not preclude such digging.
  Captain FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commanding officers last year were fined for allowing these trenches to be dug when the water was coming into the tents?
  Colonel SEELY: I suppose that was in cases where the terms of the hiring precluded such digging. But it is undesirable that such a state 'of affairs should occur. Inquiry should always be made.
  Captain FABER: I have it first hand. Army officers were fined.
  Colonel SEELY: It should have been reported. I shall be glad of any information that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give me.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    COUNTRY AND TOWN SICKNESS
    Captain CLIVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the Ancient Order of Foresters found that the actuarial difference between the cost of country and town sickness insurance was not more than ¼d. a week, but that the Foresters continue benefits over seventy while the Government scheme does not, if he will

    865
    have the actuarial difference in pennies per week calculated between the benefits conferred by the Foresters on their country and town contributors over seventy years of age due to the admitted greater longevity of country contributors
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I will refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement on the 4th July, in reply to a number of requests for actuarial information.
    Captain CLIVE: Was it in answer to a question?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. It is rather too long to read. It occupies about a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    RURAL FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Captain CLIVEasked how many purely rural friendly societies there are that are likely to be approved societies under the National Insurance Bill, in which persons in rural districts will be able to insure so as to obtain the full benefit of the diminished rate of sickness in rural districts?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE:I fear it would hardly be practicable to obtain the information which the hon. Member desires.

    RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if employés of railway companies who are obliged, as a condition of their service, to join the sick benefit society of the company will also be compelled to join an approved society and will be liable to the statutory deductions from their wages provided for by the Insurance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Presumably a railway company would not continue its sick benefit society at all except as an approved society under Clause 19 of the National Insurance Bill, since otherwise not only the men but also the company would be contributing twice over.

    GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to enable Members more readily to identify new proposals of the Government on Clauses which they intend to alter, he would, in view of the large number of pages of Amendments to the National Insurance Bill, cause the Government Amendments to be printed and circulated as a separate Paper, at least once each week?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think there is a good deal to be said for this suggestion and I will consult the authorities of the House upon it.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of printing the Government Amendments in different type?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When may we expect to see the Government Amendments, anywhere? I think there are only two on the Paper at present.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there are a good many more than that. I have a few more in regard to the doctors which I shall put down after the meeting of the doctors on Friday or Saturday.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When will we see the new proposal as to the separation of the women's fund from the men's fund?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will put it down at the end of this week, or probably to-day or to-morrow.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) as to printing the Government Amendments in different type?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consult the authorities of the House on the subject.

  Consols.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that in the ten years ending December, 1905, which years included the period of the Boer War, the yield of Consols rose by 4s. 7d., namely, from £2 11s. 5d. to £2 16s., while during the period commencing in December, 1905, and ending last month, the yield increased by 6s. 8d., namely, from £2 16s. to £3 2s. 8d.; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to increase the sum devoted to the extinction of debt?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member has apparently ignored in his calculation of the yield in 1895 the effect of the prospective fall in the rate of interest in 1903. The average yield in the month of December, 1895, was in fact about £2 7s. 7d., and the increase of yield between that date and 31st December, 1905, about 8s. 5d.—not 4s. 7d. as stated in the question. Otherwise the figures given are approximately

  867
  correct. What bearing (if any) these figures may have upon the question whether it is desirable to increase the present provision for the redemption of debt is a matter which I cannot with advantage discuss within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question,
  Mr. W. PEEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any steps to restore the national credit to what it was?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may point out that between the dates covered by these questions the increase in Consol debt was £64,000,000. In the period that has elapsed since 1905 the decrease has been £23,000,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that the increased yield was 4s. 7d. as stated in the question, remembering always that the interest is reduced from 2¾ to 2½ per cent., which has to be considered when a calculation is made?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I have already pointed out that the statement was inaccurate.

  Transvaal Municipal Ordinance.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Draft Municipal Ordinance has yet been passed by the Transvaal Provincial Council; whether the Ordinance as drafted is ultra vires of the South Africa Act of 1909; whether he has received any representations from or on behalf of the Transvaal Indians in respect thereto; and what action he intends taking in regard to such representations?
  Colonel SEELY: According to the most recent official information in the possession of the Secretary of State for the Colonies the Transvaal Local Government Ordinance was referred to a Select Committee of the Transvaal Council. He has received a copy of the petition of the Chairman of the British Indian Association against the Bill, and he is in communication with the Union Government on the subject.

  Labour Exchanges (Aliens).
  Mr. GIBBSasked the President of the Board of Trade how many aliens have been registered at the Labour Exchanges during the five weeks ending 30th June, and in how many cases were aliens recommended for vacancies during that period?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The number of cases in which there was any reason to believe that applicants registering at the Labour Exchanges in the United Kingdom during the five weeks ending 30th June were not of British nationality was 159, and in fifty-three cases the applicants-proved, on inquiry, to be aliens who had resided within the United Kingdom less than six months. During the period ten aliens were placed in situations through the Labour Exchanges.

  Guarantee Business (List of Companies).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the officials of his Department are bound by a rule that only companies which, being otherwise eligible, have paid minimum dividends of five per cent. for five years preceding the date of their application, can be placed on the approved list for guarantee business; and, seeing this rule is so applied that a company which has earned 5 per cent. and distributed it in dividends, making no provision for reserve, is placed in a better position than a stronger company which has earned more than 5 per cent., but paid only 44 per cent., employing the balance in building up a strong reserve, will he consider a modification of the rule so as to have regard to the test of security afforded by earnings and reserves, rather than by the amount distributed?
  Mr. BUXTON: Before an insurance company can be placed on the Board of Trade's approved list for guarantee business, it must comply with certain conditions which were carefully laid down by the Board of Trade many years ago. One of those conditions requires the payment by the insurance company in question of a 5 per cent. dividend for five consecutive years. Payment of a dividend at this rate does not, however, secure the admission of the company to the approved list unless satisfactory provision has also been made for reserves. I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise the necessity for some definite rule, and that he will agree-that the rule, so long as it remains in. force, must be applied to all companies alike. As at present advised, I see no-reason for a reduction of the minimum rate of dividend required.

  Labour Exchanges (Salaries).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that

  869
  a circular was issued to the branch labour exchanges by the divisional officer of the London and South - Eastern Division stating that no members of the staff were to make application for increase of salary this year; will he say whether this is a contravention of the agreement made with the staff on appointment; and whether substantial increases have been given to a portion of the staff while others, although doing higher grade work, have received no increase?
  Mr. BUXTON: A circular was issued by the divisional officer stating that applications for an increase of salary from registration clerks should only be forwarded, except in special circumstances, in January of each year. This instruction did not apply to officers whose terms of engagement provided for an annual increment in their salary, and it contravened no agreement. It is obviously impossible to deal fairly with applications for increases of salary unless some rule is laid down which enables them to be considered together, so far as practicable, at fixed intervals. No doubt some of the staff have had advances and some not, but the claims of the whole staff were fully considered, and I have no reason to doubt that the proper increases have been given.

  Window Cleaning Accidents.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous accidents, fatal and otherwise, which happen to persons employed as window cleaners; whether figures of the accidents show exceptional risks in this work; and whether any regulations have been framed or other provisions made by his Department to increase the security in the ladders and other apparatus used?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The Secretary of State is making inquiries into this matter, but they are not yet complete. So far as they go they do not lead him to think that the risks of this nature are exceptional— as regards London at least. If the hon. Member has any special information in his possession my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider it.

  Boscombe Post Office.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Postmaster-General when the town sub-post office for the business centre of Boscombe will be established; what position has been chosen; and whether the accommodation
  870
  provided in the new premises will be as great as that in the old post office?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It is hoped to establish a new town sub-office at Boscombe simultaneously with the transfer of the present branch office to the new site. The date has not been fixed and the situation of the sub-office will depend on the applications made for the position of sub-postmaster, which will be advertised in the usual way. Adequate accommodation for the public will be provided.

  Home Safes Contract.
  Mr. CROFTasked whether the contract for home safes which was granted to the C. O. Burns Company was cancelled on 20th March; and whether, before the contract was given to Fiscus, Limited, another firm tendered for the contract at 1s. 8d. per safe?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL:I was advised that any rights conferred upon the C. O. Burns Company by the acceptance of their tender was duly assigned by them to Mr. C. O. Burns, but that, for legal reasons, it was expedient to send to the C. O. Burns Company, of New York, a formal determination of any contract as between them and the Post Office based upon their tender and the acceptance of it by the Post Office, before a contract was formally entered into with Fiscus, Limited, the company promoted by Mr. C. O. Burns. But this proceeding obviously gave me no moral right to repudiate my acceptance of the C. O. Burns Company's tender, and to throw the contract open to fresh tenders. Had it been so opened, however, other firms, besides the one to which the hon. Member refers, should, of course, have had an opportunity of competing. The only valid tender which I have been in a position to entertain from the firm which the hon. Member has apparently in mind was their original tender of 2s. 6d. per safe.

  Agadir Harbour.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the port of Agadir is a good natural harbour; and whether there is a good anchorage there for men-o'-war, and up to what size?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): There is no natural harbour at Agadir. There is good anchorage for vessels of any size in the open roadstead well sheltered from the prevailing north-easterly winds, but which becomes dangerous when westerly winds occur.
  Captain FABER: If there is safe anchorage, why should not a British man-o'-war be sent there?
  Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Captain FABER: Is. it not safe for British men-o'-war to go there?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer already given explains that fully.

  School Attendance.
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can notify the school attendance authorities that a mother is legally entitled to keep her child at home if her illness makes the assistance of the child necessary for the care of her household?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The institution of prosecutions under the law relating to school attendance is a matter for the local education authorities, and it is for the justices, or, on appeal, the Court of King's Bench, to interpret the law.
  Captain FABER: Is there no way of preventing these poor women from being put in that position?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman may communicate with the local education authority.

  Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it is stipulated by the Duchy that all insurances of buildings effected by Duchy tenants under their leases should be placed in one particular office; and for what reason the requests of tenants for permission to insure in other offices of repute is refused?
  Colonel SEELY (for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster): It is stipulated by the Duchy that all insurances of buildings effected by Duchy tenants under their leases should be placed in one particular office of good standing. The reason that requests of Duchy tenants for permission to insure in other offices are refused is that, as a matter of estate management, it is convenient that all insurances should be in one office, and special arrangements have been made with that office beneficial to the Duchy interest, and which it would be impossible to arrange with a variety of offices. Moreover, if full freedom were
  872
  given, to tenants, it would be very difficult and invidious for the Chancellor to determine whether any particular office suggested was of such standing that he could accept it.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is this the favourable way in which the State treats its tenants?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot answer that.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the making of a small panel of two or three offices of good repute?
  Colonel SEELY: I will represent to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend says.

  Westminster Abbey (Coronation Annexe).
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the building erected as an annexe to the west end of Westminster Abbey will be removed?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The First Commissioner of Works anticipates that the structure in question will be removed by the 19th of next month.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it advisable, instead of selling this by auction, to keep it as an annexe to the House of Lords for hon. Members when they are made peers?

  Customs Preventive Service (Cardiff).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now received a statement giving particulars of overtime worked by the preventive men of His Majesty's Customs at Cardiff; and whether he can explain why these men are neither paid for their extra work nor have they any compensating reduction of hours on other days?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have received the statement referred to, and am causing inquiries to be made. I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have communicated to the owner the sum they are prepared to advance for the purchase of the holding of John McGiff, tenant on the estate of Thomas C. Fagan, Rathmore, Ballymahon, county Longford, Record No. E.C. 8,541; and will they in this case insist on having

  873
  a purchase agreement for such a fair sum lodged as the Commissioners in other cases have done?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The reply to both paragraphs of the question is in the negative. The advances in respect of this estate were made in February last. McGiff is a judicial tenant, and the terms of an agreement to purchase his holding under the Land Purchase Acts is a matter for arrangement between the parties.

  Payment of Members.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister if he can state when the Resolution on Payment of Members will be placed upon the Paper; and when he can give a day for its discussion?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (for the Prime Minister): I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to give a definite answer to my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If I put this question down next week will I get a definite reply, or will it be postponed again?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is a question which the hon. Member should put to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. LEE: While the Government are making up their minds as to the date on which this Resolution is to be moved, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to put the terms of the Motion, which are of great interest to the Members of the House, on the Paper?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government will consider that.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question was put down at the request of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not.

  Civil List Pensions.
  Mr. CLYNESasked, with regard to Civil List pensions, whether any consideration is given to the position of persons who have devoted long years of service entirely to social welfare or working-class betterment; if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the number of cases; and whether the case of their survivors who are in need of help will be dealt with under the Civil List Act?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where such services can be shown to come within the scope of the Civil List Acts, claims based thereon—including those of relatives—are given full consideration. As an instance, the hon. Member will see, if he refers to the Return of Civil Pensions issued a few days ago, that one such pension was awarded last year.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any other instance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated a negative reply.

  Creation of Peers.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the prospective addition to the numbers of the Upper House will consist chiefly of landlords; and whether he will give an opportunity to the House to discuss the Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask, having regard to the hon. Gentleman's obvious anxiety not to be excluded from the list, whether the right hon. Gentleman will not recommend him for a peerage at once?
  Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask, Sir, whether an offensive remark of that kind with regard to an hon. Member is in order?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: On the point of Order. Are we to have an answer?
  Mr. RAFFAN: I put the point of Order seriously.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give an answer.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The first part of the question appears to deal with a hypothetical situation. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Prime Minister, whether he will see that these appointments are not, as has been suggested in the Press, drawn entirely from the landlord class in order that we may have all points of view represented?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any assurance that the Government will have any guarantees from the gentlemen to be made peers that they will vote straight?

  University College, Dublin.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireand whether steps will be taken to secure to the library in University College, Dublin, formerly the library of the Royal University of Ireland, under the provisions of the Copyright Bill, the same privileges accorded under that Bill to the Welsh University, regard being had to the advantage of such a concession to the newly established National University of Ireland and the circumstances that the funds at the disposal of the librarian will not allow of a generous purchase of books for the equipment of a library fitting to a great seat of learning?
  Mr. BUXTON(for the Chief Secretary for Ireland): I am afraid that I can give no encouragement to any proposal to add further to the number of copies of books which publishers are required to furnish gratuitously to libraries.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a very hard thing that Wales should get an advantage from which Ireland is excluded?
  Mr. BUXTON: Scotland, Ireland, and England already have this privilege. Under the Copyright Bill it was granted to Wales. Ireland has it through Trinity College.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is Trinity College to have an advantage from which the National University is excluded?

  King's County County Council.
  Mr. REDDYasked whether the Chief Secretary's attention has been called to a resolution passed by the King's County County Council, at its annual meeting held on 14th June, to the effect that the council, as the local authority liable for the payment of extra police now employed at Rathgibbon, on the estate of the late Captain French, call upon the Estates Commissioners to have this farm inspected and allotted without further delay, and thereby remove the only cause of trouble in the district; and whether he will take steps to have effect given to this resolution?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to. I am informed that there are no extra police employed in connection with the Rathgibbon farm. This estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Irish Land Act, 1903. Purchase agreements have been lodged by the vendor in respect
  876
  of the lands of Rathgibbon, and the Estates Commissioners have no power to interfere with the allotment of them by the vendor.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can give particulars of the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred yesterday, near Rye, in the county of Sussex; whether the cause of such outbreak is known to-the Board; whether any connection has been traced between this outbreak and those which occurred recently at Hounslow in Middlesex; and what steps are being taken by the Board to prevent the further spread of this most highly infectious disease.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): I much regret to say that there has been a fresh outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Road End Farm, Udimore, Rye, Sussex, occupier Mr. Robert P. Mair. Three cows, four calves, and one dead calf in the farmyard are affected. And one cow and calf were found affected on the marshes adjoining. These two were slaughtered last night. No connection has been traced with the Hounslow outbreak. The chief veterinary officer went down this morning to report fully on the outbreak. All the usual precautions for isolation have been taken, and orders prohibiting movement and closing markets are being issued.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the now serious character of this disease in Great Britain, will the hon. Baronet consider the desirability of at once appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into its cause?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask the hon. Member to put a question on the Paper with regard to that. It is a very serious matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether he can make any further announcement in regard to business on Friday next?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Neil Primrose) has agreed to postpone his

877
Motion relating to magistrates' appointments to an early day. We propose on Friday to take the India High Courts Bill, a Money Resolution, and some other Orders.
Mr. PEEL: Is it the fact that this vote of censure on the Lord Chancellor is being "withdrawn. If it is not, what is the reason for postponing it?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that it is a vote of censure on the Lord Chancellor. The discussion as to the appointment of magistrates has been postponed to meet the convenience of Members interested in it.
Mr. PEEL: Are Members afraid of the Lord Chancellor?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Undersecretary for India say when the ballot for motions on the India Budget is to be taken?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will be within the next day or two.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for the convenience of Members, whether it is contemplated to have a statement on the Parliament Bill on Monday?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will represent that matter to the Prime Minister.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether the India ballot will be taken to-morrow?
Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury)was understood to indicate assent.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Are we likely to have another day for the discussion of the Education Estimates?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is obviously a question of which notice ought to be given to the Leader of the House.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I think it was asked yesterday.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I refer to the Insurance Bill, and ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us when the actuaries' report as to the soldiers and sailors will be in our hands?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly thought I would have had it some time ago. I am still pressing on the subject,
878
but hon. Members have been making so many suggestions that the actuaries found themselves unable to complete the report.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is extremely inconvenient for Members dealing with the Insurance Bill if they are not in possession of the necessary information, and that it is very difficult for them to proceed with the discussion in the spirit in which all sides want it to be undertaken unless we have some assistance in the matter.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Nothing has arisen in the course of the discussions up to the present upon the acturial figures as to soldiers and sailors, and long before we reach the subject I am sanguine they will be ready. I sincerely regret they were not ready before this.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly telling us that we must not discuss a particular question with sole reference to the merits of that question, but have regard to the Bill as a whole. It is in order to judge of the other claims that we want the actuaries' report as early as posible.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to enter into any sort of discussion, but really nothing has arisen in reference to the actuarial position of soldiers and sailors, and we have taken full power under the Resolution to pay them.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman not publish the data which is already in existence, and which was supplied by the Admiralty and the Army Council to the actuaries?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I do not think that would be desirable. I think hon. Gentlemen had better wait. I will do my very best to have the report, but up to the present we have not had any discussion in Committee which had the remotest reference to soldiers and sailors.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has invited us to bring in alternative schemes by Amendments, and does he not realise that it is impossible for anyone to frame Amendments until the data is available?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved, "That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock

879
this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 136.

Division No. 279.]

AYES.

[3.35 P.M.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Palmer, Godfrey

Adamson, William

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Addison, Dr. C.

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Helme, Norval Watson

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Alden, Percy

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pointer, Joseph

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Armitage, R.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Higham, John Sharp

Power, Partick Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hinds, John

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

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Hodge, John

Radford, G. H.

Barton, W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Beale, W. P.

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Reddy, M.

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

Hughes, S. L.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bentham, G. J.

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Rendall, Athelstan

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustus

John, Edward Thomas

Richards, Thomas

Black, Arthur W.

Johnson, W.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Boyle, D. (Mayo N.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Brace, William

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Brady, P. J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Robinson, Sydney

Brunner, John F. L.

Joyce, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Keating, M.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Burt, Rt. Hon Thomas

Kelly, Edward

Roche, John (Galway E.)

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

Kemp, Sir George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Byles, Sir William Pollard

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rowlands, James

Chancellor, H. G.

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Leach, Charles

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Clough, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clynes, John R.

Logan, John William

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lundon, T.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lynch, A. A.

Sheehy, David

Cotton, William Francis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Maclean, Donald

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Crooks, William

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

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Crumley, Patrick

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Snowden, P.

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Macpherson, James Ian

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

M'Callum, John M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Davies Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Dawes, J. A.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Delany, William

Manfield, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Tennant, Harold John

Dickinson, W. H.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Dillon, John

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Doris, W.

Martin, J.

Toulmin, Sir George

Duffy, William J.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Meagher, Michael

Wadsworth, Sir J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Essex, Richard Walter

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Mooney, J. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Ferens, T. R.

Morgan, George Hay

Webb, H.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morrell, Philip

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Munro, R.

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

Gill, A. H.

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Needham, Christopher T.

Wiles, Thomas

Goldstone, Frank

Neilson, Francis

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

Hackett, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hancock, J. G

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Dowd, John

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Grady, James

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Newdegata, F. A.

Ashley, W. W.

Goldsmith, Frank

Newman, John R. P.

Astor, Waldorf

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

Grant, J. A.

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

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, W. R.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barnes, George N.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington))

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

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Hamersley, A. St. George

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Quilter, William Ely C.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Harris, Henry Percy

Rolleston, Sir John

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hickman, Col. T. E.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Beresford, Lord C.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bigland, Alfred

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Sanders Robert A.

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Burn, Colonel, C. R.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cassel, Felix

Jowett, F. W.

Stewart, Gershom

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cautley, H. S.

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Lord E.

Cave, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Knight, Captain E. A.

Touche, George Alexander

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

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lansbury, George

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootie)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Lee, Arthur H.

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Croft, H. P.

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

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

Dixon, C. H.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

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

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

Mackinder, H. J.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Falle, B. G.

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Fell, Arthur

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fleming, Valentine

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnston and Mr. Gibbs.

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

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

NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Timothy Michael Healy, esquire, for County of Cork (North-East Cork Division).

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

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  BENEFITS.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Rates and Conditions of Benefits.)
    (1) The benefits conferred by this Part of this. Act upon insured persons are—

    (a) Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines (in this Act called "medical benefit");

    (b) Treatment in sanatoria or other institutions when suffering from tuberculosis, or such other diseases as the Local Government Board with the ap-
    882
    proval of the Treasury may appoint (in this Act called "sanatorium benefit");

    (c) Weekly payments whilst rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, commencing from the fourth day after notice thereof is given, and continuing for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks (in this Act called "sickness benefit");

    (d) In the case of the disease or disablement continuing after the determination of sickness benefit, weekly payments so long as so rendered unfit by the disease or disablement (in this Act called "disablement benefit"):

    (e) Payment in the case of the confinement of the wife of an insured person, who is not herself an insured person, or of a woman who is an insured person, of a sum of thirty shillings (in this Act called "maternity benefit");

    883

    (f) In the case of persons entitled under any scheme made in accordance with this Part of this Act to any of the further benefits mentioned in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act (in this Act called "additional benefits") such of those benefits as may be distributable under that scheme.

    (2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the rates of sickness benefit and disablement benefit to which insured persons are entitled shall be the rates specified in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
    (3) The right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the insured person attains the age of sixteen and shall cease on his attaining the age of seventy, but, save as aforesaid, the right to benefit (other than additional benefits) shall continue throughout life.
    (4) Except with the consent of the society or committee administering the benefit, no insured person shall be entitled to any benefit during any period when he is resident either temporarily or permanently outside the British islands, or to medical benefit during any period when he is resident outside the United Kingdom.
    (5) Where an insured person, having been in receipt of sickness benefit recovers from the disease or disablement in respect of which he receives such benefit, any subsequent disease or disablement, or a recurrence of the same disease or disablement, shall be deemed to be a continuation of the previous disease or disablement, unless in the meanwhile a period, continuous or discontinuous, of at least twelve months has elapsed, and at least fifty weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him:
    Provided that the benefit in respect of such subsequent or recurrent disease or disablement shall not commence to be payable before the date at which it would, apart from this provision, have commenced.
    (6) Where a woman is herself entitled to maternity benefit she shall not be entitled to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, or medical benefit at and for a period of four weeks after her confinement.
    (7) Notwithstanding anything in this part of this Act, no insured person shall be entitled—

    (a) to medical benefit during the first six months after the commencement of this Act;

    884

    (b) to sickness benefit unless and until twenty-six weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;

    (c) to disablement benefit unless and until one hundred and four weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least one hundred and four contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;

    (d) to sickness benefit in respect of any disease or disablement which commenced during the twenty-six weeks, or to disablement benefits in respect of any disease or disablement which commenced during the one hundred and four weeks, next following his entry into insurance;

    (e) to sickness benefit or disablement benefit during any period when he is provided with board and lodging by his employer;

    (f) to maternity benefit unless and until twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two, contributions have been paid by or in respect of him.

    (8) As soon as a sum has been accumulated by investment sufficient to provide interest at 3 per cent. per annum on the amounts then standing to the credit of all approved societies the benefits payable to insured persons under this part of this Act shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine, but in determining the distribution of such extended benefits amongst the persons who become entitled thereto regard shall be had to the claims or special considerations of persons who have entered into insurance at an early age.
    Amendment proposed [17th July], in Subsection (7), "leave out paragraph (e)."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'or' ["or disablement benefit"], stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Of all the provisions in the Bill as far as we have gone, paragraph (e) is the one which has been most universally condemned as entirely unjust to those who are affected by it. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, with reference to another subject,

    885
    that he intends to modify in some way the injustice which this Sub-section imposes upon domestic servants; but whatever his proposal may be, it seems absolutely necessary that this paragraph should be cut out, even if nothing is put in its place. The Bill would be far better with this paragraph omitted. In probably nine cases out of ten, certainly in three cases out of four, if domestic servants are ill their employers provide them with medical benefit, with board and lodging, and generally wages.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I will accept the Amendment. Owing to an Amendment which I have promised to bring forward, this paragraph is unnecessary.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are constantly being put off with promises of what is going to be done. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to put something in its place, or is the paragraph to go altogether? We are surely entitled at this stage to know what the policy of the Government is. They have introduced in the Bill a Clause which is unjust—in fact, is a swindle. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw it entirely, or is he going to substitute some system of contracting out which may be suitable to Scottish agricultural labourers, but is certainly not suitable to domestic servants. Surely the question is not to be left to be decided some months hence. Those who are interested ought to know now what the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in this matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman moves an Amendment. I say that I will accept it, and forthwith the hon. Gentleman talks about swindles.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the Amendment accepted with a view to something else being put in its place, or is the paragraph to be left out altogether?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. Is he entitled to more than that? He moves an Amendment, and the moment I accept it he thinks there is something behind it
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said when I started that it would be better to leave out the paragraph altogether, but I understood from a previous statement of the right hon. Gentleman that instead of leaving it out altogether, he proposed to deal with servants in some other way. All I am assuming is that he should tell us now what that way is.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am rather sorry for the tone in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Swindle, swindle."]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member talked about a "swindle."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want any hard language used on either side, but I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given himself time to see that there is some information which we do need on this Amendment. I will not take up much time, but I do want to put a case to him, and ask how he intends to deal with such cases. My hon. Friend proposed to strike out this Subsection, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "I accept that, because at a later stage, as I have already announced, I am going to move another Amendment which will take its place, and which makes this Sub-section unnecessary." The Amendment to which the Chancellor referred is, of course, the one which he adumbrated to the Committee a little time back, and this was intended to include such cases as the Scottish agricultural labourers, domestic servants, I think hospital nurses and others. But that Amendment is not yet on the Paper. It would be a convenience if the exact form, in which the Chancellor means to put it could be given. As I understand it it does not cover, and will not cover, the whole of the cases covered by this Subsection. Take the case of the employer and his servant who might be entitled to contract themselves out of the Act under the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has promised, but who did not care to do so. Is the Chancellor prepared to withdraw this Sub-section, to abandon it, simply in regard to their case, and to leave the servant under such circumstances to receive the full benefit for which he or she and their employer have insured under the Act whenever the servant is in receipt of board and lodging from the employer? They have paid for these benefits. The servant should be entitled to them, and the fact that there is board and lodging given by the employer is no reason whatever for withdrawing from the servant what the servant and the employer have been forced to insure for. That is a point I wish to put to the Chancellor. So far as we know his Amendment does

    887
    not cover the whole of the cases included in this Sub-section. I want to know whether he will leave them to be dealt with under the general provisions of the Bill, or whether, in accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend he reserves these cases also for some special treatment hereafter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Although that matter does not arise here at all, it is our intention to take these cases out altogether. In those cases which will not be covered by our Amendment, the servant or the employé will be entitled to her pay, notwithstanding the fact that she has got board and lodging.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), paragraph (f), to leave out the words, "unless and until twenty-six" ["maternity benefit unless and until twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two weeks"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "during the first six months after the commencement of this Act."
    I do this because I think that it makes a very small concession towards the married woman, and I am very anxious that the Bill may improve as much as possible in that direction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a number of concessions. He may not have thought that they have been too graciously received, but so far as they went we were grateful for them. We were grateful for small mercies. This in itself is a small mercy, and I ask him to grant it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has taken me just as long to understand my hon. Friend's Amendment as it took its author. He did not know why he put it down, and I sympathise with him. I do not think that the limit in the Clause is an unreasonable limit.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put and negatived.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), paragraph (f), to leave out the words, "or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two."
    The object of this Amendment is to put the voluntary contributor on the same basis as the other contributor as regards maternity benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it must be obvious that nothing less than fifty-two weeks would be a protection in a case of this kind. Twenty-six weeks would involve a payment of 6d. or 7d., as the case may be, which would be 13s. a year. It obviously would be to the interest of every person to insure, because they get for the 13s. 30s., and in addition to that they may also get a chance of 10s. a week and medical attendance themselves if they happen to fall ill. That, of course, we could not possibly put upon the face of the Insurance Bill. It is a bad business proposition, and I think my hon. Friend will see that it is so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move the omission of Sub-section (8), and I do so in order to get a little information on the subject it raises. I do not quite understand what the accumulation referred to—one and five- ninths of a penny—is. It seems to me that it ought to-come as a new Sub-section to Clause 40. The accumulations referred to are in respect to the margin which Government actuaries made calculations for, and in that case I do not see it is necessary at all because in Clause 30 the circumstances are accounted for, and we are told exactly what is to be done with these. I simply put down this Amendment in order to try and get certain information.
    Question proposed, "That the words of the Sub-section down to the word 'determine'" ["in such manner as Parliament may determine"] stand part of the Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think we must, have the Sub-section here. It is proposed to invest surplus in order to pay off that deficit, and it is necessary here because we must deal with benefits when they arise, and I am advised that from a drafting point of view this is the place for it, otherwise they would lose these benefits.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that Sub-section (8) should be inserted here because it deals with benefits. That is the ground he gives for having it put in this part of the Bill. But it does-not deal with benefits except in the most shadowy way, and until after another Act of Parliament is passed there is no allocation of benefits from the surplus, for there-is no surplus for fifteen-and-a-half year for anybody's benefit. The Sub-section

    889
    does say that benefits shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine, but it does not attempt in this Sub-section to say how these benefits are to be expended; it leaves it to a future Parliament, and this is an endeavour to try to tie the hands of a future Parliament, because it says the benefits are to be distributed amongst the persons who become entitled thereto, and "regard shall be had to the claims or special considerations of persons who have entered into insurance at an early age." I venture to think the only reason this Clause is here at all is in order to justify the attempt to take away from those under sixteen the benefits rightly due to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acted the part of a strong man at one time stating he would take these benefits away and then thinking that the general public might not like that he has put in a Sub-section here as a certain indication that at some time or another these young people should get their benefits back. Strictly speaking, this Subsection does deal with Clause 40. It deals with what would happen if the reserves under Clause 40 are made good; that is if sums accumulated are sufficient to redeem the value created upon the passing of this Bill something is to happen under this Sub-section (8). If the Bill is the original and complete measure which it is claimed to be, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to resist the temptation of putting this in except in its proper place.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If young persons are to receive exactly the same benefits I think it is necessary to indicate that it is desirable that young persons should get benefits from the fact that they pay for a longer period.
    Captain CLIVE: I do not understand how it should be necessary to put restrictions upon the action of Parliament at some future time. Would it not be better to put in "approved societies with the approval of the Commissioners," and, if necessary, to add among the additional benefits the insurance of young persons.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I cannot help thinking this is very unsatisfactory. You say that certain things should be done "in such manner as Parliament may determine! "You do not know what a future Parliament will do, but you put in a phrase quite irrespective of that. A great deal of unnecessary controversy arises over these things, and especially in regard to the latter part of the Sub-section. Other ob-
    890
    jects may be held to be more deserving of the attention of a future Parliament than those indicated in the end of the Subsection, and there is no binding force in words of that sort. I remember similar words in the Budget of 1909 in regard to the distribution of the Land Taxes. Half of these taxes were to go as Parliament might determine. There has been a new Parliament since, and it did not determine the distribution of these taxes. All this leads to a great deal of angry discussion.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think we are are really now discussing a separate question from that which was raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I see there is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lees Smith) to delete the last four lines of this Sub-section. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give heed to that Amendment. I see no reason for indicating to a future Parliament or to the people that elect that Parliament the way it ought to deal with this question. A future Parliament will have absolute discretion, and will not be bound by what we do; and that discretion ought to be left unfettered by words which really cannot have any effect. That, however, is a different thing to striking out the whole Sub-section. Personally, I see nothing to be gained by that, but I should, as at present advised and unless something is said to convince me to the contrary, support the Amendment to omit the last four lines of the Sub-section.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (8), to leave out the words, "but in determining the distribution of such extended benefits amongst the persons who become entitled hereto, regard shall be had to the claims of special considerations of persons who have entered into insurance at an early age."
    It seems to me it is entirely unnecessary to try to tie the hands of a Parliament sixteen years hence. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) that the concession made last night entirely altered the situation. I quite realise the Chancellor's point of view. Those allowed into the scheme under sixteen years of age will not get the full value of the State grant for another sixteen years, and if Parliament sixteen years hence wishes on account of that to give them special treatment there is nothing to prevent it. But why decide the matter now. This may appear urgent

    891
    to the present Chancellor, but, after all, other things may appear more urgent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer sixteen years hence, and, as he will undoubtedly know the circumstances better than we can, I see no necessity to tie his hand.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that the words cannot possibly have any binding force. We are leaving it to Parliament to determine, and we cannot bind a future Parliament or give instructions to a future Parliament that it would regard as binding. It is rather an indication, I think, of the view at the present moment and would only count for what it is worth. Still, Parliament will take these things into account when the time comes, and, as these words would have no binding force, I 'cannot resist the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the last of the Amendments to the Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. AMERY: There is another very important question which I should like to bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, with the general sympathy of the House and the country, has undertaken a great campaign dealing with the terrible scourge of tuberculosis. I submit that there is another national scourge claiming directly or indirectly a mortality almost as great, which is causing even more harm to the health of the nation, and which is even more definitely curable and more in need of State intervention. I refer to the scourge of syphilis. I need not dwell upon the extent of this disease, nor upon the reasons why it is screened in public records, nor need I dwell upon the fact that it is largely the underlying cause of other diseases. It is even more definitely curable than consumption, but it is not being cured, more especially amongst the less wealthy classes. For reasons which I need not now elaborate, the sufferers from this disease do not always have recourse to proper medical treatment, but they have recourse largely to quack doctors and quack medicines. Even when they do begin with proper treatment the expense and length of it causes most of them, especially in the poorer classes, to discontinue it as soon as the first symptoms have disappeared, with the result that they go away carrying within themselves the germs of disease and suffering, not only to themselves, but to
    892
    others. Experience has shown that where-ever the disease is regularly and properly treated as is the case in the Army, the most satisfactory results do occur. I am sure the Undersecretary for War would be ready to confirm my statement when I say that by curative treatment, sickness and mortality from this disease has been reduced by over 50 per cent. in the Army during the last ten years.
    The proper treatment of this disease should be cheap and accessible, and such as the victims of the disease have confidence in. I do not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set aside a large sum of money for dealing with this problem. I know that all the money he has at his disposal is fully pledged with the question of dealing with tuberculosis, but I think he should contemplate a serious national campaign to deal with this terrible national scourge, and in view of its importance, I think the right hon. Gentleman at an early stage should set aside a certain amount of money to make experiments in certain areas and devote a certain amount of money to certain institutions for the treatment of this disease in certain districts in order to gain experience and find out how the sufferers can best be gob at and most effectively treated. I hope the Committee will pardon me for intervening at this stage. I only ventured to raise the question at the last moment because I had hoped it would have been raised by a medical Member of the House. I feel it is highly desirable that nothing should prevent a subject of such immense importance being freely discussed. The only objection that could be urged against undertaking a system of national treatment of this question is the objection that it would be in some measure a condoning of vice. I do not think this House could possibly sustain an objection of that kind. In an enormous number of cases the real sufferer is only the victim of the misconduct of others. I thank the Committee very much for having allowed me to make these remarks, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the Committee a satisfactory assurance that under the heading of "other diseases" the treatment of this disease will be taken up as, part of the national scheme, and I hope that meanwhile we may set aside a sum of money, if it is only a moderate sum, to begin a series of experiments in the treatment of this disease.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Chancellor of the

    893
    Exchequer wishes me to express his apologies because he has been unavoidably called away. I rise to thank the hon. Member for South Birmingham for the interesting speech he has just made in calling attention to a disagreeable topic. I wish to point out to him that if he will look at Sub-clause (1) of Clause 8, paragraph (b), he will see that this subject is not barred and power is taken to deal with "such other diseases as the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury may appoint." Therefore I have no doubt that the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen will receive careful consideration at the hands of the Local Government Board.
    Mr. BOOTH: I want some assurance with regard to the treatment of a small Amendment which was down in the name of several hon. Members. When the Amendment was called on I understood that if they had been in their places and had moved the Amendment it would have been accepted. It was an Amendment relating to Clause 8, Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), to leave out the words "rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance," and to insert the words, "totally unable to follow any occupation." It was a definition which the Institute of Actuaries considered to be necessary. I should like some assurance that the matter will be attended to on Report.
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has undertaken to make the necessary alterations on Report.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Reduced Sales of Benefit in Certain Cases.)
    (1) In the case of insured persons who are under the age of twenty-one years and unmarried, sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall be at the reduced rates specified in Table B. in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
    (2) The rates of sickness and disablement benefits may in any case, and shall in all cases where the rate of sickness benefit or disablement benefit (as the case may be) exceeds two-thirds of the usual rate of wages or other remuneration earned by insured persons, be reduced to such an extent as the society or committee administering the benefit, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, determines; but where such reduction is
    894
    made provision shall be made by the society or committee, with the like consent, for the grant of one or more additional benefits of a value equivalent to such reduction.
    (3) Sickness benefit shall be reduced in accordance with Table C. in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act in the case of any insured person who is over fifty years, of age at the date of any claim by him for such benefit and has not then paid at least five hundred weekly contributions.
    (4) In the case of every person over the age of sixteen years who, not having been previously insured under this part of this- Act, becomes an employed contributor subsequently to the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act, the rate of sickness benefit and maternity benefit to which he is entitled shall (unless he proves that his time since he attained the age of sixteen has been spent in a school or college, or otherwise in the completion of his education, or unless he undertakes himself to pay the difference between the voluntary rate and the employed rate, or pays to the Insurance Commissioners, to be credited to the society, such capital sum as will be sufficient to secure him benefits at the full rate) be such reduced rate as may be fixed in accordance with tables, to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, but not in any case less than five shillings a week for sickness benefit, or fifteen shillings for maternity benefit:
    Provided that if at any time subsequently such person would become entitled to sickness benefit at a higher rate if he were treated as having become an employed contributor as from the time when he attained the age of sixteen, or as from the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act, whichever date-may be the later, and as being in arrear for all contributions which, had he become an employed contributor at that date, would have been payable in respect of him between that date and the date when he actually became an employed contributor, he shall, if he so elects, be entitled to be so treated.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "twenty-one" ["under the age of twenty-one years"], in order to insert the word "eighteen." This may be called a halfway-house Amendment. The provision in the Clause as it stands seems to me to be signally unfair, because a person under twenty-one is to get reduced

    895
    benefits, unlike those who are older, while they are not to pay reduced contributions when the wages are below a certain limit. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman has cut these benefits down in the Bill on the ground that a large proportion of persons under twenty-one are unmarried, and do not require so large a benefit. I think even in that case a benefit of 5s. would be a very small amount for sick pay. I have been looking into the statistics, and I believe there are thousands under twenty-one who are married, and in that case a 5s. benefit would be totally inadequate in time of sickness. With such a small benefit they would be hardly able to keep a roof over their heads in time of illness.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: But they get full benefits.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is making persons under twenty-one subscribe a very large premium to provide a reserve fund for the older members, and surely the least he can do is to treat these young persons as generously as possible. If after all they have got to pay more than they would otherwise have to pay in order to benefit those persons who enter a scheme at an older age, the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to give them full benefit. They are really being penalised in three directions. In the first place, they have to pay a larger premium than their age really warrants; in the second place, they receive less benefits for the sum contributed by them; and, in the third place, the employer does not take the burden of the contribution off their shoulders when their wages are below a certain limit. I think I have said enough to make this point clear, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will see his way to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: This question has arisen on many Amendments before. The question is what is the best means of disposing of our available fund. If this Amendment is accepted, I think it would cost for men only £230,000 a year, and proportionately for women.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How many men?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not got the figures.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The actuaries' report places the amount at 2s. 3d. for every person entering at sixteen years
    896
    of age. The cost of this Amendment would be 6d., and that would leave a margin of 1s. 9d. profit.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Committee must understand what this margin means. No actuary would certify a scheme as sound unless there was a certain margin left for sickness benefit. The figures are so uncertain in every case that it is not sufficient to have simply your estimate of the amount of sickness, but you have to allow more than that amount, and you must leave a margin in order to have sufficient money to deal with exceptional sickness. Sickness is always so uncertain. The margin is estimated for the first year. Supposing, when the scheme has been in operation for a year or two it is found the actuaries' margin of security has not been called upon, the money will not be thrown away, but will be available for investment, and additional benefits can be given in the future. If the hon. Gentleman asks for this margin of security to be expended at once he asks the actuaries to certify as sound a scheme under conditions which they cannot accept. It must not be supposed, therefore, that what appears in the actuaries' report as a margin is a margin which can be expended in benefits in the first few years. We have, undoubtedly, something we can expend, and it as well the Committee should be in possession, of all the figures.
    We had yesterday a discussion upon the question whether payment should be from the first day of sickness instead of from the fourth day, and it was stated the cost of that increased benefit would come to something over £500,000. It was further stated that money is available. There is also, it is true, still a certain amount available from what I call the margin of security over and above what the actuaries would insist upon. But that additional amount is small. I say "still left" because £130,000 has already been disposed of in giving additional maternity benefit. There is, however, still a small sum of about £80,000 left. If we deal with men only, we have saved by not paying benefits from the first day's sickness about £400,000, and we have got this other £80,000 to which I have alluded. If the Committee insists now upon paying full rates at eighteen instead of at twenty-one, there will be an immediate absorption for men only of £230,000, and it is obvious it would no longer be open to consider whether we should pay sick benefit from the first day instead of the fourth day of sickness, be-

    897
    cause there would not be sufficient money left. This Amendment, therefore, would close the door once and for all on the question of paying sick benefit from the first instead of the fourth day. If the Committee does not insist upon this change in the Bill, then, as I have said, the question of payment on the first instead of the fourth day of sickness is still left open.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I want to ask the the Chancellor of the Exchequer a simple question which arises out of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Is it still open to consider whether we pay sick benefit on the first or fourth day? We divided against it yesterday, and the House decided in favour of paying from the fourth day.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not hear what passed, but I understand my right hon. Friend simply repeated what I said yesterday. There is £560,000 saved to the fund by that proviso, and, if it is not expended in other ways by benefits the Government propose to introduce, I shall certainly consider myself bound to move to recommit the Bill in order to re-open that question.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: There are to my knowledge in our large towns scores of young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one who are lodgers maintaining themselves and paying something like from 12s. to 14s. or 15s. per week for their lodgings. A young man, say of the age of nineteen, is compelled to pay 4d. per week under this Bill for insurance. If he is taken sick and is off for three or four weeks or three or four months, he will under the Fourth Schedule only be able to receive 5s. per week. It is quite evident he will get weekly into debt. I therefore think it is essential these young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, who are paying 4d. per week, should be entitled to recive 10s. per week when they are sick. In the Fourth Schedule there are nine additional benefits, and they are problematic at the end of sixteen years in this sense. If the reserves are accumulated, there is in the Schedule nine additional benefits at the end of sixteen years.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is wrong. That simply refers to the additional benefits which may be granted after the first valuation. The benefits at the
    898
    end of sixteen years are "as Parliament may determine," and that is a very different thing.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I will assume they are given after the first valuation. Several of these benefits at least could be set aside in favour of giving a certain amount of money to some of these young men. This is really a very serious matter. I know working-class life, and I think there could be nothing more serious than that a young man in lodgings should receive only 5s. per week when he is sick. He is compelled under the Bill to pay 4d. per week, the same as any other man, and I am quite certain this reduction will cause very grave dissatisfaction. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed yesterday to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) to give benefits under the age of sixteen. That was a very great improvement, and I am certain that if between this and the Report stage he will consider the question of giving these extra benefits between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one or of reducing the age from twenty-one to eighteen, the Bill will be much more popular with a large number of these young men, and they will be encouraged to pay their contributions under the Bill.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The First Lord of the Admiralty seemed to entirely overlook the object of the Bill, which, after all, is to give proper insurance to those who need it. A wage-earner who requires to be insured at all requires to be insured so as not to suffer loss of wages whilst sick, and, if we keep our eyes upon the primary object of the Bill, we can more readily test the Government's reply to this Amendment. If a person of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen or nineteen—and I myself should prefer this Amendment to be sixteen instead of eighteen—has to earn his living and is therefore compulsorily insured, he should be compensated for the loss of his earnings during sickness, and the only point is whether the compensation provided for in the Bill is sufficient or not. If a person is under twenty-one and unmarried the sickness and disablement benefit in the case of men is 5s. a week, and for women it is 4s. in both cases. Is it sufficient to give 5s. per week compensation for sickness to a wage-earner? In my view, it is not. In my view, the primary object of the Bill is not being fulfilled in. regard to those under twenty-one years of age unless a larger benefit is given, and indeed unless something is given which

    899
    will compensate them or help to tide them over the period of sickness. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was one of cost. Can it be done? As my hon. Friend the mover of the Amendment pointed out, there is over and above the ordinary average margin of 11.4 per cent. in respect of these particular people on the scale of benefits provided in the Bill a very considerable profit, and it would only mean a relatively small proportion of that profit to meet the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is included in the 11.4 per cent.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I know at is included, but the profit as regards these people goes up to make that 11.4 per cent., which is the average margin for all the insured people. The actual margin for those under twenty-one is very much more than 11.4 per cent. There is a larger margin having regard to the lower benefits for these people, and I submit we can dip into that margin and still retain a profit in respect of them. The First Lord of the Admiralty said the money would not be wasted. It would be still available, and, if after a few years it was found it was not all eaten up, it would be available for additional benefits. Yes, but for additional benefits for whom? Not for these people under twenty-one, but for all the participants in the scheme. You are going to take from them a larger profit than from anyone else, and, when you have the money available, it will not go to them specifically. If the First Lord of the Admiralty assures me it will go to them specifically, there is something in his point, but it will become a surplus in each approved society, and it will obviously have to be applied by the approved society to the benefit of all insured in that society. An approved society could not pick and choose as to whom it should give the surplus saved out of the whole of the operations of the society. They must be all treated alike. Then the First Lord of the Admiralty said also that there was involved in the decision of this Amendment the question whether the sick benefit was to be paid for the first three days of the sickness. We argued that point for hours yesterday, and I understood the Government would not accept the Amendment which was proposed from this side by the hon. Member for the City of Worcester (Mr. Goulding). I therefore fail entirely to understand how
    900
    the First Lord can suggest that that decision can be reviewed or in any way altered by the decision come to on this particular Amendment. I hope that the Committee will consider this Amendment on its merits, and not be drawn aside by any question in regard to the three days' payment. Let the Committee say whether or not it wishes that the benefit shall go to contributors under twenty-one and unmarried; whether they are to receive a full benefit out of moneys which are already provided by the contributions that they have paid.
    Mr. GILL: I think that this Amendment ought to be passed. The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be to get as near as possible to the friendly society system. Young persons, to the numbers of thousands in Yorkshire alone, begin contributing at the age of twelve; it is a very common thing for them to begin to pay at the age of thirteen, and, therefore, they are paying for at least a period of eight years without getting full benefit under this Bill. We consider it is not fair that they should be deprived of the full benefit. There are numbers of young men and young women who earn a considerable wage between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, and many of them have families dependent on them. It would, consequently, be a very great hardship indeed, so far as they are concerned, if this Clause were allowed to remain in its present form. There are other grounds on which this Amendment ought to be supported. We are handicapping these young people who begin to pay at the age of twelve or thirteen years, and I submit that at any rate they ought to get the benefit at eighteen years of age.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I should like to support the first argument advanced by the hon. Member who has just spoken, without considering, for a moment, the problem of the total amount of money available, which is a separate matter. The first point urged by the hon. Member was that this Committee would be ill-advised if it departed from the practice of the great friendly societies on certain matters which deeply affect the working classes. The friendly societies may be assumed to have discovered what really does suit the working classes. Let me compare for one moment what will happen under the Bill if it passes and what obtains at the present moment. At the present time there is a sick benefit of 14s. per week, and it can

    901
    be received for six months by persons who are much younger than twenty-one. This Bill, however, contemplates a benefit of 5s. for the same period for persons tinder twenty-one. Thus you have a huge discrepancy between the standard set up by the friendly societies and the standard which it is endeavoured to set up by this Bill. You contemplate, however, that the friendly society out of its special fund, or its reserve, fund, will make up the difference. I assume that where a young person has been paying into a friendly society and would be entitled to 14s. per week for six months you are going to give him 5s. only, and the friendly society will have to make up the difference of 9s. If the purport of the Bill and the expectation of the Government is that those who have paid their money to a friendly society for some years in order to get 14s. a week are now only to receive 5s. weekly if they are under twenty-one years of age, I say you are making a very vast change in what has been the practice of friendly societies based on the ascertained needs of the working classes. If those who have paid are only to get 5s. instead of 14s., and if the friendly society are to find the difference, then you have a great departure from the policy of the friendly societies.
    There is a good deal of danger attendant on such a course. But it does not stand alone. What is true of this is equally true of other Amendments, and, in all these cases, I submit that during the Committee stage it would be wise to accept the views of the friendly societies on this matter. I have two reasons for advising that course. The first is, we may as well put our impress on the practice of the friendly societies until we have an opportunity of examining the alternative benefits which, I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to offer. That is one argument. The Government have said, "Do not ask for this money now, because there is only a certain amount of money available, and, if you take it now, you cannot have it later on, and we shall advise that it be applied to a better purpose." That is not sound argument. It ought not to be advanced until we have the alternative scheme before us. If I am right in supposing that the friendly societies will be asked to make up to their members the difference between the standard they observe at the present time and the standard which this Bill will set up, then I say that, by this Amendment, and by similar Amendments, you are imperilling the financial position
    902
    of the friendly societies. We cannot really decide whether we ought to depart from the standard of the friendly societies until we have examined the financial clauses later on and gauged the effect on the friendly societies, both in respect of your alternative benefit and in respect of the effect the finance would have on the friendly societies. I strongly hold it will be rash and ill-advised for us to depart on this and similar questions from the standard hitherto upheld by the friendly societies.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is one of those questions which I referred to at the commencement of our proceedings, yesterday, where I thought that the House must, as a whole, accept the responsibility. I want to impress that on the Committee before they come to a decision on this point. It is not a decision that affects the finance of the Treasury. It is one which will affect the finances of the friendly societies themselves—I mean, of course, the approved societies. This decision cuts very seriously into the available margin, which, I think, it is very important the approved societies should have before they embark on an enterprise of this kind. I cannot help thinking that, if for a moment, we had no sides in this House, but were considering this as if we were a board of management framing, not a National Insurance Bill, but a great insurance scheme, which we were to have the financial responsibility of running later on as a commercial undertaking, we should consider it, I will not say more carefully, but, at any rate, a little more impartially. If it is the view of the House of Commons that this Amendment should be adopted, I will not challenge a Division upon it. But I do want the House to realise exactly what it is doing. There is a margin beyond which no actuary would approve any scheme at all. It is a margin, I think, of 20 per cent. This Amendment does not wipe out the whole of that 20 per cent., but it comes pretty near to it, and, therefore, in accepting it, the Committee would just cut the margin right down to the bone, and beyond that nothing could be done which any actuary would ever accept responsibility for.
    What is the proposal? It is that under this Bill boys of eighteen years of age should get exactly the same benefit as those who have full responsibilities of manhood. Is that really desirable? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) says that the benefits will have been paid for, but if

    903
    you are to go upon that line then the full benefits ought to be payable at fourteen years of age. Hon. Gentlemen supporting this Amendment realise that there is a time at which you certainly ought not to give the contributor the full advantages. The friendly societies, when they consider the benefits under their scheme, take into consideration the period at. which the money is most useful to insured persons. Can anyone doubt that this money, which amounts to £250,000 or £300,000, would be infinitely more valuable to these boys and girls later on in their life? It is not a question of saving a penny for the State. The State pays exactly the same sum whichever plan is adopted. I earnestly ask the Committee for a moment to set aside party considerations in this matter. Let them consider it purely as a commercial proposition. Let them think what they would do if they were a board of management of a friendly society. Of course, boys and girls who have paid their money, want to be entitled to get their return as soon as possible. But I think it would be infinitely better to give it to them later on, when they will stand most in need of it.
    It is true that there are boys and girls who have the responsibility of maintaining a family. They have to maintain their mothers and their sisters in cases where the father is stricken down, and where there is no one else to keep the family going. I agree there may be a case for giving them a special benefit, and if the Committee of the House of Commons were to say that provided there were dependents they should be treated on exactly the same lines as married persons and should get full benefit I should not have a word to say against it. I intend to throw the whole responsibility in this matter on the Committee itself. If he general wish is that this shall be done I shall not resist it. But I am bound to enter my protest, and at the same time to give a warning to the Committee. I earnestly suggest that whatever is done should be done on the same basis as obtains in a friendly society, and I agree that if a boy or girl has a family dependent on them for support they deserve to be treated in the same way as a person twenty-two years of age.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There was one observation of a critical character which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which I should like to refer, and I do not do so in any party sense.
    904
    The right hon. Gentleman asks us to consider what we would do if we were a Board of Management treating this matter as a commercial concern. But it should be remembered that that is not the position we occupy, and if we were a Board of Management treating this matter as a commercial concern we should be very careful about our power to pay benefits which were offered as an inducement to come in. If we give less benefit we should probably charge less premium. Here you force people in and you determine not a commercial or business proposition in the sense of which we have been speaking. I come to the proposition which has just been thrown out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this matter every man must speak for himself. I have no authority to speak for others. I would suggest a slight extension, which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to grant. I would be satisfied with" the proposal he has made as regards sickness. The hard case is really the case of the young person who has dependents at home though not married—the wage earner of the family. If you look at the Schedule to which this Clause refers you will see it is not only sickness benefit which is affected. In the case of a woman the disablement benefit is also. The sickness benefit of a man is reduced from 10s. to 5s., but the disablement benefit of a man remains at 5s. The sickness benefit of a woman is reduced from 7s. 6d. to 4s., and then her disablement benefit is fixed at 4s. also. With the extension which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered to provide I think the reduced sickness benefit is justifiable. In later years those accustomed to help them die and they have no one to look to. But is the woman for all time to receive a reduced disablement benefit? I do not press the Chancellor of the Exchequer hard if he holds out against it. I would not press for the sickness benefit being higher than 4s. I would press for the disablement benefit if the sickness becomes disablement. Even though the cause of the disablement began, or the illness that caused it began, before twenty-one they should have the full disablement benefit. So far as I am concerned if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give favourable consideration to this point I certainly would not divide against the Clause.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has frankly left this

    905
    question to the decision of the Committee. Does he think it wise in this great departure and experiment to reject the advice and experience of the affiliated and centralised friendly societies? The Manchester Unity states distinctly that it is not satisfied, and it is said by those acquainted with the industrial classes that 5s. is not an adequate sickness insurance for young persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. The Hearts of Oak take exactly the same view. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer says this does away with the margin. After all, the Government have to face that, and they have got to recollect they are imposing on the friendly societies added burdens in certain respects. They have to deal with the reduced benefit to men over fifty, and they have to deal with men between sixty-five and seventy. This they have to meet out of any increased reserve the friendly societies acquire under the provisions of this Bill. It will be difficult if, in addition to that, they have in order to satisfy their young members to deal with cases of young men under twenty-one. And surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view the necessity for keeping alive the spirit of thrift. I believe it is for this that the friendly societies have felt inclined to give adequate benefits. I think their experience and advice ought really to determine the question. I would ask the Chancellor whether, under these circumstances, and seeing the feeling that animates the Committee, he will not go the whole hog. I do not think what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has suggested meets the case. We ought to meet the friendly societies in the matter, recognise the added burdens we are putting on them later, and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PEEL: I do not think it is possible to look at the question as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested merely from the point of view of a business proposition for this insurance is compulsory. You have to look upon it from the point of view of justice, and that is the point of view those insured will look upon it. It is suggested we have reserved the full benefit until the time it is more wanted. That is an arguable proposition. The ages between eighteen and twenty-one are very healthy ages, and the benefits will not often be called upon at these ages. But when it is called upon, that is the time of life it is most wanted. I can hardly conceive a time when people feel the burden of sickness more. They may have more
    906
    responsibility in later years, but when they are older they probably have saved. But there is probably no saving with people of this class between eighteen and twenty-one; they will have to rely on what they get under the Bill. That also is an age which is very vital with regard to growth, and it may be you may save then and produce a future charge under the Bill. Between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one also people have perhaps a keener sense of justice and injustice than at a later age. These things ought to be considered and taken into account.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The hon. Member who has just spoken objects to considering the matter as a business proposition.
    Mr. PEEL: As a purely business proposition.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: He would consider it from the point of justice. That is a distinction I do not understand. As far as I am concerned, as far as the Members of this House are concerned, they will regard justice as an essential element in a business proposition. If those young contributors get their contributions considered from the point of view of a business proposition, I think they have got essential justice done to them. Of course, the contention is they are not getting all they might get from the business point of view. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) put that point most strongly, and seemed to think that these young persons are going always to be under the age of twenty-one—the boys who never grow up. He said it was true that the cumulative benefits would afterwards be distributed in the form of additional benefits, but they would not receive these benefits. There again he makes the assumption that the older people have never been under twenty-one. It is true that for some years after the Bill has passed there will be a considerable number of contributors who have never contributed under the age of twenty-one. But gradually that will right itself. In the course of time practically every insured member will also have been a contributor when under the age of twenty-one, and will have paid for the additional benefits he will be reaping—the benefits of his early thrift which have been imposed upon him by this Bill. Therefore, I contend that in the proposition as it stands, it is not only a business proposition, but essential justice is done. There is only one point on which

    907
    I would ask further concession. That is the point mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). There is some hardship on women who have their disablement benefit reduced while men have not got their disablement benefit reduced. It will involve only a very small amount of money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give that concession.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I would like to put the case of men I know very well—the Irish agriculturists. Take the case of the small Irish farmer with a farm of forty acres, who may employ one son and two daughters unmarried. That man has got to pay 1s. 7d. a week for these young people—that is, £3 16s. a year. The boy will get 5s. and the girls 4s. if ill, but it would take a long time for that man to work up to £3 16s. His son or daughter would have to be ill four or five months before he got his money back. Take the case of the young fellow. He will probably emigrate or join the police force. He has not got a manufacturing town to go to. At twenty-five years or younger he drifts away, and does not get any return for the money the farmer has paid. The money will be entirely lost as far as he and his family are concerned. We have been asked to consider this as a board of management, and I know this, if we were a board of management we would refer this Bill back for alterations and the Irish farmer and his family would get the full benefits.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) suggests that 4s. is a very small disablement benefit for a girl who is disabled for the rest of her life, but the disqualification, of course, would not extend beyond twenty-one. I think there is a good deal to be said for increasing the disablement benefit in a case where she is entirely crippled and incapable of doing anything. Temporary sickness is in a totally different category, and I should certainly not assent to that. I will read out what I would propose if this Amendment were rejected. I propose to add at the end of the Sub-section, ''provided that, where any such person being over the age of eighteen and a member of an approved society proves that one or more members of his family are wholly or mainly dependent on him, the Society shall dispense with such reduction."
    Mr. WYNDHAM: May I ask whether in the other case—namely, of a young person
    908
    upon whom a family is not dependent, and who has paid for a higher benefit, the society will be bound by the contract to pay on the higher scale? There are young persons who have been paying 7½d. a week to get 18s. a week. Will they get the balance of 9s. for the first six months and 3s. for the next three months out of the society's funds, or will they get it at all?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That will depend entirely on the contract between them and the friendly societies; this does not interfere at all with the voluntary side of the societies; they may make any contract with their members, and if there is a contract to get 9s. they will get 9s. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Then it puts a considerable strain on their funds.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, put in this form, I think it is entirely satisfactory. I think it is quite reasonable that if a man between eighteen and twenty-one has dependents he should come in like a man over twenty-one. A man over twenty-one as a rule has a wife and children. I appeal to the Committee not to reduce this benefit except in the exceptional case in the Chancellor's mind.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that on attaining the age of twenty-one a young person who was getting disablement benefit at the lower rate would suddenly come up to the upper rate. That I think was the intention, but is he quite clear that the drafting of the Bill provides it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the view we take. The Attorney-General certainly has said so.
    Mr. CASSEL: As every Member will be free to vote as he likes I should like to express the reason why I shall support the Amendment. It is simply on this ground. It raises a broad question of principle throughout the Bill. Is it business insurance or is it not? I think the more you stick to business lines—and in this case business and justice do go together; I do not recognise any difference between them—and the less to lines of benevolence the better. One of the things which has brought the German scheme more into discredit than anything else is the fact that more and more they have tended to run it, not on lines of business insur-

    909
    ance but on mere benevolence, and their interpretations of it have been on benevolent lines, and they have tried to meet hard cases. That is precisely what you are doing here. You are saying that two sets of people are making precisely the same contribution, and because you consider there is a hard case in the one and not in the other you are not giving them the same benefit. Then you are making it mere charity. If you make it benevolence you must go into every case on its merits, but if it is to be a business proposition at all you must run it on business lines and give the same benefits to people whom you compel to pay the same contributions. If it was merely coming out of public funds I could understand it and you would be justified in making the distinction, but when you compel a man to pay you have no right to give him a less benefit because in a particular case you may think that you are meeting some hardship. You cannot know all the circumstances of the case, which you must know if you want to meet hardships.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: There is one class of people who have not been brought in, and that is the agricultural labourers' boys who earn 10s. to 12s. a week. Their present position is that they can pay in, say to the Foresters, at eighteen about 3d. a week and get a sick benefit of 10s. for a period and 5s. afterwards. They will get the sick benefit before twenty-one. Whatever we do in this Bill, whether it is business or whatever it may be, we should not put a large class of the community in a worse position after the Bill is passed than they are in now. We should not do an injustice, and it is an injustice to deprive these boys of the sick benefit that they are entitled to at present. Out of 10s. a week a boy cannot pay more than 4d. or 6d., and if you compel him to pay 4d. when the Bill is passed he will not be able to go on with his society as he has done hitherto. You are doing a very grave injustice, and for that reason I shall vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think the Amendment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has foreshadowed can be regarded as satisfactory. The extra 5s. that he proposes to give in cases where the young person has dependents is nothing
    more or less than a piece of State charity. It is given, not to the insured person, but to the dependents of the insured person, who are not themselves contributors, therefore it is payment from the fund to outside persons. That certainly is not a business proposition. The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) made an extremely valuable point when he pointed out that between the age of eighteen and twenty-one it is most important that a person should have all the sustenance it is possible to get. The crux of the matter, as it appears to me, is this. 1s 5s. a week enough to maintain a sick person at the age of from' eighteen to twenty-one? Frankly, we must all admit that it is not. If the medical attendant on the sick person were to order cod-liver oil the 5s. would be gone. The right hon. Gentleman said we are proposing if we pass the Amendment to give a young unmarried person between eighteen and twenty-one as much as we are giving to a married man with a family.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Cod-liver oil would come within medical benefits.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is cod-liver oil medicine?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am glad to know that. Doctors do not think so. I suppose port wine is also medicine?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: But the right hon. Gentleman was rather belated in his interruption. I have passed from that point. He said we are proposing by this further Amendment to give a person between eighteen and twenty-one as much as a married man with dependents. But this is the point of an observation like that. Is 10s. a week enough for a married man? If it were it might be reasonably argued that 10s. is too much for a young person who has no dependents. But 10s. is not too much for a single young person between eighteen and twenty-one, and that is the crux of the matter, and for that reason if the Amendment goes to a division I shall support it.
    Question put, "That 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 162.

    Division No. 280.]

    AYES.

    [5.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Armitage, Robert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Alden, Percy

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Harwood, George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barton, William

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

    Beale, W. P.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pollard, Sir George H.

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

    Hinds, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Radford, G. H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hughes, S. L.

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Joyce, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Keating, M.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Kelly, Edward

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowlands, James

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'l'nd, Cockerm'th)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clough, William

    Leach, Charles

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Logan, John William

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Sheehy, David

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lundon, T.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lynch, A. A.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Maclean, Donald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Dawes, J. A.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Delany, William

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Manfield, Harry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Dillon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doris, W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Meagher, Michael

    Warner, Sir S. C. T.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Watt, Henry A.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Mooney, J. J.

    Webb, H.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Morrell, Philip

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Munro, R.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Glanville, H. J.

    Neilson, Francis

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Hackett, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Ashley, W. W.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Astor, Waldorf

    Boyton, J.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Brace, William

    Clynes, J. R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bridgeton, William Clive

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Barnes, G. N.

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent)

    Barnston, Harry

    Butcher, J. G.

    Crean, Eugene

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Cassel, Felix

    Croft, H. P.

    Beach, Han. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cator, John

    Crooks, William

    912

    913

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Johnson, W.

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

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Jowett, F. W.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kerry, Earl of

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Kirkwood, John H. M.

    Snowden, Philip

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Stanier, Beville

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Lansbury, George

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sutton, John E.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Swift, Rigby

    Forster, Henry William

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wadsworth, J.

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mount, William Arthur

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newman, John R. P.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trant)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wardle, George, J.

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

    O'Grady, James

    Wheler, Granvitis C. H.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

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

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Ormsby-Gore Hon. William

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

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hodge, John

    Quilter, William Eley C.

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Richards, Thomas

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Horne, W E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Peel and Mr. Goldsmith.

    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "unmarried" to insert the words "or married, if in the opinion of the local health committee physically or mentally unfit for marriage."
    The object I have in moving this Amendment is to refer to a subject which is somewhat germane to that referred to with such ability and delicacy by my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery). On the face of this Clause it puts a premium on boy and girl marriages. I am not going to suggest whether such marriages should or should not take place, but I say that we ought not to do anything to put a premium on the marriage of either party if physically or mentally unfit for marriage. I do not propose to enter upon the large subject of eugenics generally, but I do hold the view that the time is coming when this House will have to follow the course adumbrated by the Bishop of Ripon at the last meeting of the British Association in an able address on restricting in every way possible the multiplication of the unfit. I think there are many opportunities presented in this Bill for commencing such a process, and, it appears to me that this is one of those opportunities. It is common knowledge that
    914
    there are a large number of young persons suffering from such complaints as epilepsy who are to be found throughout the country, and who under existing legislation and local regulations are not restricted in any way from contracting marriages which undoubtedly in the long run operate to the national degeneration. There are also a large number of young persons, particularly young women, who are wholly unable to undertake the duties which marriage involves. Surely if this Clause puts a premium on early marriages-we might extend the operation of the Clause so as to reduce the benefits to those persons who, in the opinion of the local health committee, are mentally or physically not fit to be married. I hope this question may be raised and discussed by other members of the House at later stages of the Bill. But there is an opportunity at this stage of incorporating something of the nature of eugenic science in this Bill, and it is for that purpose I move the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not suppose that the hon. Member, however interested he may be in the subject of eugenics, can expect the Government to accept this Amendments.

    915
    I appreciate that he has strong views on this question, but he ought to find a more proper place than the Clause we are now discussing for the words which he proposes to introduce. Let us see what this means. Apparently the local health committee is to sit as a kind of tribunal, and thereupon each man who is intending to marry is to come before the committee and submit to a number of questions and to an. examination as to whether he is a person either physically or mentally unfit for marriage I quite see that there might be upon a local committee, and particularly on local health committees in different localities, different views prevailing as to what is meant by physically or mentally unfit for marriage, and I certainly cannot contemplate this Committee passing such an Amendment as this, and leaving people who desire to enter upon the holy state of matrimony to have their fate decided by a local health committee after an inquisition has been made.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think it appeared from what fell from my hon. Friend (Mr. Bathurst), in bringing the Amendment before the Committee that it was not with the view to its acceptance by the Government it was brought forward, but to call very brief attention to a most important question. My hon. Friend was careful to indicate that his object was to elicit the views of the Committee upon this very important question, and I am quite sure that he does not propose to press the Amendment to a Division. I am sure that he, as much as the Attorney-General himself, is alive to the inconvenience of the method adumbrated in the Amendment, but I think the Committee are quite seized with the fact that the mode of procedure which my hon. Friend has suggested would be impracticable.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I promised to move an Amendment at the end of the Sub-section (1). I move, to insert the following words: "Provided that where any such person, being over the age of eighteen, and a member of an approved society, proves that one or more members of his family are wholly on mainly dependent upon him, the society shall dispense with such reduction."
    Mr. FORSTER: The Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just moved is intended to carry out the understanding he came to with my right hon.
    916
    Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I only wish to ask whether the Amendment is in a considered form of words. Before whom is the person to prove that one or more members of his family are dependent upon him?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The society.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered what the cost would be if he extended this Amendment to those at sixteen. We know very well that a certain number—I do not know whether it is a large number or not—of insured persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen are contributing substantially to the family income. They have widowed mothers dependent upon them and so on. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the cost of extending this Amendment to those of sixteen would be very small indeed, and in a great many cases would give a substantial benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with my hon. Friend, and, although it adds something to the cost, I am willing to substitute sixteen for eighteen.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What part of the margin will it absorb?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it will be a very serious matter, because it refers to a restricted class. The vast majority of these boys are boys who are not maintaining a family.
    Amendment made in proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "eighteen," and insert instead thereof the word "sixteen."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Mr. DUKEhad the following Amendment on the Paper: At the beginning of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "Save that no insured person shall by this Act be deprived of any benefit to which, at the passing of this Act, he was entitled."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not understand the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Exeter. I rather think that this matter has been dealt with.
    Mr. DUKE: The object of my proposed Amendment is to make an exception in favour of existing members of friendly societies, from the rule laid down in the Sub-section, so that men who, by their

    917
    existing contracts have entitled themselves to a scale of benefit which would be infringed upon by the form of the Subsection as it stands, should get the benefit of their existing contract. It is a limitation of the generality of the Sub-section.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: During yesterday's proceeding we had a long discussion on that very point, and I think that that has been decided by the Committee.
    Mr. DUKE: I had the advantage of hearing a considerable part of the discussion yesterday upon all the various points, and I do not remember that this precise point was decided.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not say that it was the identical point. What we discussed and decided yesterday was the larger point which comprehends this one.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I submit that the discussion yesterday was about the disqualification of Sub-section (7) in the last Clause. This is really a different point. This is where a person is insured for a larger amount than is contemplated in the general scheme of the Act.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If that were permissible we might go on with an infinite series of diminishing points.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    There are two cases in which sickness and disablement benefit may be reduced. They may be reduced in any case without apprently any limitation to the extent that the society or committee administering the benefit may think fit, provided that that committee or society has the consent of the Insurance Commissioners; and in all cases where the benefit would exceed two-thirds of the wages they must be compulsorily reduced to such sum as shall be equal to two-thirds of the wages. If the Sub-section is to remain as it stands I would prefer it out altogether, but possibly words may be found to limit its application. For example, where wages are less than 15s. a week a very inadequate benefit would be given if the two-thirds limit were to apply. Assume that the wages earned were 12s. a week. Two-thirds of that would be 8s. There is no reason why in such a case as that the sickness benefit should be reduced. If 10s. is a proper rate of benefit in an ordinary case it is still a proper rate of benefit. It is indeed
    918
    the minimum benefit, with lower than which the insured person cannot hope to get over all his sickness and hold on. It seems to me utterly wrong that the two-thirds limit should apply if the wages, are lower than 15s. a week. That view is taken strongly also by the Manchester Unity of Odd fellows. If the Government accept a limitation of 15s. a week I shall not insist on moving the rejection of the Sub-section altogether.
    This Clause has got to be read for some purpose in connection with Clause 27, which is called the prohibition against double insurance. The two Clauses together may easily operate in a way which I imagine could not have been intended when Sub-section (2) of Clause 9 was inserted. There are members now in small friendly societies which will not become approved societies under the Act who have subscribed their single contribution, an undivided contribution, for a number of benefits. One of the benefits is an old age pension benefit of 5s. That small society may or may not in the future be willing to divide the contribution and apportion a part of it for future payments of the old age pension and a part for the payment of sickness benefit. If the small society does that the hardship to which I am going to refer will not take place; but if it does not then that hardship is very likely to occur.
    In order to continue to get the old age pension the workman will continue to be a member of that small society and he will pay for his sickness benefit as well as his old age benefit. He wants to get the benefits under this Bill and therefore joins a society which has become an approved society. Let me assume for this purpose quite a low rate of wage, say 18s. a week. The result will be he will be paying to the small society for the 5s. benefit and he will have joined an approved society to get a minimum benefit of 10s. for sickness, and from the two societies together he will be entitled to 15s. But in this particular Clause, owing to the two-thirds limitation all he will be entitled to draw is 12s., not 15s. Now the 3s. which he does not draw in such a case is not the 3s. of the small society but the 3s. of the Government, and in that way the Government is relieved of paying two-ninths of that 3s. I quite agree that there is not a very large number of cases covered by my conjectural case, but it does and can happen, and so long as it can happen I think that the Bill is faulty and ought to be mended. If the Government are pre-

    919
    pared to admit those two points I myself will not press this Amendment. Otherwise I must ask the Committee to divide upon it.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no question of relieving the Government. They pay two-ninths of 10s. either in one form or another. Whichever way it goes it does not make the slightest difference to the Exchequer. But the reason which prompted us to put the Sub-section into the Clause is covered as a matter of friendly society practice. Particulars were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whit-taker) in his very interesting speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, showing how the sickness increased in relation to the amount that was paid by the society in reference to the wages of the persons themselves. They showed that according as the proportion of the man's wages which is paid increases, up goes the sickness. There is no getting away from those figures. It really does mean that when you give a man as much in sickness as when he is well there is a temptation to everybody to go on the sick fund. The figures are there, and this is done purely to protect the friendly society. The hon. Gentleman says that we ought not to dock a man's wages if they reach under 15s., because then you reach a limit which is so very low. There is something to be said on that, but there are two ways of dealing with this. You can meet the friendly societies themselves and say to them, "This is a matter entirely for you. If you manage your funds badly and get extra sickness which is due to that cause you will be at a loss." The other is the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Personally, I would not object to an Amendment which would leave the societies to themselves, so that if they go on the principle of paying benefit on an excessive scale they lose all round. Therefore, my view would be that we should leave this to the option of the society themselves. We might leave out the words "shall in all cases," making the Sub-section read:—
    "The rate of sickness and disablement benefit may, in any case, and where the rate of sickness or disablement benefit (as the case may be) exceeds two-thirds of the usual rate of wages or other remuneration earned by an insured person, be reduced to such an extent as the society or committee … determines,"
    920
    This would leave it to the societies-themselves.
    Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I hope the Government will agree to delete the whole of this Sub-section. I quite agree, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that it makes no difference to the fund, but it does make material difference to the individual for various reasons. I heard the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker.) They were very interesting and entrancing figures, but I entirely disagree with them, for this reason: The experience of friendly societies, without exception, is that the man who is most provident, the man who-in time of health makes the largest provision for sickness, is never the man who is-likely to malinger. The whole experience of friendly societies is that the man who is drawing the most money during sickness, is very likely to be the man who will do justice to the fund. It is the man who will not make provision, it is the man who is compelled to make provision, who is likely to malinger. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, why is it that a man drawing a large amount of sick pay is longer on the sick fund than those who-draw a smaller amount! That would appear, on the surface, to uphold the proposition that men would malinger when they get more money. It is not so. The real explanation is that a man who is in receipt of more sick pay invariably stops on the fund until he is fit to go to work again. The man who is not in receipt of a large amount from the fund is driven to-work when he is not fit to go. It is very often the case that he comes on the fund at a later stage. I think experience proves that in very many instances. It is proved in compensation cases. It would hardly be fair to leave this to friendly societies. It appears to be a way out of the difficulty to say: "Very-well, if you, the friendly societies like to deal with it, you may do so." But this would cause the friendly societies to compete unfairly one against the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I think it is so, for this very reason. Once a friendly society says it will take a certain class of members without limitation of benefit, it is more likely that that friendly society will appeal to a larger section of men, not because they are justified in doing it, but because of the special inducements they offer. But it is not fair to those members at a later stage, and for these reasons I do not think the Chancellor of the Ex-

    921
    chequer will be well advised in retaining the Sub-section, which will cause unnecessary hardship to the individual and unduly tax the most provident members of our friendly societies.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I must say that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to the excision of this Sub-section altogether. He pointed out, quite rightly, that it does not affect the fund one way or the other. But it does affect the individual, in my opinion, in the worst possible way. Let us see what is the effect of the Sub-section where wages are low. I take the case of the agricultural labourer, on whose behalf we ought to be very careful in dealing with this Bill. The agricultural labourer pays a certain sum per week under compulsion, just the same as the artisan who gets very much higher wages. Certainly the Sub-section would be a fine upon the agricultural labourer. The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I think it is so. I am sure it is in one sense. Of course, it is quite true that you may give to the society, or some other body, the discretion of allowing the member an equivalent advantage. That is a different thing altogether. Why should a man who has paid an amount, whatever it may be, under compulsion, in order to get a sure provision, not have the same advantage for his 15s. a week wages as if he had 30s. a week wages? If you look at it from the point of view of the individual, it is a greater hardship on the man with 15s. a week to pay the same flat rate of insurance than on the man who gets 30s. When the time of benefit comes, the man who has 30s. a week gets the whole benefit, but the man with 15s. a week gets less.
    The man who has to pay towards insurance from week to week out of small wages, and therefore feels the burden more heavily, is to be deprived of the advantage which the richer wage earner gets without any question at all. It is quite true what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has said in regard to small agricultural societies. If the man with 30s. wages a week is to have the amount, are you going to fine the agricultural labourer because he does not earn as high a rate of wages as the artisan in the town. I cannot see any justification for that whatever. As the hon. Member said, it is a question of the individual. I do not think either the Health Committee or a particular society ought to have any option in the matter whatever. The contribution is compulsory. The man cannot
    922
    help having to contribute his 4d. or whatever is the amount per week. When the times comes, and he is entitled to his benefit, he ought to have the full advantage of the benefit the Act gives him, and no other party or society ought to have the power of either diminishing the benefit or of giving him it in some other form. I want to refer to the last words in this Subsection, in order that there may be no misunderstanding in regard to the argument:
    "But where such reduction is made provisions shall be made by the society or committee, with the like consent, for the grant of one or more additional benefit of a value equivalent to such reduction."
    You put in an alternative, an option, and I am entirely opposed to it. I do not think there ought to be a discretion given to any body, whether a society, committee, or insurance commission. You ought to give a statutory right to benefit, where by statute you make the workmen give a compulsory contribution. But put it as you like, I do protest—and I hope the hon. Member will go to a Division—as much as I can against the doctrine under a Bill of this kind, that a man who earns a lower wage, and, therefore, wants assistance at least as much as the artisan who obtains a higher wage, should be fined and penalised under a provision of this kind. Let us at any rate, put everyone on the same basis, seeing that everyone has to pay the same compulsory contribution.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: There are many parts of this Bill I personally regard as most unfair to the agricultural labourer. There is no single Clause in the whole Bill which, in my opinion, is more flagrantly unfair than Sub-section (2) of this Clause. Either 10s. is a fair allowance for a person who is in receipt of sick benefit, or it is not. If he pays exactly the same rate as his fellows in towns, surely he is entitled to exactly the same benefit. If 10s. is a proper amount for the well-paid artisan in a town—and, mark you, with a lower standard of health than obtains in agricultural districts—it must necessarily, as a matter of fairness and logic, be a proper amount to be paid to the agricultural labourer. The main objection to the excision of this Clause is that malingering may take place unless there be some such provision in the Act. The hon. Member on the Labour benches (Mr. J. Thomas) has stated what is the experience in this matter of great friendly societies. The experience is that the man who, above all, does not malinger

    923
    as a rule is the man who makes large provision out of his small means to meet the case of illness when it occurs. Why is it necessary to have these special precautions, in a statutory scheme, against malingering? Surety if the State is prepared to adopt the same principle which great friendly societies have adopted, and with enormous success in the case of the higher grade societies, there is going to be no greater danger of malingering in future than in the past. Let me indicate what is going on amongst the better class labourers in my own Constituency of South Wiltshire. A very large number of self-respecting men in villages are members of the Ancient Order of Foresters. Under the provisions of the Foresters' scheme, for a payment of 6d. or 7d. per week, they receive, when they are sick, a sum of 14s. for the first twenty-six weeks of their illness, and a sum of 7s. for the following twenty-six weeks—a larger provision than is being made by this Bill. But in addition to that, a very considerable number of them insure in either a slate club or in a small village friendly society in order to bring the 14s. up to a £l a week. These men may be in receipt of not more than 13s. to 15s. a week, but they are able, when ill, and at a time of great strain on the family resources, to obtain a valuable benefit of something like £l a week owing to their providence and thrift. What can be the equity of depriving these men and their families of the inestimable benefits they have enjoyed prior to the introduction of this Bill? The hon. Member who moved this Amendment rightly said that we are bound to read this Clause in conjunction with Clause 27. What does Clause 27 do? It is not content with docking the agricultural labourer, if he happens to receive something less than 15s. a week wages, of a part of the 10s. which other people would enjoy, but, if he does happen to make other provision against sickness by insurance with some other society, or some other branch of the same society, he is not allowed to take advantage of that, and the whole of the benefit which he will derive from all sources is to be cut down to the small amount of his miserable wages. To my mind it is utterly impossible either in logic or in equity to defend such a provision as this. I cannot conceive a Member representing an agricultural Constituency in any part of the House, in fairness to those by a majority of whose votes he has been
    924
    returned to this Assembly, going into the Lobby to vote in favour of this Sub-section. What do the Government say? They say that they are prepared to make a concession, which is that the Society shall be permitted to decide as to whether such a reduction shall or shall not be made in the sickness benefit. That simply means, bearing in mind that the discretion of the society is limited to persons with a wage of less than 15s. per week, that the society is going to say in every case where a man is receiving a low wage. "We decide or do not decide that that man shall receive 10s. per week," and in a great many cases they will probably decide that he shall not receive the total of 10s. per week. But in all other cases where the means of the family are greater, and where the claims upon the national fund are also greater, because the health standard is not so high, they will not have to exercise that discretion. How can such an alternative be defended as a matter of justice?
    I ask what is going to happen under this proposal to the deposit contributors, the most unfortunate of all people, who have got no society at all, and to whom, therefore, the alternative provision cannot apply. Thus if those unfortunate men had contributed enough (for theirs is not a case of real insurance), even to provide a larger amount than, say, 8s. or 9s. per week, they cannot possibly obtain it, although it is owing to their own thrift and providence in putting by sufficient to-do so. I feel so strongly as to, I was going to say the iniquity, or at any rate the gross injustice of this Clause as it operates on the agricultural labourer whose health standard is high and whose wages are low that I find it very difficult to speak with due moderation upon such a proposal as that incorporated in Sub-section (2). In the past the backbone of the friendly societies has been the agricultural labourer, and he has been able to hold his own on the executive of those societies. In the future those large societies will be filled to a large extent, and in my opinion to the extent of a majority, by persons hailing from the towns where the health standard is lower and the wages are higher. Therefore, although under the existing system there might be an inclination owing to the agricultural labourers being duly represented on the central executive to have justice done to-them if discretion is left to such an executive, there will be no such safeguard ire the future, bearing in mind that the town-members of these larger societies are

    925
    likely to be in a majority. For all those reasons I venture to hope that the Government will not do what seems to me to be a gross injustice to the unfortunate man who has a low wage by reducing his benefit, because he happens to have less than 15s. per week.
    Mr. HAROLD CAWLEY: The hon. Member has described this as a great injustice to agriculturists. It seems to me that in nine cases out of ten the agriculturists will belong to an approved society which is an agricultural society, and if that is so—
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    Mr. BOOTH: He can be.
    Mr. CAWLEY: At any rate a large number of them will belong to agricultural societies consisting of agricultural members, and where that is so they can decide the matter for themselves. There is another point as to this Sub-section and that is that the last sentence appears to me to be ambiguous—
    "But where such reduction is made provision shall be made by the society or committee, with the like consent, for the grant of one or more additional benefits of a value equivalent to such reduction."
    That does not say whether the benefit is to go to the man who suffers or to the whole body of the members of the society. If it is to go to the man who suffers by the grant of an additional benefit, then the agriculturist cannot suffer in any case by a single halfpenny. Every halfpenny which is deducted in one case is put on to his benefit in another case. It seems to me that that is a correct method of dealing with this matter if we are to have any Clauses to prevent malingering at all. The hon. Member who spoke last said that if 10s. per week is right for the man in the town then 10s. per week must be right for the man in the country. I think that is entirely wrong.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: He pays the same premium.
    Mr. CAWLEY: I quite agree, and he gets the same amount out. He must get the same amount out either in this way or the other. If it is deducted in one case it is put on in the other. It does not appear to me that the same amount is necessarily right in town and country. Rents, for instance, are very different. The agricultural
    926
    labourer will often pay 3s. per week less than a man of equal standard of living in the town, and the agricultural labourer often gets a certain amount of vegetables. At any rate, it is quite certain that he does, not require as much sick benefit having, regard to his rate of living and rent. If we are to have a Clause against malingering it appears to me that this is best. There are people who know much about this subject of malingering, people like Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Webb, and they attack this Bill on the ground that these Clauses are-too weak. That point of view must be considered. I think something of the sort is absolutely necessary, and when we come to consider the last sentence and make it clear that every man gets as much as is deducted from him then I think the Clause is absolutely just.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be too much influenced by the speech of the hon. Gentleman. It may be true that an entirely different scale of benefit will probably be applicable to agricultural labourers or people dwelling in country villages to that which is applicable in towns, because the circumstances of their lives are so different. That would be a. reason for re-casting this Bill from top to bottom, and altering not only the rate of benefit, but the rate of contribution. After all, as it seems to me, for better or worse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really decided this question, and decided that the agricultural labourer or the wage-earner, whatever his wages, should pay the same premium, subject to slight qualifications, although what I have stated is sufficiently-accurate for my purpose. Of course, if his wages are below a certain figure then, the scheme of the Bill is that less is deducted directly from his wages and more is taken from his employer. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having drawn up his Bill on the principle of a flat rate, I think that you cannot justify a differentiation in the benefit, and above all in that one of the benefits which is the one which will be most frequently needed and most frequently received. I think it must be evident to the Government that there is in the minds of agriculturists a feeling that there is an injustice being perpetrated upon them in regard to this question, which it is of the first importance we should remove. I recognise the truth of what is said by the defenders of the Government scheme that in some way or another an equivalent is to be given

    927
    for that which is withheld in sickness pay, but I think it is quite clear that if you take the agricultural labourers generally they will prefer to have sickness pay instead of the equivalent which is promised to them. I must say that the hon. Gentleman raised a point of some importance when he called attention to the ambiguity of the Clause, and asked whether the equivalent was to be a general equivalent to members of the society or an equivalent to the individual whose sick pay had been reduced. I do not know which.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACSmade a remark which was inaudible.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Attorney-General is good enough to tell me that the intention at any rate of the wording of the Bill is that it must be a benefit to the individual equivalent to the reduction. How are actuaries going to calculate that kind of benefit? What you are to do apparently, and I can conceive no other way, is this. A man will fall sick and but for this Sub-section he would be entitled to 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks. If he remains sick for twenty-six weeks he only gets 7s. 6d. each week, we will say, because the sick pay is reduced. Then you have twenty-six half-crowns, and the actuary of the society has got to frame a scheme for giving that man the benefit of twenty-six half-crowns. Another man in the same society falls ill at the same time, is cured, we will say in five weeks and suffers only a reduction of 1s. I do not see as a matter of practical administration how you can work this Sub-section so as to return the benefit to each individual member. This has been spoken of in the main as applying to people of low wages, but it applies to a great many people who are earning very good wages. We had an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite who, of course, knew that, and he directly dealt with their case under the Bill.
    In my own Constituency I have not proportionately many agricultural members, but this section has been objected to quite as much by men who are not on the comparatively low agricultural wages, and who say that if you are going to reduce their sick pay seriously below the level of their normal expenditure you will throw out their whole household arrangements. They have been accustomed to provide for themselves pretty much the same in sick-ness as they earn when in health. I think
    928
    that is especially the case with the class of man who has been invaluable to friendly societies, the man who has really benefited by the advantages of thrift and who has made great sacrifices in the working of the society without practically any remuneration, and who does so because of pride in his society. That is just the kind of man who insures himself to a very high standard, and it is that class of man rather than the man of poor wages from whom we have protests against this Subsection and against having the whole practice of their past lives in their society upset by this Sub-section, as it must be in connection with Clause 27 of this Bill. I really think anyone listening to the discussion will see that on both sides of the House there is a very strong feeling that this Sub-section ought not to be allowed to stand, and I hope that the Government will consider the position.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the Sub-section has been—unwittingly, of course—represented in a way which the words proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not at all warrant. It has been said that the proposal fines or penalises the agricultural labourer. Let us look at the matter as it actually arises under the Sub-section itself. It must be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to omit the words "and shall in all cases." What the Sub-section means now is simply this. An approved society or committee is given power—nothing more—in any case in which the sick benefit would exceed two-thirds of the wages to pay only two-thirds of the wages in sick benefit, and to pay the difference in some other form. That is all the Amendment proposes. It is giving the friendly societies, whose authority has been so much supported in this House, the opportunity, if they choose, to pay no more in sick benefit than two-thirds of the wages. There is no penalising; there is no fining. I think on consideration the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the words "penalising" and "fining."
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not withdraw at all. I say that the Sub-section both fines and penalises the low wage-earner. If he were earning a higher rate of wages he would be entitled, as of right, to more money when sick. This Clause deprives him of it; it both fines and penalises.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope to convince the hon. and learned Member, as he has really misunderstood the Sub-section. I hope when I have explained it he will see that

    929
    there is no fining or penalising. If a person is fined or penalised he must be deprived of money or of some valuable benefit. This Clause will give the same valuable benefit to the insured person, whatever his wages may be. Valuable benefits may take various forms. Friendly societies are to have power to determine one of the various forms which the valuable benefit might take. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has put the case of the man who is entitled to receive sick benefit of 10s. a week, but obtains only 7s 6d. because his wages do not warrant a larger amount; the friendly society consider that they ought not to pay more than 7s. 6d., and consequently they hold in hand 2s. 6d. a week of that man's. In twenty-six weeks that will represent an accumulated sum at £3 5s. The actuarial value of £3 5s can be worked out at so much per week in diminution of the contribution to be paid by that man for ever after. The additional benefit may be used for the purpose of reducing payment as well as of giving benefits.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: It can only be applied in additional benefits as referred to in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule. The expression "additional benefit" is so defined. There is no reference in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to additional benefits such as the right hon. Gentleman has just suggested.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in that limitation. It has been decided that additional benefits may be used in reducing payments.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 8 (1) (f), he will find the words "the further benefits mentioned in Part II. of the Fourth Schedue to this Act (in this Act called 'additional benefits ')." So that wherever afterwards the term "additional benefits" appears, it means additional benefits as so defined.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member's construction of the Bill is right, steps shall be taken to ensure that additional benefits may include reduced payments. It is so intended in the Bill, and I will refer to the passage in a moment to show that it is so. I give that to illustrate one form in which the money can be used. But whatever the form everything is governed by the opinion and judgment of the friendly societies. All that this Clause does is to give them a power in the administration of this Act which they would not have
    930
    without this Sub-section. The hon. Member below the Gangway has been a consistent supporter of the authority and experience of friendly societies. This Subsection is to give them a power; it does not impose a duty upon them—
    Mr. BOOTH: Approved societies.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Self-governing bodies.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. The hon. Member has spoken in support of the rights of friendly societies, but he now proposes to take away a power which they cannot exercise unless their members approve, because they are all self-governing bodies, and a power which can only be exercised in the interests of the society itself. As it is giving no more than freedom to the friendly societies, as it is not imposing any obligation upon them, as it does not fine or penalise or take away anything from any contributor, I hope my hon. Friends will not be misled by the arguments which have been adduced.
    Mr. DUKE: When this Sub-section is read I think it will be seen that the defence of the right hon. Gentleman is not adequate. The right hon. Gentleman says that it imposes no fine or penalty upon the poor men whom it particularly affects. If the Sub-section is examined it will be seen that it imposes a direct penalty upon poverty in this case. It can be shortly described as a proposal for preventing malingering among people earning less than 15s. a week. The man who earns 16s. a week, so that he comes within the full application of the Bill as to providing his own constitution, is not really upon a flat rate at all. As compared with the man who earns 32s. a week he has to pay a rate 100 per cent. higher. When you say you are giving equality of benefits and imposing equality of burden, you are, in fact, imposing a double burden in the case of a man who is earning 16s. a week. What is proposed by this Clause is to give him a reduced benefit., That seems to me to be a penalty. I cannot see any answer to the argument. I am not trying to make a dialectical point against the right hon. Gentleman. The majority of us desire that this Bill when it is passed shall fulfil the objects with which we know it has been introduced. That is the position as it strikes me, and I submit that it is an unreasonable and oppressive proposal with regard to that particular man.
    But the matter does not end there. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamber-

    931
    lain) referred to a class of people who are much stronger and more vehement in their complaints against this Clause and the corresponding Clause later in the Bill—people who are the backbone of friendly societies. These men say, "We have made business arrangements with our friendly societies under which we are entitled to a scale of benefits." They want to know why the House of Commons, which has been content to let them alone during all their past history, should now come in and reduce the benefits for which they have contracted? That is the effect of this proposal. If it is not, the Clause has been universally or widely misunderstood in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman can show that that is not the effect of it, he will remove difficulties—not so much in my mind; that does not matter — but in the minds of members of friendly societies, who are really disturbed at the interference which they think is being made with their existing contracts by this and a subsequent Clause. It was with a view to dealing with the matter and clearing up the difficulty, that I put down an Amendment, which would have excepted the existing rights of members of friendly societies; but it proved not to be precisely in order upon this Clause, and therefore I was not at liberty to move it. That is the position with regard to two classes of people. What is said in regard to both? It is said, "if you do not get it in meal you will get it in malt. You will get it under the Schedule." Let us see what the agricultural labourer with 16s. a week will be able to get under the Schedule. He may have medical treatment and attendance for persons dependent upon his labour. If he is a bachelor that will not comfort him, unless he is living at home with his mother. He may have increased sickness benefit or disablement for all the members of his society. That is a diversion of his provision which the Government is not entitled to make under his contract with the State, and which it is far less entitled to make with regard to his precedent contract with the friendly society. I cannot understand the moral ground upon which the Government come in between a member of a friendly society and his friendly society and say, "It is not expedient in the general interests that you should get all these benefits to which you have been entitled; we are going to cut them down and provide benefits for other people."
    932
    Perhaps I speak with warmth about the matter, but I do not speak with anything like the degree of warmth with which members of friendly societies discuss the Bill with me when they know that generally I am a supporter of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that supporting this Bill generally is an easy matter for everybody. It is not. If there is a supposed fault here which offend against the elementary notions of what is right as between contracting parties, when it is pointed out either it ought to be demonstrated not to exist or it should be remedied. What comfort is there in a man being told that there shall be increased sickness benefits for the members of his society generally? So you may run through the others. There is maternity benefit, for example, but I will not dwell on that. The right hon. Gentleman said upon this subject that this was a perfectly fair proposal, because you gave the friendly societies discretion as to whether this change of benefit should be made. This diversion of the purchased interest of a member of a friendly society for the purpose to which this money should be applied is wrong. The friendly society is to have discretion and power as the right hon. Gentleman said, or an approved friendly society, as somebody just now said. I really cannot see how the latter are better qualified to depart from their pre-existing contracts than people who are not approved. You are to give freedom to friendly societies! I am not a beneficial member of a friendly society, but I confess if I had been paying for benefits from the age of sixteen till the present time of life, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed in regard to the one-third of the money to give freedom to my friendly society as to what they could do with it, with one-third of my invested funds for the purpose of preventing malingering on my part or the part of other people, I should regard it not only as a great injury but as an extreme insult.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: As I read the Sub-section, if somewhat deleted, it would really give the friendly societies the power to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says they might. By inserting other words it would give them statutory power to do certain things. I am prepared to trust the friendly societies, because I believe they will deal fairly as between member and member. The friendly societies, too, cannot differentiate between their members. Therefore, if a bricklayer who

    933
    is earning £2 a week and a labourer who is earning 18s. a week are both members of the same society that society cannot make one rule for the bricklayer's labourer and another rule for the bricklayer. I cannot agree with the argument used in regard to the differentiation of the provision under which men leave their work. They have to pay the same contribution to the fund, and they are entitled to the same benefit; but it is quite possible that under the scheme submitted by a friendly society that the members might never get benefit. It is very possible. Money is taken for the old age pensions for the man of sixty-five; but if he dies at forty-five, or at twenty-five, is he going to get the benefit then? Most decidedly not. The time that a man ought to have benefit is when he is sick. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer an Amendment to his Amendment, and I hope he will accept it, because I think it will make the Sub-section clearer than it is and it will meet our case. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should delete the words as follow:—"In any case, and shall in all cases where the rate of sickness benefit or disablement benefit (as the case may be) exceeds two-thirds of the usual rate of wages or other remuneration earned by insured persons." Then the Sub-section will read:—
    "The rates of sickness and disablement benefits may be reduced to such an extent as the society or committee administering the benefit, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, determines."
    If the right hon. Gentleman does that it will meet the cases which have been raised in the House. I believe it will meet with the approval of friendly societies. Do not let us forget this: there are some great friendly societies that are asking for this Sub-section to be amended in the direction I have indicated. I do hope the Chancellor will agree to the deletion, or make it quite clear that he is going to place the whole thing in the hands of the friendly societies.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member's Amendment just suggested will be an improvement at all. On the contrary, I think it would make things a good deal worse than at the present time. My own Constituency will be more particularly subject than most constituencies to this particular Sub-section. I have a very large number of agricultural labourers whose wages, I regret to
    934
    say, are very low, standing at 13s., 14s., and 15s. per week. They will be, or may be, affected by this Clause. What I understood the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put forward was that these additional benefits can be given at different times, and, therefore, it does not matter taking away part of the sick pay of the member at the time. I think that is an entirely wrong point of view. What these men want is the highest amount of pay they can get at the time they are actually sick. They have to provide themselves with small extra comforts, extra milk, perhaps, and some other such things at that time above all others. I know by what I know of my Constituency that they insure themselves out of their very low wages in such a way that they can draw the highest benefits when sick, and they prefer that to any additional benefit on some future occasion. I think it is very hard indeed that there should be given power to take away as is suggested at the present.
    Might I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Clause 27 does absolutely afford a safeguard against malingering, because at the end that Clause says, that "the total amount of that insurance shall be reduced by the amount of the excess where it exceeds the wages or other remuneration of the man. That will give an absolute safeguard against malingering, and I do think this present Clause in addition is absolutely unnecessary. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remove it. Let me give another point of view with regard to this Sub-section which I do not think has been touched upon. That is where it says, "That the rates of sickness and disablement benefits may in any case, and shall in all cases where the rate of sickness benefit or disablement benefits exceeds two-thirds, etc." There are a large number of men in this country whose usual rate of wages is at a low level at certain times, and at a high level at certain other times. These include agricultural labourers when they come to harvesting, men who work on piecework, and men who work overtime. There is a great difference at some times to others.
    Supposing the usual rate of wages is 14s. a week, and at harvest time it goes up to 20s. The friendly societies have to pay the reduced benefits, have to pay on the basis of the two-thirds of the ordinary wages. That would be a great hardship upon the man, because if he was in employment at the time his rate of wages actually would be so high

    935
    that he would not come in under this Sub-section. I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the extent of the feeling against this particular Sub-section in the constituencies where the wages are low. I can tell him that it is really enormous, and that those concerned do feel that it is very hard indeed that power should be given into the hands of a friendly society to reduce the benefits to the extent proposed. They do say it is a very great hardship when they are able at the present time to insure for a higher rate when they are sick. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests of agricultural constituencies, which will be enormously effected, especially in the South and West of England, to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend and delete this Sub-section.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Duke), in the first part of his speech, said that friendly societies would be compelled to reduce their benefit. He talked about "standing between the man and his friendly society." In the second part of his speech I found he was fully alive to the fact that we were perfectly prepared to leave the option to the friendly society itself, but there was one thing, he said, I think, without due reflection and perhaps with miscalculation. He took the case of a man who is receiving 16s. per week. That person would not be affected at all. As a matter of fact, the person who is getting 15s. a week would not be affected either. He gets his 10s. per week. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to make his case, says here is a man paying a flat rate, which is not a flat rate. He is paying 4d. a week, and he is getting reduced benefits. When the man is getting 15s. a week he only pays 3d. So far as that part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument goes it is absolutely without foundation.
    Mr. DUKE: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously quite right with regard to the particular case of 16s., except that the gross amount which he has paid is different. That is not my point. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman suggests that that at all covers the difficulty of the small wage earner.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only deal with one argument at a time, and I am taking now the first argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which I think he will admit shows a lack of reflection as to the real provisions of the Bill. Only the
    936
    man who is paying less than 4d. will be affected by this Sub-section. Very well, but he is not getting less. He is going to get either this or some other benefit which will be determined by the friendly societies. What is the Amendment which the Government are prepared to accept? The Government are prepared to accept an Amendment leaving it entirely to the friendly society itself to determine the amount. As for the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, I should say that probably the whole of the friendly societies have branches in the district which have complete control of their own funds. They are local in that sense. Take, then, the case of the agricultural labourer. He has himself to decide. He is there, and he is there in a majority. He joined the society that suits him best. There was no compulsion for him to join it. He will have a voice in determining whether he will adopt this proviso or not.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Often in these cases the men belonging to these societies send their money to the small towns, and although they have been members of these societies for many years, the societies are largely run by the men in the small towns who are able to give the time to working the society. The agricultural labourer is not able to do it. He cannot find time to go often and attend to the continual working of the society; therefore he might have resolutions passed over his head, and not be able to bring in agricultural labourers enough to vote against them.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not such a poor opinion of the agricultural labourer as the hon. Member. If his society is going to pass a resolution cutting down the benefits, I think it will be discovered that the agricultural labourer had begun to take a real live interest in the matter. What I know of the country is that the mere fact that this change was suggested by any one in the town would be a double incentive to go and vote on it. I do not think there is any real danger so far as that is concerned. Unless, it is said, we put this option in the Bill the big society will not be able to introduce the safeguards against the malingerer. That is a totally different proposition. That is what I want the Committee to realise. The present proposal simply gives a power not merely to old societies, but to even to new societies. Everybody who joins the societies will have full knowledge of a proviso of this kind introduced to safeguard against malingering.

    937
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said on the whole the present societies will probably not adopt this proviso, but at the same time I can understand societies will be formed with this safeguard, and I do not see why they should not be allowed to do this, which would be a very potent check against malingering. Anyone listening to the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker) will realise there is a danger in giving full pay during sickness equal to what a man would earn if well. The whole of the experience of the friendly societies justifies us in coming to that conclusion. Of course, I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I could not go as far as that. I would confine the reduction to one specific instance. My hon. Friend suggests unlimited power of reduction. I suggest that the reduction should be confined to these particular cases, and that it should be optional. I think this subject has now been fully threshed out, and I hope we may come to a decision. I hope the Committee will realise the absolute limitation of this case; it is rather giving a right to the societies to introduce it if they wish.
    Mr. DUKE: May I clear up the matter the right hon. Gentleman put to me? Perhaps he will tell me if I am wrong. I understood the sickness and disablement benefits referred to in the first line of the Sub-section were not only the statutory provision, but referred to all sickness and disablement. If that is so, there is the difficulty which I pointed out. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that is not so, I shall be delighted to hear it. I understood it applied to the whole of the benefits, whether statutory or by agreement.
    Mr. FORSTER: The question which my hon. and learned Friend has put to the Chancellor is one of extreme and vital importance, and the Chancellor will no doubt deal with it in a few moments. In my judgment the Amendment which the Chancellor has suggested in the Sub-section really makes it comparatively worthless. He reminded the Committee that the Sub-section, amended as he proposed, will give the friendly societies the option of making reductions in the benefits; there will be no compulsion upon the societies to do it. It will be an act which they may perform if they choose. In this case it is to be purely voluntary. There is to be no direction that it shall be done and no obligation upon them to do it. Therefore,
    938
    they will of their volition be able to break their contracts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says after all the men who form the members of the society are the society, and if the majority of their members is against this reduction the society will not be able to make it. That is all very well if the majority of the members are there to vote. I entertain a very strong objection to put it in the power of any body of men to vary contracts in which they are interested, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is essential for the purpose of preventing malingering. Supposing the society finds a certain section of its members are malingering they have always power to expel them under their present constitution, subject to existing contracts. Therefore, I do not think that for the purposes of purely checking malingering this Sub-section is essential. I do not know whether the Chancellor is ready to deal now with the question put by my hon. and learned Friend, but I am bound to say that whatever answer he gives I would still object to the Subsection.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that this proviso will prevent malingering. It seems to me the existence of malingering is assumed without any solid basis in fact. The Chancellor referred to some very interesting figures given by the right hon Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley. If I remember aright, the argument of that right hon. Gentleman was that so long as you continue to pay a large sum weekly in sick benefit the man stayed at home. Under this Bill the large sums are payable only for the first few weeks of the illness, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that the moment the pay was reduced the man went back to work. There are two reasons to be taken into consideration in this connection. First, the further away from the date of the commencement of the illness the more ready the man would be to return to work, and secondly as the amount of sickness pay is reduced, there is absolute compulsion for the man to return to work. The argument about the existence of malingering means a reflection upon the working people and upon the doctors. I venture to say, after a good deal of experience of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that is a very unfair reflection to make either upon the workmen or upon the doctors consulted. Reference has been continually made to the Workmen's Compensation Act, as if

    939
    the Workmen's Compensation Act led to malingering. I defy any hon. Member on either side of the House to quote figures to prove that any large insurance company could satisfy the country that there is any serious malingering, or that there is any malingering at all. I challenge any hon. Member to produce those figures in respect of any first-class insurance company, and I will tell the Committee why. At the commencement of the actual operations of the Workmen's Compensation Act the doctors did certify men as fit for work when they proved to be unfit, with the result that the insurance companies found that they had to pay for men who had returned to work before they were fit and who soon again proved unfit for work. We must trust more to the workmen, to the operations of the friendly societies, and to the health committees, and we must place more confidence in the doctors, upon whose ultimate decision must rest the question whether the men are fit for work or not.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great point that this would put more power into the hands of the various friendly societies. I have in my mind cases where it is probable that this power may act prejudicially in the case of some members. Take the case of a society I know, which has large numbers of members in a town and a considerable number of agricultural labourers just outside, and a number of agricultural labourers living away on the hills. These people all pay the same contribution and they enter into a contract for sick benefit of 10s. per week. If this Clause is carried in the manner in which the Chancellor desires, it would be quite possible for a majority of the members of that society under this Subsection to make a rule which would prejudicially affect a minority such as those living upon the hills who would alone be affected injuriously. I submit that is unfair to those men. My chief objection is that I feel that a certain class forming a small minority in friendly societies, may be prejudicially affected under this Subsection because they receive low wages, while the majority earning higher wages are not affected at all. As regards the benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would be made up to these people, the one additional benefit which these people would really like is the provision of what are called funeral bene-
    940
    fits. It is better for such people to have these benefits than that they should come on to the rates and have pauper funerals. That is one of the benefits excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I say that, consciously or unconsciously, you may be imposing great hardships by this proviso upon a certain number of people.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The First Lord of the Admiralty gave us two reasons why the Government proposals should remain, first that a valuable addition to the benefit would be provided for the man who had his illness allowance reduced, and secondly that it would be very useful for the friendly society to administer these valuable benefits. I should like that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell us what the valuable benefits are. I should like him to tell us what form of benefit is more acceptable or useful to a man when he is ill than money. As to the second point made by the First Lord of the Admiralty that it would be right and convenient to the friendly societies to administer these benefits. If that is so, why are they only to be administered in the case of men receiving very low wages? Why not also administer them in the case of men receiving higher wages? I venture to say that the real point has been ignored both by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that the majority of men coming within this Clause will not belong to any society at all, but will rather be the Post Office contributors. Low wages are common in country districts, and in country districts the majority of friendly societies will cease to exist. Those men who take means to insure in these districts will find themselves compelled by circumstances to become Post Office contributors. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what provision has been made in the case of these Post Office contributors for arranging these additional benefits and the form they will take.
    Mr. EDGAR HORNE: It has been asserted that the agricultural labourer to a great extent is a malingerer. I think of all classes of labour the agricultural labourer is free from that charge to a very great extent. If the agricultural labourer did not care for his work, I cannot imagine that he would continue to work for such low wages. I have had to do with agricultural labourers for a great number of years, and I have frequently had to stand in the position which the Government is now going to take up of making good in

    941
    times of sickness the wages of men who work on my farm. I am bound to say that many of these men have wanted to come back to work long before I thought it was necessary, and I have every confidence that there was no malingering on their part and that they were perfectly justified in receiving every particle of wages they drew while unable to do their work. I wish to ask a question which was put to me in my Constituency only a few days ago. An agricultural labourer with wages at 15s. per week has ensured for himself a payment during sickness of 12s. 6d. per week, and he is no longer paying any weekly premium. What will his position be under this Bill? Will he be able to receive 12s. 6d. a week in the future from his friendly society, and what will happen in regard to the 4d. he has to pay? What future benefits will that labourer receive?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a question very remote from the Amendment.
    Mr. E. HORNE: I was trying to find out how this man could ensure himself 12s. 6d. a week, or whether he would only have 10s. or two-thirds of his wages.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: A good deal has been said about the agricultural labourer, and he has been referred to almost as if he were the only person earning small wages. I can speak with some knowledge of the wages earned in coal mines. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to make a statement that in all cases where 15s. per week or less is earned the contribution of the insured person will only be 3d. That is assuming six days of work in the week, and that the wages are 2s. 6d. per day. I will take the case of a man where six days are not worked, but where that is almost always the exception. In the mines it is probably nearer to say that four days in the week is the average throughout the year. Take the case of the young person earning 3s. per day. His compulsory deduction is 4d. per week. I think this point ought to be made clear. The deduction is made upon the basis of the daily wage and not upon the weekly wage, and where you have broken time worked almost continuously you may have the minimum wage with the maximum deduction. That is the case in the mines. Let us see how the optional Clause would apply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly met us to a very great extent by taking out the compulsory working. When the option is left what are the conditions under which the approved society is likely to exercise that
    942
    option? In the case where the compulsory levy is likely to be made upon the members where a deficiency has accrued because of the benefits and the lack of contributions coming in, Clause 32 enables, indeed it imposes upon that approved society the obligation to place a compulsory levy upon the members, or to reduce the benefits, or at least to take effective steps to remove that deficiency.
    If the option is left to that approved society, instead of making a compulsory levy upon all the members they are almost certain to exercise their option of limiting the benefit in cases where the wages are 10s., or more than two-thirds of the wages usually received. A four days' week of the boys up to eighteen years of age in the mines will probably be about 12s., that is 3s. per day, and that will probably be the average. Four days being the average working time the wages will be 12s., and two-thirds of that is 8s. Therefore it will be very likely that these societies, instead of imposing a compulsory levy upon the whole of the members, will proceed to exercise the option conferred upon them under this Section. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says this point is met by compelling such societies to give an equivalent benefit in the case of one or more additional benefits equivalent to the reduction. I know something of the way in which this has been worked in the past. I know the way in which this form of words was worked under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and I know all about the equivalent benefits. The first equivalent is the claiming of medical attendance for some other dependent member of the family. A boy might forfeit 2s. a week where his wages were 12s. That boy forfeits two-thirds of the benefits he would otherwise be entitled to. But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some dependent member of the family will get medical attendance. May I point out that that is only equal to 1s. 3d. in the year, and there is no equivalent benefit. Perhaps the payment of an old age pension may be hastened a bit, but this kind of thing is surely not to be taken seriously.
    A young fellow who has had taken from his wages the maximum deductions is entitled to the whole benefit. It is not a sufficient argument to say to us that that young fellow in the time of his greatest need, when he requires the benefit for which he has paid this 2s.—which may be deducted from his wages, and will in almost every case where there is a probability of a compulsory levy being imposed,

    943
    find that he has to forfeit 2s.—to be told that an equivalent additional benefit may be paid to some other member of his family. I do not think that is the proper way of dealing with this question. If the maximum deduction is made from these small wages the person is entitled to draw the maximum benefit, and it should not be left to an option which will certainly be exercised when the young person is most in need of the benefit, and which is certain to be exercised if there is a likelihood of a compulsory levy being imposed upon the members. I think this matter is entitled to much more consideration than it has received.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.): I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not press this proposal. I feel as strongly as anybody upon the question of malingering, but I also feel that in this case that a large amount of irritation will be caused for a small amount of good. This proposal is intended to put down malingering, but I feel that this Clause is sure to be misunderstood, and it will often be misused. In the cases in which it may be used with the object of diminishing malingering, it will have very little effect compared with the number of cases in which it will be misunderstood. On this question there is a feeling that the game is not worth the candle, and I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the best of intentions to consider whether he had not better withdraw it. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very great effort to accomplish the object in view, but I feel that the judgment of the House as a whole is against him.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely an option ought to be given to a society to form itself upon this basis if it chooses to do so. If it chooses to be formed on this basis it may take the view of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I think it is quite open to argue that there is something in that point, and men of authority in the insurance world take that view. They have great experience in the matter and they may form a society upon that basis. All this Clause says is that if they choose to form a society upon that basis they should be entitled to do so.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This applies to existing societies.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They can take that action if they choose. These societies are purely self-governing.
    Mr. DUKE: This cannot be so with respect to existing members.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The existing members have exactly the same right, and they are all purely self-governing institutions. It is left entirely to them to decide for themselves, and why should you deprive a society of a right which it may desire to exercise. My hon. Friend has put this point, and I wish he had put it a little earlier. It is within the power of the society to decide this thing for itself.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman gives away in the latter part of the Sub-section what he takes in the former. A man is going to get his benefit for malingering whether he gets it in payment at so much a week, or whether he gets it afterwards in the form of some other benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend cannot put that forward seriously. Surely it is not the same thing as an inducement to malingering to say that a man will get something later on which will be an equivalent and not as an inducement to malingering. I want the Committee to understand that this proposal is purely one giving to self-governing institutions composed of working members the power if they so choose to limit their benefits to this extent if they conclude that it is any check upon malingering. I agree that it would not be adopted in the case of old societies, but new societies may choose to form themselves on that basis. The hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) argued on a perfectly false basis. His argument was based on the young person. It has already been decided he will only get 5s., and it does not affect him in the slightest degree.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This does not affect the Post Office contributor in the slightest degree. It will not affect payments outside the Bill at all. It relates purely to statutory payments.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: There is no question whatever that there is malingering. I am connected with some societies where there is a large sum distributed in. sick pay amongst 2,000 people, and the committee of workmen who manage it pay constant surprise visits to see the people.

    945
    At the last Medical Congress the doctors discovered a new disease since the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act. They call it by a long name, but of course it is malingering. It is no sham; it is the real thing. It has an effect upon the nerves of any man, and lots of strong men who could not be accused for a moment of shirking work if they sustain injury in a bad accident like a crushed foot, although they may get perfectly well, cannot bring their minds to attempt to work. Be that as it may, you may be certain when the compensation stops within a week they are at work. A committee of workmen looking after benevolent funds administered in this way take steps to prevent malingering by surprise visits and so forth, so it is really a thing that ought to be protected against.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If we decide to apply a malingering test, it ought to be a universal test, and this is not universal. We give power to an approved society to apply a malingering test only to those persons with 15s. a week. That to me is absolutely conclusive against the Sub-section, and I am very sorry my right hon. Friend does not see his way to withdraw it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is a very important matter to women. I have listened to the Debate, and I have not heard anyone say anything about that numerous class of people who are going to be compelled to insure under the Bill. The lower wages a woman earns, the less reserve she has to help her in a time of sickness and trouble, and therefore there is the more need to give her every penny to which she is entitled under this Bill. It is no use saying she has not paid. If she has not paid, her employer has, and there is just the same amount of money to her credit as there is to the credit of anyone else. I would beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the House to vote how they please on this matter, so that we may have a real vote. You are going to bring a large number of women into the new societies. They have had no training how to manage societies, and we all know that without some years of experience they will not be able to settle these matters as they please. I therefore hope the Committee will reject the Sub-section.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: I put a definite point with regard to the Post Office contributors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it did not apply to the Post Office contributor, but the last four lines say:—
    946
    "Where such reduction is made provision shall be made by the society or committee."
    What does that mean? The whole arguments have been based on the fact that the friendly societies will administer the extra benefits, and I venture to say this Clause gives the health committees power to administer them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The mere fact that a person is a Post Office contributor disposes of any object in applying this to him. After all, he is simply drawing upon his own fund, and, if he does that at the rate of 10s., it will soon be exhausted. There is, therefore, no object in applying this to him.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: There is every reason. The health committee can reduce his benefit. There are numerous Post Office contributors who have been in friendly societies in the past, and it may be to the advantage of the health committee to keep some of his money back in order to pay benefits in other ways.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I wonder if I might add my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this matter? When the Clause appeared originally in its compulsory form we were opposed to it, and we have an Amendment down in favour of its rejection, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it optional I am bound to confess, so far as I am concerned, I did not see any harm in it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any desire to protect his scheme against malingering, I think he is perfectly entitled to do so. The Debate, however, has developed on such lines as to show, first of all, that the Clause in its most innocent form will be egregiously misunderstood and misrepresented, and even as it now stands it does not say specifically that this Sub-section is only going to be put into operation against those accused of malingering and proved to have malingered. If the Clause is going to remain, I think some Amendment to that effect must be made, but there the Chancellor of the Exchequer is faced with a very obvious difficulty. It will be misunderstood, and a certain meaning will be placed upon it. Speaker after speaker this afternoon have placed a meaning on this Clause which it does not bear. It simply comes to this: A friendly society may put things in its rules which will enable it to reduce benefits in respect of members who have malingered. I think the safeguard is so very small and the

    947
    effect of the Clause so very doubtful, that it is very doubtful whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to face the political odium which will undoubtedly be attached to this Clause if it is passed. Might I therefore appeal to him to reconsider the matter and withdraw the Clause, or to consent to the omission of the Sub-section?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am in the un-fortunate position of having to defend proposals which are unpopular, because I think they will conduce to the soundness of the scheme. I have done so throughout, and I have risked defeat from combinations. May I say this word, and I think I am entitled to say it. There are many things here which commend themselves, I am perfectly certain, to the judge merit of any man who has given his mind to the problems of insurance. It is difficult to explain it, I agree, but, all the same, I am perfectly certain the experience of years will justify every proposal of this kind. Then it is discovered it is unpopular. It is discovered it is a popular thing to be able to say to one's Constituents, "I voted for so-and-so and for in- creased benefits." I do not think, if I may very respectfully say so, that is a position worthy of a great Assembly like this, fashioning a great scheme which is dealing with twenty-five millions of money. I know how it is misrepresented and how it is distorted. I know many of the things which I have defended here will be misrepresented. Really, have we not the courage to do the right thing? This is not the only point. There was the question of waiting periods last night, and there are many questions of the same kind. I am perfectly certain, in their hearts and consciences, hon. Members felt it was a proper safeguard and a proper guarantee and a proper protection for the Bill. Really, I think, if I may say so, the Committee ought to decide in these cases what position they are going to take up.
    You can fling away safeguard after safeguard, and go down to the constituencies and say, "See what I have done." But they will not thank you a few years hence, when societies become bankrupt, and when you have to reduce benefits or come to the House of Commons for addi-
    tional funds and impose additional taxes. I know cases where electioneering capital has been made out of additional expenditure and out of additional taxes when it came to imposing them. I cannot help it if it is the unanimous wish of the Committee that this safeguard should be flung away. I have done my duty. This is not a safeguard for the Exchequer. I am not protecting the Exchequer. If you eliminate this there is not a single penny additional charge upon the Exchequer, but there is a very important safeguard taken away from the Bill. What is the good of talking of making charges against the working men. Are working men excepted from the defects and weaknesses of human nature in all other classes? If you had the same temptations in other classes would they resist them? Why should we then say working men are above them. I do not think the working man is taken in by that sort of talk at all. He knows perfectly well there are sections in his own class who will and do sponge upon the funds of this kind. There are men of that kind—and to say there are not is not really acting in a straightforward manner with the working classes of this country. There is malingering under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I have complete evidence upon that point. There is malingering in the friendly societies. It may be exaggerated, but it is there.
    I wish my hon. Friends would have the I courage to get up and defend this un-I popular safeguard. If these things are to be used for political purposes, and if hon. Gentlemen on this side will really not face the temporary obloquy—because it is purely temporary—of defending things of this kind, it will be quite impossible for me and for the Government to get through a scheme which, in our hearts, we can say, as I can now say, after consulting the best i opinion of the country, that it is a sound scheme financially. Still, if this is the wish of the House, I shall not press for a Division. I shall have the question put to the House and will then accept the position.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'may,' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 149.

    Division No. 281.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Anstruther Gray, Major William

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Armitage, Robert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Adamson, William

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

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

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

    Barry Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barton, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beale, W. P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hayward, Evan

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hinds, John

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Reddy, Michael

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Richards, Thomas

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    John, Edward Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Johnson, William

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Joyce Michael

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Keating, Matthew

    Rowlands, James

    Chapple, Dr William Allen

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Kelly, Edward

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Clough, William

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

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

    Compton-Rickett Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Leach, Charles

    Sheehy, David

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Logan, John William

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Crooks, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Crumley Patrick

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Davies David (Montgomery Co.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Maclean, Donald

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dawes, James Arthur

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Denman Hon Richard Douglas

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth)

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Markham. Sir Arthur Basil

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Doris William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duffy William J

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wadsworth, J.

    Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Meagher, Michael

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York Otley)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ward W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Mooney, John J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Edwards Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Morrell, Philip

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Morton, Alpheus Cleaphas

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Munro, Robert

    Watt Henry A.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Webb, H.

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wedgwood Josiah C.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Whittaker Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Furness, Stephen

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wiles, Thomas

    George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gill, A. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Glanville Harold James

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Ogden, Fred

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Greig Colonel J. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Hackett, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Parker, James (Halifax) Mr.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Astor, Waldorf

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Bull, Sir William James

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Butcher, John George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Cator, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Boyle, W. L. (Norwich, Mid)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Barnston, H.

    Boyton, James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Brace, William

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    950

    951

    Chaloner, Col. R. G W.

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwin)

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

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hume-William, W. E.

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Clynes, John R.

    Hunt Rowland

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Jowett, F. W.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Kirkwood, J. H. M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Snowden, P

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lansbury, George

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Falle, B. G.

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Stewart, Gershorn

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sutton, John E.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Swift, Rigby

    Gardner, Ernest

    Manfield, Harry

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Widdlemore, John Throgmorton

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Grant, James Augustus

    Neilson, Francis

    Valentia, Viscount

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gretton, John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    O'Grady, James

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

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

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W)

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughter.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart-

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Hodge, John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Worthington-Evans and Sir R. Baker.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "benefit" ["disablement benefit"] to insert the words "provided under this Act."
    I submit this Amendment in order to give effect to an explanation offered to the Committee just before the Division. There was a somewhat prevalent misapprehension that the generality of the words in the first two or three lines was such as to include in the restriction of provisions in the latter part of the Subsection not only the benefits provided under the Act, but benefits arising under contracts outside the Act. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General explained that that was a misapprehension, and I, therefore, move to insert these words, which, I take it, will be accepted by the Government.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has given a correct statement of our view of the words as they stand. I think it would be better to remove any misapprehension which may exist, and, on behalf of the Government, I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "and shall in all cases" ["cases where the rate of sickness benefit."] I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to accept this, or words to a like effect.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put. and negatived.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "remuneration" ["or other remuneration"], to insert the words, "not being less than 15s. per week."
    The CHAIRMAN: Two-thirds of 15s. is 10s., and if we are to insert the 15s. limit, surely we shall be going back upon a discussion which has already occupied two hours.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The Amendment to which the hon. Member referred stands, I believe, in my name. I should like to say that what has fallen from the Chairman is correct as to part of the Clause, but there are other features which have no re-

    953
    lation to the 15s. I submit this in. order to stereotype and crystallise this particular point. I suggest it is right that this Amendment should be moved as it is entirely distinct from the larger question which has been already dealt with.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The whole question has been discussed on the past Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: It has no now meaning at all.
    Sir R. BAKER: I have a manuscript Amendment—in Sub-section (2), after the word "wages" to insert the words "calculated on a yearly basis taken from the previous year."
    The Clause will then read, "exceeds two-thirds of the usual rate of wages calculated on a yearly basis taken from the previous year." The point which I think has already been taken in this Debate is that the wages in this ease should not be calculated on each particular week but on an average taken from the previous year. The point I wish to get is this: the wages should be calculated on a yearly basis and not on a daily basis. It was said just now that where a boy was only employed four days a week his contribution is based on his daily wage and not on his weekly wage. The point will come up again on the Schedule, but I would be pleased if the Government could see their way to accept the yearly employment basis where the employment has been for over a year. In many eases men are sometimes earning 18s., 19s., or 20s. a week, whereas their yearly basis is only 12s. a week. I beg to move—
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to proceed with this Amendment. We have given full consideration to what he has said. This Clause as it stands only gives discretionary powers to friendly societies. It would be quite safe to leave this matter to the friendly societies to deal with. They can themselves determine what is the yearly rate of wages or other remuneration. I would suggest the matter can be properly dealt with by the societies who are the best judges in this case.
    Sir R. BAKER: That is exactly the point the Attorney-General has raised. We want a definition of what is the yearly rate of wages. It would be much better for the agricultural labourer and the men who are unemployed certain days of the week.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: With all respect to the Attorney-General, I am inclined to think the "yearly rate of wages" is an expression to be construed. The whole basis of the premium is founded upon the amount received weekly. This is the only opportunity it seems to me of removing an injustice under which the class of agricultural labourers suffer, as compared with others, if this wage is taken on a weekly basis for the purposes of this Clause. The Member for Dorset has already explained that during times of harvest the agricultural labourer gets somewhat higher wages. It applies to other times of the year also. There are various processes at every farm, like hoeing and pulling and topping roots, which are generally paid by the piece and are paid in addition to or in substitution for the. weekly wage. If you are going to base the conditions under which his sick benefits will be reduced on his weekly wage and not upon the average he would receive per week if the whole of his remuneration was taken into account, you will do a still greater injustice to the agricultural labourer than you would do if this Clause stood by itself. I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the decision he has come to.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I hope the Attorney-General will not be led into accepting this. No doubt it would secure its object in the special case which has been referred to, but I am sure my friends opposite will see why we could not accept it. The suggestion is that it should be the average weekly wages obtained during the year. So far as the building trade and the outside trades are concerned that would be a most terrible proposition. It would mean that all deduction for the wet time, etc., would be taken into account. The average earnings of the year would be reduced considerably and consequently the rules of the society would reduce the benefit paid to the man. Under no circumstances could we accept such a proposition. There might be a special case for the agricultural labourer, and that his harvest money ought to be taken into account, but so far as the other trades of the country are concerned, I do assure the hon. Member it would do a positive injury to the workmen of these trades.
    Sir R. BAKER: I am not proposing to leave out the usual rate of wages. I am

    955
    quite prepared to accept that if the hon. Member wishes it to be put in.
    Mr. GARDNER: Everyone knows the ordinary wages of the agricultural labourers are only nominal wages. There are very few weeks in the year he does not earn something over his ordinary wages. To discover the wages of the agricultural labourer you must add all the extra wages earned from one year's end to the other.
    Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I do not think this Amendment if carried out would be of any value. On the contrary, I can quite conceive of its being a disservice to the poorer paid class of workers. Let us assume for a moment that the agricultural labourer gets 11s. a week, and the next month gets an advance of 1s. a week. Is it suggested that the calculation should be based on the twelve months' earnings. Instead of helping him you are actually reducing his wages. That is apart from the question of whether it is short time or not. This House ought not to introduce an element that would cause friction and irritation and absolutely dislocate the whole of the friendly societies.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:I would like the Attorney-General to say what he means by these words two-thirds of the wages earned by the insured persons. It does not mean earned by the insured person. It is earned by insured persons as a class.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACSwas understood to say: It is the yearly rate of wages of the insured persons individually.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    And it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and under Standing Order No. 8 further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the question the words "upon this day three months."
956
The House might expect me to apologise for raising this question a second time, but on the occasion when it was discussed about a fortnight ago, I had tabled a Motion to reject the Bill, and I gave way, naturally, to my hon. Friend who preferred to raise the issue by proposing an Instruction to the Committee. But had my Motion come on I should undoubtedly have asked the House to reject the Bill altogether, and not to go through what I felt certain would be the unsatisfactory process of attempting to investigate the question further in the form in which it had then been presented to the House. I should have urged that this question deserved a far fuller inquiry than was possible under any possible circumstances before the Committee which had given it already a great deal of attention, and which has now had two sittings further to consider the case. That fuller inquiry, I believe, could only have taken place by an investigation quite apart from this House, a thorough investigation ab initio into what is the best scheme for dealing with the centre of London, especially is connection with the very important question of general metropolitan traffic. The scheme as it has been presented in this House has been from the very beginning, upon much too small and narrow a scale. It emanated from a committee of the City Corporation which is called the Bridge House Committee, and it emanated, as one can see by reading the evidence brought before the Committee of this House, from the brain of the chairman of that Committee. I bring no accusation against the chairman; I have no doubt he was actuated with the fullest desire to do what he-thought was best for London, but the idea of solving the traffic problem of London and also ameliorating the conditions of congestion which holds good on London Bridge emanated from the brain of that gentleman, as he told us in his evidence, and was not the result of any general public inquiry of an important nature which might, and I think ought, to have taken place previously.
Many of us have been on municipal bodies, and one knows, when a scheme has been once started, how keen those who are in favour of it become in order to carry it through, and one can see perfectly well that this idea of a bridge by St. Paul's and a through thoroughfare from Southwark was something which the committee of the Corporation looked upon as a pet child, and they have done their utmost—I do not take exception to their action in this re-

957
spect—to press it forward without allowing, as I think they ought to have allowed, a real full public inquiry—an acquisition of the general views of the public on this question. We know that from the very first, until the scheme came before the Committee, the Corporation never consulted any architect of eminence at all. They consulted their own surveyor and their own engineer, and they brought, out the scheme in their own way. In a question of this magnitude—because after all, the treatment of the surrounding areas of St. Paul's is of as great magnitude as any improvement in any city of the world—what ought to have been done by the Corporation was to have a full inquiry beforehand and to invite other architects to give their views. I can conceive no city in the world setting to work on a great improvement in the way and by the methods adopted by the committee of the Corporation.
That being so, when the scheme came forward, of course, it encountered an enormous amount of criticism. We know there was hardly a good word which could be said for it by any person of eminence in the world of art. We know that artists of great repute wrote to the papers and protested that the scheme was not in accordance with their idea as to how the City of London should be treated from an architectural point of view. We have artists of the eminence of Ernest George, Alma Tadema, Reginald Blomfield, Sargent, Brock, Frampton and many others, all of whom we must recognise as being authorities in questions of art, protesting against this treatment of the central portion of the City of London. Notwithstanding all that, the scheme has got so far that the City Corporation could not of course retire. They were bound to press it forward, and they brought it before the House. I do not wish to say anything in the least offensive to the City Corporation, but I am entitled to say that, in doing so, they did mislead this House and the public with regard to the amount of support which the proposal had behind it.
I have asserted that the only support it had emanated from this Bridge House Committee of the City Corporation. I know many important members of the Corporation themselves disapproved of it, and thought it was not an adequate treatment of the question, but when they came before the House they represented in their statement, and it had a great deal of effect upon some of us, that they had also behind them the London County Council.
958
They stated that the London County Council actively supported the Committee by sending their chief engineer to support it. Literally that is true, but the fact is that, so far as the evidence of the engineer of the London County Council went, there was no suggestion that he should appear before the Committee until last May. When the London County Council—I am speaking from their published records—met after the recess, they found a report from their committee, and, as a matter of urgency, allowed their engineer to give evidence before the Committee. So strong was the opposition to that innocent looking report that it was never allowed to come on before the London County Council until last week, and therefore until last week there was no authority given by the London County Council itself to its engineer to give evidence in support of this scheme.
When you look into the reports of the county council you find that the council, as a whole and as a public body, has never considered the scheme and has never given its authority to it in any way whatsoever. I venture to say, that ought to have some influence with Members of this House in regard to the scheme which is brought forward and represented as being approved by the county council. So far as regards the public debates it has never come before that council at all. On one occasion the council dealt with the subject, and I hope the House will allow me-to read a portion of the report in regard to that occasion, because it has a very important bearing on some other points in connection with the case. The report, which is dated 29th November, 1910, states that the improvements committee had been in communication with the City Corporation with reference to the. cash contribution that was to be made by the county council towards the cost of carrying out the northern improvements, that is to say, the portion between St. Paul's and Cheapside. The county council, being very economically minded at that time, insisted that they should not pay more than: £300,000, and they carried that very much in opposition to the view of the City Corporation. In this report they quote a letter which was written on behalf of the County Council to the City Corporation. It is in the following terms:—
"25th July, 1910.
"Sir,—Referring to the conference held on the 15th ultimo between representatives of the Council and of the City Corporation and to your letter of the 19th instant, with regard to the construction of a new bridge over the River Thames, I have to inform you that the

959
Improvements Committee of the Council are prepared to recommend the Council to make a contribution towards the cost of such a complete scheme as shall be satisfactory to the Council, the Council's contribution being limited to one-half of the net cost of the proposed widening of St. Paul's Churchyard between Cannon Street and Cheapside, the contribution being subject to the condition that if the net cost of this portion of the complete scheme exceeds £600,000, the Council's contribution will be limited to £300,000. The Council's Finance Committee have resolved to support the proposal. This offer is subject to the conditions that the Council shall be satisfied as to the details of the scheme in all respects, and in particular as to the adequacy of the southern approach to the bridge, and shall be satisfied that no further expenditure on its part will be necessary for a considerable period either with regard to the continuation to the south of Southwark Street, of the southern approach, or in any other portion of the scheme. It is further proposed that the payment by the Council of the suggested contribution should be spread over as long a term as possible. The Committees concerned will be glad to learn what proposals the City Corporation desires to make on this point.
"The whole arrangement indicated above is further subject to the Council being afforded such facilities as it may desire for constructing tramways on the new bridge and approaches, it being understood that the Council shall be under no obligation to construct such tramways or, if constructed, to extend them to the north of Cheapside so as to link up with the existing tramways in Aldersgate Street."
This report came up in the county council without any recommendation, and with merely the statement:—
"We are in communication with the Highways Committee, and will report further in due course, and submit any necessary recommendations."
No further recommendations have ever since then been made by any committee of the county council, and therefore I think I am justified in saying that these conditions hold good, and that the conditions in this letter will be the only written conditions which in future will bind the county council in regard to this scheme. What does that mean? There are some important points raised in this letter. In the first place all that the county council has considered in reference to this scheme has been the question of how much money it should contribute to the widening of the approach streets on the north to St. Paul's, but they have never given any attention to the question as to whether or not the scheme is a wise scheme, or the best scheme, at any rate, that could be produced. I think we can very well understand the attitude of the county council. I am not quarrelling with the county council as regards this matter. A proposal is brought forward in the City Corporation, and they say: "You make the bridge at your own cost entirely out of the trust money which you have at your disposal and which arises from the Bridge House Estates. The position of the county council is—you go ahead; it is
960
your business; it is not our business; we are not concerned in this matter. When you have finished this thing and got the approval of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and when you have got the scheme carried through, we will come into it with our hands absolutely free. We will not bind ourselves to make a tramway, or to link up the Aldersgate tramway, and we will not bind ourselves to spend a penny on the improvement of the approach to the bridge on the south side of the river. We are left free." If that is the position of the county council, it raises a very important question, namely, have we as the House of Commons got before us anything that can be considered a complete scheme? Certainly we have not.
There is to be no further expenditure in this matter for many years on the southern approach, and yet, in the Debate the other day, a great deal was made of the fact that the southern approach to the bridge was to be absolutely improved by pulling down houses and opening up the road, so as to enable tramways to be taken out at the Elephant and Castle, which is the point where everyone wishes the tramways to converge. A great deal was made in the last Debate on the question of trams. A great many of my hon. Friends voted for the Amendment because they were so anxious to get trams over the bridge to link up the north with the south. Are we sure, have we any guarantee whatever, that that improvement in the tram service is coming about? There is no word in the Bill relating to tramways. I submit if this scheme had been properly thought out and elaborated the Committee would have had before them the proposals in respect of trams, and the Bill itself would, I think, have authorised the making of trams, and the whole settlement of this question should not have been handed over to the county council. We have to remember, also, that no such linking up of the trams can take place except by a very great expenditure, which will fall upon the London County Council. We know that Aldersgate must be widened if it is going to form part of a great arterial road through London. We know, also, that in Southwark there would be considerable expenditure, which must fall on the county council and the London ratepayer in order to complete the scheme. That in itself is a consideration which will stand in the way of any settlement, and of any rapid construction of this, new tramway. We also have another very grave

961
matter to consider. We know, as a matter of fact, and especially since the second inquiry took place, that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's view the construction of tramways in the neighbourhood of the cathedral with great anxiety. They have told the Committee that no engineer would undertake the risk of making a tramway to the south of the south transept. Who knows that the same difficulty may not accrue in regard to the tramway proposed to run along the east end of St. Paul's. We know that the Dean and Chapter have so great an anxiety about it that they managed to obtain in this Bill a very remarkable Clause that, if when these works were about to be constructed they considered that St. Paul's would be endangered in any way the question should be left to the decision of an engineer—I think the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers—and if he came to the conclusion—and it looks as if he would be bound to do so from the evidence —that tramways would be dangerous to the structure of St. Paul's, and that this subway along the east end of St. Paul's would be a source of danger, the whole thing would collapse and no tramcars could even run round there. I submit with the greatest respect to this House that all those things should come before it in connection with the scheme itself, and that we ought not to be forced into the position of having to announce them to the House after the Bill has been considered by the Committee. What the City Corporation should have done was to elaborate the scheme, and have had all the views of opponents brought before them, and then have made everything public. If that had been done it could not then be said that the question had not been fully considered.
There is one other point. We have had no evidence to enable us to arrive at a conclusion as to whether this scheme is really the best scheme that could be devised. Even if what I have just said does not come to pass, and even if it is found possible to make the subway and link up the tramways, personally, I doubt very much indeed whether it is wise to try to bring such a great mass of traffic through the very heart of the city. The Bill proposes to make a street that is eighty feet wide. In all probability that is wide enough for the bridge. It is about the width of Westminster Bridge, and would probably carry the tramway and other traffic for years to come, because traffic across a bridge is always moving and there
962
is little obstruction. But to say that there would be sufficient width in the streets in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Churchyard is, I believe, to fail to recognise the most elementary principles laid down by modern authorities in regard to traffic. The main arteries that go through London should be at least 100 feet broad. Anybody who studies this question carefully with maps, as I have done at the time of the inquiry by the Royal Commission, and considers you have got to have a double line of trams and provide for horse traffic and motor traffic, will see that to provide anything less than 100 feet wide as a main artery through London is merely to lay down something that will be inadequate for the requirements of the future. Along the streets to which I have referred there is a constant succession of warehouses with big vehicles stopping constantly in front of them which form a considerable source of obstruction. Therefore no one who really brought forward the best scheme for a bridge to lead straight through London, even if the bridge was limited, as I think it might be, to eighty feet, would say that a street eighty feet wide was broad enough for the increasing traffic of the next sixty, eighty or. 100 years. That raises the question as to whether it would not be very much better if this extra traffic went round St. Paul's. Aldersgate Street is not the only place where the northern trams come into London. The level you have to raise in order to get up to the top of the hill are very awkward, and it would be very much better if you want to get to the Elephant and Castle from the Angel to abandon altogether the idea of trying to drive a tramway direct through the centre of the busiest part of London.
I was very much struck by the difficulty with regard to this skew bridge. It arose from the fact that whoever designed the bridge thought it was necessary to make use of an existing street in the south of London, whereas it would be better not to go there at all. Personally, I believe that if you want to connect St. Paul's Churchyard and the Elephant and Castle you would make a very much better scheme of it if you abandoned altogether that little street and ran the bridge at right angles straight across the river straight on to the Elephant and Castle. I only mention that because I want the House to understand that there are these questions which should have been considered. I have read every word of the evidence before the Committee of Inquiry,

963
but it did not cause me to hesitate in any of the views which I have expressed. Personally, I have a very high opinion of the way in which private Committees do their work in this House. There is no better tribunal; but one requirement is absolutely essential, and that is that the case before the Committee should be fully supported by evidence and fully opposed by evidence. I do not believe it possible for a Committee of this House to arrive at the best conclusion except by a case going through the normal course of being supported and opposed by counsel and witnesses, and experts, so that the Committee may have before it all the views on both sides. This was not the case here. The Bill came forward almost as it is: there was little opposition, except on behalf of a few people whose property would be taken. From the public point of view there was no real criticism of this scheme. The Committee were anxious to get to the bottom of the whole question, and did what they could by asking for information, but they were not in a position to consider the whole question carefully and thoroughly and thrash out all the arguments that can be brought against the scheme. Those were my reasons which if I had had an opportunity at an earlier stage I should have advanced in favour of rejecting the scheme. I question whether the second inquiry has made any alteration in the position. I have read it through and it has not withdrawn from my mind, the objection which I state, namely, that the opposite side never had any real chance of putting this case before the Committee. What was done? The Committee were called to consider the Instruction which this House had passed, to the effect that they were not to sanction any scheme unless they were convinced that it was the best scheme for architectural and other reasons. The Committee proceeded, and the Corporation brought before them three additional witnesses. I do not wish to say a word against those gentlemen, but as to the method adopted in order to get them to give evidence I noticed something in one of the statements made by Sir William Emerson. He said the Corporation had written him a letter asking if he would advise them upon this proposal. He replied that he would prefer to act in conjunction with two others, and he found two who had taken no part in the public discussion, and suggested the names of Mr. Collcutt and Mr. Burnet to act with him. If a full inquiry was going to be
964
made the essential thing was to get the views of some who had taken an interest in the matter and who had opposed the proposal. It was a curious thing to go about looking for somebody who had not opposed it. Surely, if they want to get at the bottom of the minds of those who opposed it, the best way would be to go to them and ask their views, and so enable the Committee to make a thorough inquiry and to cross-examine illustrious artists and other gentlemen opposed to this scheme. If that had been done we should have felt ourselves in much more difficulty in asking the House to disagree with the recommendations of the Committee. It is perfectly clear that the great object of the City Corporation was to get this Bill along as quickly as possible. They wanted to get it through this year, and they knew that if they delayed too long they would not get it through.
They set to work, therefore, to find these three gentlemen who would support their Bill, and brought them before the Committee to give evidence. In doing so these three gentlemen did something which I think this House never intended them to do. They set to work to narrow the instruction down to a very great extent. The first words in their report were whether they had to construe the word "scheme" in the instruction as meaning the official scheme of the Corporation, or any alternative scheme, for a bridge to open at or near St. Paul's Churchyard. I think that the House of Commons the other day took by no means so narrow a view. I think what was in the minds of the House at that time was that this matter required a much fuller consideration— not merely an inquiry as to whether this was the exact point at which St. Paul's Churchyard ought to be entered, but really whether this was the best scheme, taking-into consideration all the questions to-which I have referred.
Mr. MOONEY: Will the hon. Gentleman read the next line of the Report?
Mr. DICKINSON: Yes.
"We have considered the scheme and also some other suggestions. The instructions open three questions: (a) The best adaptation to public needs. (b) The appropriateness of the character of the structure, (c) Architectural design."
On these three points of view, adaptation to public needs, the road which was to come to a point at or near St. Paul's Churchyard, and architectural design, these gentlemen undoubtedly gave their opinions. But one of them, and by no means the least, Mr. Collcutt, says that a

965
bridge giving a vista of St. Paul's could be made, and, in his opinion, would be perfectly practicable; and he went further, in answer to a question by one of the members of the Committee, and said, that it would be easy to pick out a better scheme than this one. If it is easy to pick out a better scheme than this one, I must say that the Committee is not treating the House fairly when they report that this is the best scheme. In view of all these facts, I think it cannot be really said that we have exhausted this question. I ask the House to send this Bill back, first of all in order that the City Corporation may see their way to produce something more worthy of their own position and their own reputation. Everyone admits that the great opportunity of London occurs now. We may miss it; we may take advantage of it. If the Corporation have obtained the views of people of experience who are opposed to the scheme, if they have made themselves responsible for its details, they could come forward with much greater backing behind them, if we are wrong in thinking that a better scheme could be devised.
If there is a chance of devising a better scheme surely it is worth while to delay for one short year. There is no doubt that there will never be a question of this kind of greater importance to London than that which we are considering at the present moment; but is there going to be set up once again in London a great monstrosity to which everyone will object? We are told that when the proposed bridge of the corporation is finished a magnificent building will have to be erected in the place of the present oyster shop in order to give a vista. There is going to be nothing to look at in this scheme at all. Is it not possible to devise some scheme that will be worthy of the reputation of this great city? I cannot help thinking that the City Corporation have failed to put aside their amour propre in this matter. I think if we read between the lines that is what it is. If they were willing to put that aside and to consider the question for another twelve months, and ready to consult the views of architects and others, they would be absolutely invincible if they came back and still asked that their scheme should be carried forward. I do say that it is only just to the House that they should consider the whole question, and not bring forward merely a truncated proposal, connected with no tramway and with even very little probability that it will be con-
966
nected with the tramways, but that they should come forward, after fresh consideration, with a full and complete scheme that the House will thoroughly understand.
Mr. GRANT: I beg to second the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman opposite has dealt with the subject in so full and comprehensive and admirable a manner that it is not necessary that I should detain the House with many observations. In the previous Debate we had on the subject I remember the Chairman of Ways and Means deprecated the recommital of this Bill because it would reflect on the Committee upstairs. One can quite understand the position which the right hon. Gentleman holds after what he said. On the last occasion none of us who opposed the acceptance of this Bill desired in any way to reflect on the work done by the Committee upstairs. From the evidence which was brought before them, most unquestionably they could only have come to the decision they came to. I do not complain of that, it is not our attitude on the present occasion, or certainly it is not my attitude. I do not complain of what the Committee did, but my complaint is against the promoters of this scheme. I do not think that the promoters after the action of the House of Commons, have carried out what was the express desire of the House. The desire of the House was that some other scheme should be considered besides the one scheme which they brought forward, and in that desire the House was undoubtedly backed, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) said, by expert opinion outside the House and, practically, one may say by all the great expert opinion. I interpret the action of the House on that occasion to mean that other schemes should be considered and especially that those schemes should be considered with due regard to the possibility of opening up a vista and a clear view of the magnificence of St. Paul's. I think that that is a desire which is worthy of the House of Commons, and I think we are entitled to ask what has been done in that direction.
Has anything really been done to consider alternative schemes, to consider one alternative scheme? It was only the other day, or a few weeks ago, after practically a few hours' work, that the Committee have again sent back their report to the House. Surely it is amazing to think that in that short space of time they could have carried out what was the spirit and what

967
was the desire of the House of Commons. I venture to suggest that our real desire has not been complied with in any way, and that the attitude of the promoters has been entirely to back one scheme. They have had one scheme in their minds and they had an attitude of antagonism against other schemes, and they have refused in any way to criticise, go into, or give evidence on any except their own particular scheme. One must not forget since we discussed this matter in the House before, at any rate if not the spirit the letter of Instruction has been taken note of by the promoters of the Bill in that they have brought before the Committee the evidence of three architects. I do not think I am wrong in saying that in the evidence they have given those architects have done more or less nothing but back the one scheme. They have given no critical evidence before the Committee on any other scheme whatever. I personally resent, and I think the House ought rather to resent the fact that they should be asked to blindly follow the advice of three architects, however eminent they may be, who are simply backing the wishes of the promoters of this scheme. Far be it from me to question these gentlemen's ability. I am aware they are architects of standing, and that their opinion ought to be paid great attention to, but at the same time I do recollect, and I do know that the opinion they have expressed is the opinion of a small minority among the architects in this country. Whether that is so or not, I say it is beside the point, and it is not the point at issue for the House of Commons.
9.0 P.M.
It is for the House of Commons to decide what it wants with regard to this scheme. It was only the other day that the House expressed the desire that an alternative scheme ought to be considered. My hon. Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) asks me where I get that from. Perhaps I am not attending strictly to the letter of the Instruction, and that I am going more to the spirit of the Instruction, and what I believe was the spirit of Instruction of the House of Commons. I say that the point we have here therefore is a small one, and it is, has the Committee in this small time had the opportunity of discussing any scheme except the one scheme of the Corporation? It is folly to argue that they have. They had no opportunity to do so, and it would be quite impossible for them to do so. It would
968
take months to ascertain the possibility of an alternative scheme, and the cost of an alternative scheme. It is folly to say, and it is contrary to the spirit of the House of Commons Instruction, that in such a short space of time we should again be asked to accept the original scheme and no other scheme. I quite recognise if, as I hope they will, the House rejects the proposal this evening, that undoubtedly a difficulty arises. What is to be done in future? I daresay some hon. Members may say that if you reject the Bill again this evening you are in exactly the same position as you were three or four weeks ago. I think there are several answers to that question. Who is to give the time and the trouble and to bear the cost of going into and putting forward another alternative scheme? I think there are several answers to such a question, but of one thing I feel quite certain, and that is that after the attitude of the House of Commons it is incumbent upon the promoters of the scheme, the original promoters, to treat this question in a far more broad-minded spirit than they have done in the last few weeks.
It seems to me monstrous, and I do not wish to use any unnecessarily strong" language, but it does seem to me monstrous that after the decision of the Houses of Commons the promoters of the Bill should simply go out and choose to take three architects of their own choosing and bring them before the Committee of the House of Commons to back up their scheme. Surely it is reasonable to think that after the action of the House of Commons they might at any rate have asked some independent body, the Institute of Architects, or some other, to nominate some independent committee to give a decision on this point, and to instruct them before they came to a Committee of the House. Would it not occur to them after that decision that they should no longer stage-manage this scheme entirely by itself, and that there ought to be some independent expression of opinion, or outside opinion on this point, and that the Committee should at any rate have had evidence before them, and evidence untainted by the fact that it had been put forward by the original promoters of this Bill? The promoters of this Bill have one desire and one only, and that is to carry the original scheme through whatever the House of Commons may think. I think they have taken far too high-handed an attitude on this point. The scheme is one of almost national importance, and cer-

969
tainly of great magnitude and interest to the whole country. It is not a question which affects London or the City only. I do most sincerely believe that the trustees, with the funds at their disposal, could find some different scheme, some alternative scheme, which would carry out their utilitarian wishes and add enormously to the architectural and artistic reputation of our country, and that would be an enormous addition to the beauty of the Metropolis of this country.
Mr. MORTON: I desire to say a few words on the part of the Corporation of the City of London. We have been told by the mover of the Amendment (Mr. Dickinson) that we never consulted anybody but our own engineer. That is an absolutely incorrect statement which ought never to have been made. After the decision with regard to the Southwark Bridge, we began by consulting the late Sir Benjamin Baker, one of the most eminent engineers in this country. We have our own engineer, but his name is not Baker at all, and he is not dead yet. Sir Benjamin Baker was an independent engineer; since his death his business has been in the hands of his partners. We have been more particularly connected with Mr. Mott. I think it shows the weakness of the attack on this scheme that such incorrect statements should be made.
Mr. MORRELL: Was my hon. Friend incorrect in saying that Mr. Mott is the engineer to the City?
Mr. MORTON: He is not. The engineer to the city is Mr. Sumner, a different man altogether. Mr. Mott was an engineer, acting entirely on his own behalf. He was not an officer of the Corporation in that sense at all. We are told that this scheme emanated from the brain of the present chairman of the committee. I wish to characterise that statement as being as ridiculous as it is incorrect. Mr. Do-money, who is a very excellent chairman, has been chairman only since the middle of January last, and therefore cannot possibly have had much to do with the matter. The chairman last year was Mr. Thomas, who had more to do with it; and the chairman for some years previous to that was Mr. Algar, who had still more to do with it. But it is not correct to say that the scheme emanated from any gentleman's brain whatever. The rule of the Corporation is to have a new chairman every year, and the committee, not the chairman, does the work. Again, it shows the weakness
970
of the attack that such statements should be made in the House of Commons. Then we are told that we are pushing the matter forward with undue haste. We have been, considering it now for over ten years. Six or seven years ago we came to Parliament with a scheme to build a new bridge in. place of the present Southwark Bridge. That scheme we had to withdraw, because it was altered in. Committee upstairs. It was not a very good scheme, and was never much admired by the county council, because we could not very well provide for taking the trams from North to South. Therefore, that scheme dropped, and in the committee we have been considering the matter for more than ten years. Ever since the opening of the Tower Bridge we have been called upon to provide extra accommodation for crossing the river, and the Corporation have been continually considering the matter. It is said that we have not seen the eminent architects who wanted to be heard. As a matter of each they came to see us, and told us what they wanted. We are charged with misleading, but there is no proof of that whatever.
All I have to say with regard to the county council is that we are aware that the public will have tramways whether you like it or not. Therefore, one of the first things we did after calling in Sir Benjamin Baker was to consult the county council as to what they wished in the matter. They have always made it a point in whatever scheme was brought forward that they should be allowed to construct a tramway in some way or other. Now we are told the county council are not pleased. All we know is that they have practically agreed to give us towards carrying out the scheme altogether, without the tramway, £350,000, and their officers have been allowed to give evidence in favour of the scheme. What my hon. Friend altogether forgot is that the county council have taken care not to pledge themselves or their successors to build a tramway at all. They could not very properly do that. As in the case of Blackfriars Bridge, the county council themselves will have to bring in a Bill to get power to construct the tramways. I have sufficient confidence in the county council to think that they mean business, and I do not want any more pledges than we have got. We have been told that we ought to have consulted the architects who made complaints in the papers and elsewhere. That is just what we thought we ought not to do. What we tried to do, and I believe succeeded in doing, was to get eminent gentlemen

971
whose opinions we did not know and who had not openly expressed any opinion at all. In Sir William Emerson, Mr. Collcutt, and Mr. Burnett, I think we found those gentlemen. I will read a letter from Mr. Leonard Stokes to show how thoroughly he agrees with what has been done—a letter which does away with the argument that we ought to have called in those gentlemen. Mr. Stokes writes on July 3rd:—
"St. Paul's Bridge.
"Dear Mr. Domoney.
"I see by the papers that you have appointed three very distinguished gentlemen to help you with the above question. Will you allow me to thank you for the very straightforward way in which you have dealt with this question of architectural help since your Bill received the check in the House of Commons. I hope now everything will go smoothly, and that the past may be forgotten and the hatchet buried.
"Yours very truly,
(Signed) "LEONARD STOKES."
That shows that the gentlemen who were complaining are entirely satisfied with what the Corporation did in the matter. I do not say that the Corporation could have done less, because, after the order of this House, it was necessary that they should submit to the Committee some architectural evidence, leaving it to the House of Commons Committee to get any other evidence they chose. As far as I know they got all that was necessary. Personally, as an architect, I should be only too pleased to throw open the view of St. Paul's altogether. But that must not be done with sacred trust money left for the purpose of taking the people across the river. An extraordinary feature of the agitation is that we have all sorts of proposals to do things, but nobody offers a shilling to pay for the cost, or even to retain the proposed architects. Except so far as we can fit it in with the traffic question, we have no right whatever to spend this trust money on any other object. My own opinion is that our scheme will show up the dome of St. Paul's as well as any other scheme we can think of. If you want to show up St. Paul's properly you must find two or three millions of money; but you will not get anybody to find it for you. Our scheme will show up the side of St. Paul's and the dome. All that you want to show up is the dome and the galleries. The architects have forgotten altogether that the dome is round, and that, looked at whichever way you like, it is pretty much the same. This other scheme would at least cost two millions more money. We have not got that money. We should have to borrow
972
that money. I should be one of the first from the Corporation to move to withdraw this scheme if we were in any way pledged to borrow more money. We have to consider as* honest men and protect the bondholders, to take care that there is plenty of security for their money. Much as I should like to consider the matter in regard to the vista, or any other point of view, I never could agree to a skew bridge. Either from an architectural or engineering point of view, a skew bridge is a monstrosity, and no professional man would ever consent to have his name connected with a skew bridge if he could help it. I admit it has been found necessary in some cases of railway bridges, but it is never allowed if it can possibly be avoided. Therefore, I object altogether to a skew bridge.
Another question we have to consider is the traffic question. The constant problem which we have before us, and I have had many years' experience in respect to it, is what to do with the traffic. We have the best police in the world in the City, and we manage the traffic in such a way that all the other countries of the world are now copying our example. According to a recent census we have coming into the city a hundred thousand vehicles every week-day. We have over a million of people coming in every week-day, 400,000 of whom come to work, and the others for various other reasons. Our constant problem is how to get them in and out with the greatest convenience, so as not to interfere with or endanger the lives of each other. We have succeeded in doing it pretty well, I am glad to say, and we hope to do it even better when we get this Bill. Then, about the width of the bridge. It is eighty feet, and that is everything that is required, and that is all the expense we ought to be asked to go to. Too wide a bridge does harm rather than good. We have done everything that we can, and have considered this question now for a good many years. We have consulted everybody, and our scheme has not only been approved by the Corporation Committee, but approved by the Corporation itself unanimously. The Corporation consists of 232 members, therefore they are not likely to be dictated to by any one person. I should say that this scheme is the one apparently advocated by the Royal Commission on Traffic. I should like to say personally, and from my own humble experience, that I know of no scheme that will better carry out the purpose we want, namely, to let the people

973
in and out of the City. In conclusion, I am glad to know that Mr. Stokes and those who have complained against this Bill have now buried the hatchet and are quite satisfied with our proceedings. I hope the House to-night will confirm the decision of the Committee, which took very much trouble upstairs to inquire independently and fully into the matter.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Corporation have to-night spokesmen who have commended this Bill to the House. I should like, as one who takes some interest in the county council, though I cannot say I am authorised to speak for them, also to commend this Bill to the House. What is the position which we take up? That this scheme is after all the best and the most practical scheme, and the scheme that holds the field. It is the first time, so far as I am aware, that the City Corporation and the London County Council have ever entered into an agreement for a great London improvement in connection with our traffic. If only for that reason I should be sorry indeed if these arrangements were to break down, and if nothing came of the long negotiations between these two important bodies to promote a lasting agreement which I believe will be to the interests of London, of the London citizen, and of London traffic. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill said, amongst other things, in connection with the tramway system that he believed that there was very little possibility that the Northern and the Southern systems would ever be connected by means of this bridge. I do not know what evidence he has got for saying that. I have a good deal of evidence to offer to the contrary.
After all, long negotiations have proceeded between the county council and the Corporation on this very matter of carrying the London tramways across that bridge. If this county council or any other county council seeks to promote a Bill in Parliament by which these tramways can be carried across the bridge, by which the Northern and Southern systems can be joined, I say we have an undertaking from the Corporation—who, after all, are also honourable men— that they will in every way aid us in promoting such a Bill. I believe all parties on the county council, not only the engineer of the county council but also the architect, have both given evidence in favour of this scheme and in favour of this Bill. I have never heard one word of objection come from any Member, on whichever side he sits, to this
974
scheme. I have heard criticism, and possibly argument, that it might not be the most perfect scheme. There are a good many of us who are perfectly willing that this scheme should be well looked into from the architectural point of view. After all, we are all quite desirous of seeing beautiful things in London. After this scheme has gone back to the Committee, after three architects have been consulted, we have now proved, after all, that beauty has been considered as well as utility, the traffic arrangements, and matters of that kind. Three very eminent architects inform this House and the citizens of London that from the architectural point of view it is really a very good scheme.
Mr. DICKINSON: I said that the county council had never had this scheme before it. I really would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the actual scheme has been withheld from the county council, and that the council never had the opportunity, as a council, of discussing it?
Mr. HAYES FISHER: A strong committee of the county council has had the scheme before it. No exception has ever been taken to this committee, which decided to go into negotiations on this scheme with the Corporation. No objection whatever has been taken to the architect and the engineer of the county council being allowed to give evidence in favour of this scheme.
Mr. DICKINSON: Grave objection has been taken to the fact in the council that the committee has consistently abstained from bringing before the council this proposal. I would also explain that the architect of the council was never instructed to appear on behalf of this scheme. He was summoned by a member of the committee at the second inquiry, not the first—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had the opportunity of making his speech.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member that there have been at least half-a-dozen opportunities to anybody who desired to avail themselves of them for questioning the conduct of the county council in allowing their officers to give evidence, and for raising questions of censure or criticism on the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman objects. What is the attitude of the hon. Gentleman and those opposed to this scheme? He says the whole scheme should

975
be sent back; that London could wait another year. London has waited long enough for a new bridge. Our traffic is congested. We must have a new bridge. How long are we to wait for it? Suppose this scheme is sent back. Who are to be further consulted? The hon. Member says, "Let everybody be consulted." Who have we consulted? The Corporation, the London County Council, the officers of the London County Council, three British architects, and a very eminent committee has looked into this question. Is this House going to set aside all this valuable evidence, and is it going to override the Corporation, the London County Council, one of its own committees, and three British architects? I say the evidence is overwhelming in favour of the scheme. I am not certain that this scheme is absolutely perfect, but I say that it holds the field, and I say that this House ought not to override the local authorities entrusted with local government, who give the best of their time to local government, and ought not for a single moment longer to delay this matter, which is most important for the whole of London and for London traffic.
Let me say something on the score of expenditure. Some hon. Members ridicule the idea of one or two millions being a large expenditure. We heard from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morton), who speaks for the corporation, that if an alternative scheme is produced it will add something like another million to the cost of the bridge. Let me say this for the County Council which I represent. We are not prepared to increase our contribution of £350,000 proportionately, and if the House is going to reject this Bill, and is able— I do not think it will be able—to force upon the corporation this far more expensive scheme, I say on behalf of the ratepayers of London we will not increase our amount proportionately. We agreed to £350,000; we give that cheerfully, but we are not prepared to double that amount if the Corporation are compelled by the House to build a bridge which they do not want, and which is to be more expensive by something like a million of money more. We must keep before our minds these commercial considerations, however much we may like to beautify and adorn the Metropolis. We are trustees for the ratepayers, and we say this is the most practical scheme, and it can be combined with a great amount of beauty and ornament.
976
I hope the House will read this Bill a third time, and allow the proceedings to be commenced as soon as possible.
Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: When this question was before the House a few weeks ago I voted that it should be referred back to the Committee. I gave that vote with a thoroughly open mind, and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton), if I do not hear stronger arguments given in favour of this Bill than he has given, I am afraid I shall have to vote with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) for its rejection. I am ready to be convinced. I feel this is a great question, and one that needs grave deliberation before we commit ourselves to it. The only argument I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire—and we all admire his great work upon the City Corporation and the valuable services he has given to that Corporation for many years—was the argument about two millions. If that is his only argument I am not convinced by it. Two millions for this great national scheme! We spend nearly two millions upon a "Dreadnought," and a "Dreadnought" is absolutely out of date in ten years, but here we have a great scheme before us which is to last for ages probably. We are building for the future, for ages to come in the erection of this great bridge which is to be a national monument. In this great City of London we are glad and thankful for the great advances that have been made in architecture, but there have been many great mistakes made in the past because we have been parsimonious with our money in many schemes. I could mention many great buildings in London where great mistakes have been made. I am anxious that the House should not make a mistake in this respect again for the sake of a couple of paltry million. This is a matter which has to last for ages, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Fulham, with his large heartedness and love for London, should speak for the London County Council and say they will not spend a penny or a pound more than absolutely necessary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that statement, and I believe if it was required the people of London would back him up in spending two or three more hundred thousand pounds in encouraging this project.
I want to hear whether it is possible or not to carry the tramways under another scheme. One of the architects says a better scheme might be brought forward,

977
and I should like to know if such a better scheme could not be brought forward. It was remarked it would be impossible under another scheme to carry the tramways through, but in these days of wonderful engineering enterprise anything is possible. We know that a great church near the Mansion House a little while ago when they were extending the South London Railway, had its foundations removed, and I believe at this moment that church is supported on girders. If anyone can prove to me that it is impossible to have tramways carried through under another scheme perhaps I would vote for this Bill, but I want to know is it impossible. I am very anxious about this great national scheme. I think we ought to rise to the occasion and to say throughout this Bill if the strongest argument in its favour is that a better scheme will cost two millions more. Some one told me the other day it would cost £20,000,000. I am pleased to hear a greater scheme can be carried through for £2,000,000, and if we can have tramways under that scheme I will vote for the rejection of this Bill.
Mr. ERNEST LAMB: I had ample opportunity of stating my views on this Bill on the last occasion, and I only rise now to refute some definite dogmatic statements made in this House which to my mind are absolutely inaccurate. First of all, we were told no opportunity was given to the Committee upstairs for considering an alternative scheme. I do not think it was the duty of the promoters to bring forward evidence against their scheme, but be that as it may, the Chairman of the Committee upstairs gave every opportunity to the other side to produce an alternative scheme. I want to read a letter written to the Chairman of the Committee by Professor Beresford Pite asking to be heard, and he wrote, stating:—
"My evidence would be directed to pointing out the architectural possibilities of the alternative suggestion which was published in 'The Times,' connected with my name and referred to in the proceedings before your Committee, etc."
He asked to be heard so that his alternative scheme might be brought before us, and yet we are told that no opportunity was given for the consideration of any other scheme. The hon. Member opposite stated that the architects called in by the Corporation were called to support the particular proposals of the Corporation. I repudiate that statement entirely; they were only called in to give their advice on the matter, and the nature of their report
978
was not known until it was signed and sent in to the Corporation, and, in spite of that fact, hon. Members opposite make the statement we have heard here tonight. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Stephen Collins) has suggested that a tramway scheme might be possible under an alternative scheme. I think it has been generally accepted that that is quite impossible. I will read two or three words from the letter of the engineer to the Dean and Chapter:—
"I should regard the carrying out of such a proposal as certain to cause the most serious damage to the structure of the cathedral."
What stronger words could be used than those? One hon. Member stated that practically it meant that even under the Corporation scheme the tramway system would have to be dropped, because to construct a subway on the eastern side of the cathedral would be dangerous. The engineer to the Dean and Chapter acquiesced in the Clauses of this Bill dealing with that matter. It is not the same thing to build a subway on the eastern side as on the south side. The City Corporation are bound in their improvement scheme to take those warehouses which at present have deep basements which would be almost sufficient to carry the subway required for a tramway system. Therefore the excavations on the east side would be a negligible quantity as compared with what would be required on the south side. A misleading statement has been made to the effect that the present architect to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, though in London at the time, was not called to give evidence before the Committee. The present architect to the cathedral only received his appointment about two years ago, and I ask, would it be fair to call that Gentleman who next year will have to advise the Dean and Chapter when these works are carried out.
The late architect, who has been the architect to the Dean and Chapter for many years, agrees with this Bill, and he gave evidence. He held that position from 1897 up to two years ago and he agrees with the corporation scheme, and yet we are told in the Whip which has been issued against this Bill that the present architent was not called, the inference being that we did not want to call him. Independent architects were called in by the corporation because they felt that in doing this they were adhering not only to the letter but to the spirit of the Resolution of this House. These independent architects reported that in their opinion the scheme

979
adopted by the corporation is the best for the fulfilment of the objects of the Bill, both in respect of architectural design, convenience of traffic, and for the public needs, is the best suited to the character of the site, and that views not less interesting than the suggested vista will be opened up by the proposed scheme of the corporation. The Bill has been upstairs again, and everybody has been heard for and against. The Committee upstairs has reported that the Preamble has been proved, and that this Bill contains the best scheme. The alternative scheme would necessitate the dropping of the tramways, and yet we are asked to drop this Bill after all this expense and years of trouble. I hope this motion for the re-rejection will not receive the support of this House, because I believe this Bill contains the best scheme which the corporation has been able to produce, and I think the House will be well advised to accept the scheme and give the Bill a third reading to-night.
Mr. MOONEY: I think it is only fair that I should correct some of the misstatements which have been made to the House. In the first place the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the rejection of this Bill has developed a very different line of attack against the Bill. I congratulate him upon having changed his line of attack. But with all respect to him I do not think he has been fair to the House. He has attacked the Bill on the ground that the county council and the corporation are not in earnest in regard to the tramway scheme, and he has stated that there is no indication in the Bill that the tramway scheme would be brought in. The hon. Member opposite is one who for many years past has taken a great interest in the traffic problem of London. There is no hon. Member of this House who has a greater knowledge of our procedure and practice in connection with Parliamentary business, and in view of those facts he must know very well that the City Corporation has no power whatever to bring a tramway scheme into a Bill of this kind. Therefore the hon. Member's statement is slightly misleading to the House. I have sat now for a good many years on Parliamentary Committees, and I have never yet known an undertaking given before a Parliamentary Committee of this House by any responsible individual or by any responsible body to be broken. The City Corporation have
980
told us that there is at the present moment an agreement between the City and the county council to build this tramway, and in view of the evidence which the hon. Member gave before the Royal Commission on London traffic, he ought to be the first to doubt the validity of any such agreement. Here you have the City Corporation saying to the county council: "If you promote a tramway within our boundaries not only will we not oppose you but we will help you all we can." I do not think under these circumstances it is fair to tell the House that there is no agreement between the Corporation and the county council and that this matter has not been discussed.
The last time this Bill was before the House it was sent back, and with all respect I say rightly sent back, because the House was of opinion that a sufficient body of evidence had not been heard on the ground of the great danger that it might affect one of your great national monuments. It was sent back with a specific object. The hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion imputed to the Committee that instead of trying to meet the wishes of the House we went upstairs and simply reaffirmed our decision. The moment the House came to that decision, on behalf of the Committee, I instructed the clerk of the Committee to write to the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects and pointing out that, in view of the decision of the House we should like him to come and assist the Committee by giving evidence. The Secretary of the Royal Institute of British Architects wrote, as follows:—
"In reply to your letter of yesterday, the President of the Royal Institute desires me to say that he has every wish to assist the Committee on the above Bill in its deliberations, and if the Chairman desires him to do so and will kindly inform him when he wishes our witness or witnesses to appear, he will have pleasure in causing their attendance, at the same time, the President desires me to ask you to be good enough to inform the Chairman of the Committee that he has just been told by a member of the Corporation that the Corporation propose to appoint three architects to advise them on their scheme before it is again laid before Parliament. If this step is taken it entirely meets the views which the Royal Institute has expressed from the beginning of the discussion of the new bridge; for the only point that the Royal Institute has ever urged, either upon the Corporation or upon Parliament, has been that as the problem is, in the main, an architectural one, it should be prepared under architectural advice of adequate authority."
Without any further communication from me, as soon as the names of the architects were published in the papers, the President of the Royal Institute wrote the following letter:—
"The President of the Royal Institute has asked me to say that he will be glad if you will kindly inform the

981
Chairman of the Select Committee on the St. Paul's Bridge that the announcement of the Corporation's appointment of three eminent architects to advise them upon their proposals, entirely meets the views of the Royal Institute. From the beginning of the controversy the Royal Institute has confined itself to pressing that some such steps should be taken. Now, that these gentlemen are appointed, the Institute has no further views to express in the matter, and the Chairman will probably not consider it necessary to ask for the attendance of any of our representatives when the scheme prepared by the three architects is laid before the Committee."
In the face of that statement, I do not think it is quite fair either to the Committee or to the promoters to say we attempted to go behind the expressed wish of the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite made a statement that one of the architects who signed the report was against the scheme, and in the circular issued against the Bill they state that Mr. Collcutt said it was easier to kick out a better scheme. I quite admit Mr. Collcutt said that, but he gave about sixty or seventy answers, and I am perfectly certain, if I were to pick out one answer which the hon. Gentleman opposite might give in regard to a Bill of this kind, I could show, he said, directly opposite that which he intended to say. I have it on the authority of Mr. Collcutt that what he said was that the cost of providing what he considered an alternative scheme would be absolutely prohibitive. It was not a question of one or two millions. Mr. Collcutt, after all, signed the report that this was the best scheme. The hon. Gentleman went on to say the present scheme was unsatisfactory as regards traffic. The only person who appeared before the Committee upstairs on the question of traffic was Professor Beresford Pite. He gave us a very interesting exposition of his views, but he admitted, although he had prepared an alternative scheme, he had done so without any knowledge of the geological strata. He told me he was not a traffic expert, and had drawn up his plan from the Ordnance Map. If it is a question of traffic conditions, personally I would rather take the views of Sir William Nott-Bower, Commissioner of City Police, or the Assistant-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, both of whom appeared before us. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think I would prefer the views of those two gentlemen either to those of himself or those of Professor Beresford Pite.
I really think the hon. Gentleman who prepared this circular might have been a little more frank to the House. They say the present architect of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, although in Lon-
982
don at the time, was not called to give evidence. Is that a fair statement? You have a Bill promoted which the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's think may injure the fabric. They go to the promoters and say, "We think we are going to be damaged, but we want to agree with you," and the promoters say, "We want to agree with you." They come to an agreed Clause, but they say, "In the event of your carrying out your work and any question of damage occurring, the question of damages must be referred to the court of arbitration to be set up." In that event one of the most important witnesses on behalf of the Dean and Chapter would be the present architect of St. Paul's, and I do not think in fairness he could have attended before the Committee upstairs. The late architect, who is, after all, more familiar with the fabric of St. Paul's, did appear. The opponents of the Bill, in saying the present architect had not been called, set out what purports to be a letter of the architect. I say, "what purports to be a letter" advisedly, because one taking up this document would think the letter is set out in full. It is nothing of the kind. The most important part of the letter has been left out. It relates to the scheme as it originally appeared in "The Times," and it says:—
"The fact that the Dean and Chapter have done their best to safeguard the cathedral against the dangers threatened by a subway connected with the bridge must not be construed into the admission that they are favourable to any scheme whatever. They would still regard the old scheme as full of risks to the building."
There the letter stops. I notice the next paragraph in the original is left out:—
"While the construction of a subway near the south side of the Cathedral (which the new scheme might involve) is, in my opinion, and, I gather, in that of the promoters of the Bill too dangerous to be even contemplated."
I think those who quoted the letter of the architect might have quoted it fully. I will now answer the point of the hon. Gentleman opposite on the question of tramways. It was stated on the authority of Professor Beresford Pite that the alternative scheme would only cost £200,000, but the corporation on the authority of the President of the Valuers Society of London, estimate it will cost £1,730,000. If you carried forward the alternative scheme, it would not be possible in the opinion of the experts who came before us, the engineer of the City of London, the engineer of the county council, and all the other experts—to construct any road north and south of London. You must run the tramway up the new bridge before you can get them to the

983
subway. I tried to meet the objection by suggesting that as soon as they got across the bridge they should dip down and by a subway run up to the eastern end of St. Paul's. The engineers assured me you could not dip down there with any safety, because it would be something like double the most sudden drop you have at present, and that would be impossible. The late architect of St. Paul's and the three architects called on behalf of the corporation, all stated, on the question of bringing the tramways to the southern side, that, whilst as an engineering feat it would be quite possible to construct a subway which when once in position might instead of being a source of danger to the Cathedral be a source of strength to it, yet they, as responsible engineers, would not take the risk which St. Paul's would be in during the process of construction. If you could construct a subway down the river in one piece and then take it up to St. Paul's and put it down at once, there would be no danger, but the danger to St. Paul's during the course of construction was so great that they unanimously reported that under no circumstances would they be responsible for such work.
I do not know whether that meets the hon. Gentleman's point, but, at any rate, that was the evidence before the Committee An hon. Member opposite talked in a very curious way of the action of the City Corporation in appointing the architects, and laughed at the idea that it had been thought advisable to select men who had not been connected with the public controversy on the subject. But what would have been said if the Corporation had chosen architects who had publicly expressed themselves strongly in favour of their own scheme? Surely the only proper method to go upon was to call in men who had not expressed any view and were able to bring fresh minds to bear upon the matter and to consider all the details of the case quite apart from the controversy going on in the papers?
The House of Commons is quite competent to throw out this Bill if it will, but if it does throw it out it will be doing great harm not only to the representatives of the City of London but to the question of the provision of traffic facilities which are undoubtedly necessary. Should the House throw the Bill out it will be very hard on the two representative authorities which have agreed as to the necessity of this scheme. The House, in discussing a ques-
984
tion of this kind, ought occasionally, apart from the general policy of a question, to place some reliance on the people whom it deputes to discuss details. If the House comes to the conclusion to-night that this scheme ought to be thrown out it will, no doubt, be perfectly within its rights, but it ought not to overlook the fact that there are many intricate details which have had to be considered and which could only be properly considered by seeing the plans and by hearing the witnesses personally. I am afraid the House, with the best will in the world, may come to a false decision by simply being swayed by general statements made by people on ex parte evidence who have not the full facts before them. Under these circumstances I ask the House to say that this Committee which sat for a considerable period of time fully carried out the intentions of the House by calling in as experts people competent to advise them. The Committee has reported with a full sense of responsibility that it considers this the best scheme that can be carried out, and I ask that the Bill be read a third time.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. ESSEX: I am in the position of being a member of the Committee who disagreed with his colleagues. We were asked to reconsider the scheme by Instruction of this House with a view to its bearing on the great problems of London traffic and the stability of St. Paul's Cathedral. But I may say, as the result of my experience as a member of the Committee, we had really only one definite scheme before us. Another was shadowed out but nobody could say that it was definitely or clearly put forward. The previous speaker, in the course of his remarks, referred on three separate occasions to an agreement between the City Corporation and the London County Council with regard to the traffic coming across the bridge, but there was never anything like a real presentation of the case in regard to that. I object to all the schemes, and I do not believe that the scheme so eloquently spoken to by Mr. Beresford Pite would satisfy those who advocate the Corporation scheme. The latter scheme has been defended on the ground that any alternative scheme would place upon us the obligation of laying tramways in the future in a subway. May I say at once I am convinced that there never ought to be any line of tramways carried into the hill on which St. Paul's stands while that structure itself is in the comparatively unstable state of

985
equilibrium which the engineers describe it to be in. We have to make up our minds, on whatever form or line this traffic question may be solved, the tramways, when they come, must travel on the surface, and that will lay upon us the necessity of providing a much wider bridge and thoroughfare than this or any other scheme offers.
With regard to the agreement which apparently exists between the two great London governing authorities I would like to remark that, in all our discussions, not so much as a section of a drawing, plan, or detail was laid before us. With regard to the engineering question, it is rather significant that one of the leading authorities —the technical expert attached to the Cathedral—was never called before us, and it was only when I asked for the superintending architect of the governing authority of the greatest city in the world that he was forthcoming. The first question I put to him was had he been invited to consider this scheme. His reply was in the negative; he has never had it before him. That takes me back to one of the biggest Royal Commissions ever appointed in recent years by this House—a Commission which sat in 1903 to discuss the whole question of London traffic. That Commission laid it down as a necessity for dealing with the traffic of London that no thoroughfare of first-class importance should be less than 140 feet wide, and the plans were in the library for great schemes for running a huge arterial thoroughfare north and south across the Thames. Although that line of traffic deviated somewhat, so far as the city portion is concerned, yet it left the Elephant and Castle and its termination reached the "Angel" at Islington. That scheme was for an arterial thoroughfare of 180 feet in width, and they provided underground subways, where there were further lines of mechanical transport. After all these years and the Town Planning Act, with all the discussion upon that, we have this scheme brought before us. I have one scheme here before me. It was the scheme brought in in 1909, and it shows first a skew bridge proposed across the Thames by the City Corporation, and secondly, as to the north half of the St. Paul's Bridge scheme, it is part and parcel of the scheme the Committee of these days threw out. The hon. Member for Fulham (the right hon. Hayes Fisher) made one or two remarks. He said the county council had this scheme before them; we have no evidence of that.
986
The first man selected or invited by the City Corporation may be described, with every respect, as a thick-and-thin supporter. He goes and he selects or associates with himself two other able gentlemen. When I saw the name of at least one of these gentlemen I felt bound to listen to him, and all of us felt bound to listen to him on artistic matters relating to London. It was suggested that there should be a vista by a great thoroughfare leading up to St. Paul's, and should be about 160 feet wide. Now in the scheme of the Royal Commission we have a very similar road 140 feet wide, and while the witness said he inclined for the moment to the Corporation scheme he felt that it wanted a vista, and he therefore proposed that in the near future one should be built somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Peel statue. I said to him, "Then you do not consider this the best scheme possible?" "No," said he. In his heart he disapproved this scheme. It is wholly unworthy of the great City of London. The third gentleman came with high credentials. I asked him whether he thought the present view of St. Paul's, seen from the river, standing as it were on a great cliff of warehouses and walls, was to be preferred to one which would uncover the south portico or not. That gentleman committed himself to the very daring opinion that these walls and warehouses rather added to the mystery of the sacred building, and led persons to think what might foe behind it.
Passing on to the architects, I would only make this remark regarding the superintendent architect of the London County Council. He gave in his evidence before the Royal Commission that due regard should be paid to the question of perspective. No one in this discussion has remarked a letter of 10th June, which is a reprint of "The Times" of 2nd June. It was signed by the names of those who carried great weight, and I think had qualifications of those whom the Parisians of the eighteenth century called together when they set out to remodel their city and give them a commercial and artistic metropolis, which the Hausmanising of Paris did give. The gentlemen who signed the letter were Mr. Ernest George, Sir George Frampton, Mr. Reginald Blomfield, Mr. John S. Sargent, Sir Laurence Alma Tadema, Sir Thomas Brock, Mr. John Belcher, and Sir Aston Webb. We are told that only three were invited by the City Corporation. There were, I think, other invitations—
Mr. MORTON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who were those invited? I was on the committee, and I say it is incorrect.
Mr. ESSEX: I am exceedingly glad to have that remark. I have reason to believe that in the way these things are done other architects have been approached, and they could not see their way to bless this scheme. With regard to the engineering question no one has stated that there were some great engineers who dealt with this matter a few years ago. Sir John Wolfe Barry, Sir Benjamin Baker, and Mr. Barclay Parsons. They gave it as their opinion that no scheme of a less ample character than that which was outlined in the Royal Commission would serve for any length of time the needs of London traffic. The scheme submitted by the great City Corporation is a good scheme within the limit of their funds. After all we must remember they are the trustees of public funds. What we claim is that they should co-operate with the London County Council in a larger measure, possibly with the Treasury in some measure and we should have a truly Imperial scheme. They have £160,000 a year to deal with within the near future, and they can very well afford to do it. The London County Council have already committed themselves in Kings-way, which is the latest of their works, to a minimum width of 100 feet. This bridge is only eighty feet. Someone says a bridge does not need to be as wide as a street. That is true, but for a great portion of its length this bridge is a street. We have been called derisively a nation of shopkeepers. If this scheme passes we shall deserve that title to the full. I do not for a moment hesitate to believe as a Londoner that if in the possession of this magnificent gift of the genius of our people in the years which have gone by, merely out of respect to a draper's warehouse, the peoples of Europe know that this splendid Cathedral is for ever to be hidden away and the approaches to it are merely to be seen, as it were, by a glance over the elbow as one hurries by, they will smile at the supineness of a people who were so utterly unable to appreciate that which the Fates had given.
Mr. BALFOUR: Everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down must have become fully conscious that he attacked this scheme from an entirely different point of view from that which was adopted in the previous
988
Debate. He does not like this scheme, neither does he like, as I understand, the scheme which gave a direct vista of the south front of St. Paul's. That is not the way he would deal, were he omnipotent, with the great traffic problem of finding a thoroughfare north and south across the river. He wants to reject this scheme, not because he has a better one or because the House of Commons desires a different one, but because he thinks it may be possible to find something which is more suited to the dignity of the Metropolis of the Empire than the scheme which has now twice been dealt with by the Committee upstairs. I hope the House will feel that it is impossible to defer the settlement of this most important question until every human being is satisfied, and every scheme has been discussed from every point of view, that a scheme should be advanced to deal with this complicated matter. We have, after all, to deal with it as practical men. We have to deal with it from the point of view of finance—not the most important, but still important. One hon. Gentleman said this was an Imperial matter, and we ought to deal with it in an Imperial manner, but he did not suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should find the money.
Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: Part of it.
Mr. BALFOUR: Has the hon. Member the Chancellor's consent to that view? Does he seriously think that the Empire is going to find money in order to broaden the streets of the City of London or a great thoroughfare across the river? It is a London question, and though London ought never to be oblivious of its great position as the City of the Empire, to say, as the hon. Gentleman does, that £2,000,000 does not matter, is really to ask the House of Commons to treat the ratepayers of London in a manner in which they would not treat the ratepayers or taxpayers of any other part of the kingdom. But I agree, though we cannot ignore the financial question, it is not the only question. As regards traffic, I feel that I cannot say anything of great value to the House, and I may be allowed perhaps to endorse what fell from the chairman of the committee He appealed to the House on that particular question, and on that particular aspect of the question, in language which I think must have carried weight with everybody. He said: "We have examined all the details in a manner which it is impossible to present to an assembly like this. We have heard the witnesses. We

989
have had stated to us the question in all its aspects, and the judgment we have arrived at, be it good or bad, must be better, or at all events better founded, than that of an assembly which has not heard the evidence, which must find it quite impossible to deal with these particularly complex considerations, and which can only deal with them through the broad issues which are laid before it." What are the broad issues? What moved the House, I am quite certain, to remit the Bill to the Committee was not the question whether a street should be widened, or whether the proposal in the Bill was a good or a bad way of attaining what we all desire, namely, better communication between North and South London. What moved the House was the æsthetic aspect of the question, and that alone.
If it had not been the question of the beauty of the Metropolis, I do not think there would have been a voice raised in the House on the Report that the Bill should go back to the Committee, and I do not believe that after the Committee have given the Bill further consideration any Amendment would have been moved on the Third Reading. I believe I can claim that I have pleaded in this House for a wider and broader consideration of those questions relating to the æsthetic beauty of London. I think that things still unsolved, not only in my time, but in the time of our immediate ancestors, are perfectly scandalous. If the hon. Gentleman opposite has £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to dispose of, he will find that an enormous amount could be done in removing some of the eyesores which utterly disfigure some of the fairest sights in the Metropolis. I believe that the carrying out of that work would not cost £2,000,000. You would do much more for St. Paul's and the vista of St. Paul's by removing an atrocious iron structure than by a good many more ambitious and more expensive schemes. I will make a further concession to the House. I do not agree with what was implied by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Essex), who stated that London should take Paris as its model. I am far from thinking that if we had the power and if we had the money it is what we ought to do; but I do agree that, while London gains immensely by the evidence of natural development everywhere visible, we do err undoubtedly by not having a sufficient number of those vistas, those great street effects, which are to be found in some modern metropolis. We err, no
990
doubt, in not having a sufficiency of them. While we ought to have every rational opportunity for improving those architectural street vistas, do you really think that that end would be attained by the plan which the hon. Gentleman does not really approve of, and which many of those who have spoken do not approve of—by having a bridge diagonally across the river and leading up to St. Paul's. I am not going into that aspect of the question, but I do ask hon. Gentlemen to study what took place in the Debate the other day.
Sir Christopher Wren did not think that the north and south sides were the proper points for a vista. He thought that the east end and the west end were the proper points on which a vista should abut. He deliberately arranged such streets as did go north and south —I have looked at the plans myself—so that they did not proceed towards the north and south sides of the transept. That was not his view of the way St. Paul's should be treated architecturally. I wish that it was practicable to carry out Wren's own idea as to the way in which that immortal monument of his genius should be used for architectural purposes. But at all events this can be said with perfect confidence, that the way that was proposed in this House and was remitted to the Committee was not the way which would ever have commended itself to Sir Christopher Wren. But I feel that it would be trespassing unduly on the House if I plunged them at this time of night into æsthetical considerations. I will only most respectfully say this. The matter was debated at length the other day. The House, by a majority, referred the matter back to the Committee. The Committee have reconsidered it. They have called architectural experts who, before they gave their evidence, received general approval as persons competent to deal with this problem. The Committee have dealt with the matter after hearing these architectural witnesses, and they have given their conclusions to the House again. I venture to think—though I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Committee that the House has the absolute right to deal with this matter as it likes— that the House, which is not essentially an artistic body, will take upon themselves a very great responsibility, after all the investigations to which the matter has been subjected, if now on the Third Reading they throw out a Bill which by the admission of all will do so much for the convenience and the development of London.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease), rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 104.

Division No. 282.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Agnew, Sir George William

Elverston, Sir Harold

Logan, John William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Lundon, Thomas

Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Fell, Arthur

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Armitage, R.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Maclean, Donald

Ashley, W. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macmaster, Donald

Astor, Waldorf

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Forster, Henry William

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Furness, Stephen

Macpherson, James Ian

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

Gardner, Ernest

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Baldwin, Stanley

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

M'Callum, John M.

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

Gill, A. H.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Martin, J.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Meagher, Michael

Barnes, G. N.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Barnston, Harry

Greene, W. R.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Mooney, J. J.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gretton, John

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

Beale, W. P.

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

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

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Gulland, John W.

Mount, William Arthur

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hackett, John

Munro, Robert

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Needham, Christopher T.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamersley, A. St. George

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Beresford, Lord C.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Bigland, Alfred

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Bird, Alfred

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Black, Arthur W.

Harwood, George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Dowd, John

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Ogden, Fred

Brady, J. P.

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Helme, Norval Watson

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Brunner, J. F. L.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Butcher, J. G.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Carlile, sir Edward Hildred

Hills, J. W.

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hinds, John

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Cator, John

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

Cautley, H. S.

Hohler, G. F.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Cave, George

Holt, Richard Durning

Pollard, Sir George H

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Clough, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, George Heynes

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Rainy, A. Rolland

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

John, Edward Thomas

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, William

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Reddy, Michael

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crooks, William

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Crumley, Patrick

Kelly, Edward

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Kerry, Earl of

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Dawes, James Arthur

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Delany, William

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Denman, Richard Douglas

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Dixon, C. H.

Lansbury, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Doughty, Sir George

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Duffy, William J.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, Arthur H.

Rowlands, James

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Sutton, John E.

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Swift, Rigby

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knuttford)

Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Talbot, Lord E.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Sheehy, David

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Williamson, Sir A.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Stanier, Beville,

Walters, John Tudor

Wolmer, Viscount

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Worthington-Evans, L.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Watt, Henry A.

Stewart, Gershom

Wheler, Granville C. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Morton and Sir F. Banbury.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

NOES.

Adamson, William

Hardie, J. Keir

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Addison, Dr. C.

Harmsworth, R. L.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Hayward, Evan

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Richards, Thomas

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

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Hodge, John

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Robinson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

Brace, William

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

Robinson, Sidney

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rowntree, Arnold

Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk, N.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jowett, F. W.

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Snowden, P.

Chancellor, H. G.

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clynes, J. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

M' Curdy, C. A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Ellis William (Eifton)

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

Wadsworth, J.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Molteno, Percy Allport

Walton, Sir Joseph

Essex, Richard Walter

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Webb, H.

Ferens, T. R.

Morgan, George Hay

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Morrell, Philip

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Fleming, Valentine

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wiles, Thomas

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Neilson, Francis

Wilkle, Alexander

Glanville, Harold James

Norman, Sir Henry

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Goldstone, Frank

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

Greenwood, Granville, G. (Peterborough)

Nuttall, Harry

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

O'Grady, James

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Palmer, Godfrey M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Grant and Mr. Dickinson.

Hancock, J. G.

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

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSUEANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Postponed proceedings resumed on Clause 9.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
If the obvious interpretation of this Subsection is correct it is surely the most extraordinary provision in the Bill. It
994
proposes to give a reduced benefit to the1 insured person who is over fifty years of age at the date of making any claim for benefits and has not paid at least 500 weekly contributions. For instance, a man joining at forty-two years of age may make his first claim shortly after reaching fifty, but, not having paid 500 weekly contributions, if this Sub-section is retained, he will not be entitled to benefit, whereas if he made his first claim thirteen months after becoming an insured person, he would be entitled to 10s. a week. After having paid only fifty-three or fifty-four premiums he would be entitled to the full benefit of 10s., but he might have paid 499 premiums, and never drawn any benefit, and then be entitled to only 7s. a week.

995
Surely that is altogether indefensible, and I shall await with interest the explanation from the Treasury Bench.
Mr. McKENNA: Under the scheme of this Bill the contributor who gets the greatest advantage is the oldest man who comes in, and the one who gets the smallest advantage is the youth of sixteen. If a man of fifty went to an ordinary friendly society and wished to obtain the benefits which the Bill now gives, he would have to pay something like Is. a week. The Committee will remember that the contributor pays 4d., the employer 3d., and the State the equivalent of 2d., so that the man of fifty gets for a contribution of 9d. the equivalent of 1s. That is under the Bill as it stands. If the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried, it would raise the necessary contribution from 1s. to 1s. 1d., so that the man would be getting for 9d., of which he pays only 4d., the equivalent of a weekly contribution of 1s. 1d. There must come a moment when the advantage of the senior contributor stops. Wherever you draw the line you will be able to point to the hard case of the man just above the line as compared with the easy case of the man just below the line. But the line must be drawn somewhere. The hon. Member will be able to make the same criticism wherever, in any scheme or Bill, the line might be drawn. What the Committee has to consider is whether the man of fifty is or is not badly treated under the Bill as it now stands? He is, as I have explained, getting the equivalent of a contribution of 1s., and I do not think the Committee ought to be asked to go further and to give him the equivalent of a contribution of 1s. 1d. at the expense of the other contributors. The hon. Member must remember that a Resolution of the House having been passed limiting the contribution of the State, the whole of this additional charge would fall upon the other contributors to the scheme. Is it fair to ask the other contributors who are reaping, all of them, less advantage than the older men, to forego still further their small advantages to give a still greater additional benefit to the older men?
Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just set down has spoken to us of the benefits conferred by the Bill as it now stands. I thought the general impression was that the man who became an employed contributor was going to get 10s. per week during sickness? We have
996
been told that upon the shoulders of the younger members of the community there must be placed some portion of the burden taken off the shoulders of the older men. We were told that the younger men were to make some sort of contribution in respect of those who were older. We have been told in the most picturesque speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham, that while the burden which would have been imposed upon the friendly societies if the State had left them unassisted would have been intolerable, the State was going to put its shoulder to the wheel and take upon itself the burden and the task of rejuvenating the nation. A large amount of misconception has been created by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. Many people had not the slightest notion that the benefit was going to be reduced from 10s. to 7s. per week when the claimant was over fifty years of age. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn pointed out the hardship of the case of the man who has contributed for nearly 500 weeks. He gets only 7s. per week, whilst the man who has contributed only fifty-three or fifty-four weeks gets 10s.
Mr. SNOWDEN: The same man!
Mr. FORSTER: The same man. The First Lord of the Admiralty has pointed out that this is one of those cases of hardship which it is almost impossible to escape. The First Lord has spoken almost entirely with respect to the compulsory contributor. I want to touch upon the position of the voluntary contributor. I think the latter case is one not met by anything the First Lord said. Under Clause 5 the voluntary contributor, if he comes in within six months after the Bill comes into operation, if he is under the age of forty-five, pays the same contribution as the compulsory contributor. If he is over forty-five he pays a premium appropriate to his age. There is no 4d. a week about that! The contribution of the voluntary contributor of forty-five or forty-six years of age will be nearer 1s. A shilling a week for what? For 10s. a week benefit! For how long? Until he is fifty! He will have a period of four and a half years only, as I read the Subsection, during which he will be entitled to the sickness benefit of 10s. per week. In four and a-half years he will have reached the age of fifty. When he reaches that age, although he has paid not the flat rate of 4d. per week, but 1s. per week, he

997
will only receive benefit at the rate of 7s. per week. This proposal is to all intents and purposes for the first ten years. Where the contributor has paid 500 weekly contributions I suppose he will receive 10s. per week sickness benefit, but the voluntary contributor who comes in after forty-five never has a chance of paying the weekly contributions for ten years, for he reaches the age of fifty in five years or less, and, therefore, he never has had the opportunity of paying ten years' weekly contributions, which would entitle him to 10s. after he reached the age of fifty. I may be wrong in my reading of the Sub-section. I put in a manuscript Amendment in order we may have a discussion upon it, and if I am wrong my misconception can be cleared up. I ask the Chancellor to tell me how this Sub-section is going to operate in the case of the voluntary contributor?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What the hon. Member has stated is certainly not the intention of the Government, but I think there is some doubt about the drafting of the Clause, and I see an Amendment has been put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) to make that perfectly clear. The intention of the Government is correctly interpreted by that Amendment, and we propose to put the matter right, not exactly in the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but in some words which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has got here. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn raised another point, but my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty dealt with that. It is not the intention at all that a voluntary contributor should pay his 1s. and have his benefit cut down when he reaches the age of fifty.
Mr. SNOWDEN: We had not the advantage of hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer down here, and I do not know whether he dealt with my criticism or not. The First Lord of the Admiralty never tame within one hundred miles of touching my criticisms, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain my point. It was the case of a man who, at the beginning of this Act, will be forty-one or forty-two years of age, and having contributed, will be entitled to sick pay of 10s. a week. Suppose he is an insured person for just under ten years, and never comes on the fund at all, at fifty years of age he would
998
not have the benefit he had some years before, and he would be entitled only to 7s. a week.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the same point I have just replied to. I am sorry I did not make myself heard. What the hon. Member for Blackburn has just stated is not our intention, and we shall put the matter right.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that a man who has been a good member is not going to be penalised?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the word "is" ["is over fifty years of age"] and to insert instead thereof the words "becomes an employed contributor within one year after the commencement of this Act, and is at the date of so becoming an employed contributor."
Those words will meet the case of the hon. Member for Blackburn and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. The words "at the date of any claim by him for such benefit" will be left out, and I also propose to insert the words "at the date of any claim by him for such benefit." The Sub-section will then read as follows:—
"(3) Sickness benefit shall be reduced in accordance with Table C in Part 1 of the fourth Schedule to this Act in the case of any insured person who becomes an employed contributor within one year after the commencement of this Act, and is at the date of so becoming an employed contributor over fifty years of age and has not at the date of any claim by him for such benefit paid at least five hundred weekly contributions."
I think that will make the meaning clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Sir RUFUS ISAACSmoved, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "at the date of any claim by him for such benefit."
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The Government seem to have gone half way towards meeting the Amendments which are on the Paper, and one which I was intending to propose, but they do not seems to have gone all the way. The Government get rid of the first and greatest diffi-

999
culty, namely, that the age of fifty was to be calculated from the date of claim. It is now to be calculated, as I gather, within one year from the date of the Act. That is a great improvement, because it will remove a large number of inequalities which would otherwise exist. As the Bill was drawn, those who claimed the latest would receive less benefit than those who claimed earlier, assuming they entered into insurance at the same age. Still, the Government have not gone far enough, because they put in the qualification, "those who have not paid 500 contributions at the date of the claim are to be reduced." It seems to me that still contains most of the objections which the original Clause had. If a person is over fifty at the date of entry into insurance, then I agree he ought to have a lower rate of benefit, but if, on the other hand, he is under fifty at the date of entry into insurance, it does not seem to me the date of the claim has anything whatever to do with it. The date of entry is the governing point, and not the date of the claim. Under the Amendment moved by the Attorney-General, unless both at the date at entry he is under fifty and 500 contributions have been paid—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the reverse.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This being one of those manuscript Amendments sprung upon the Committee at the last moment, a copy of which has not been handed to the Members on. this side of the House, it is extremely difficult to follow it. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he should postpone the consideration of it until we have had an opportunity of ascertaining exactly what it means. It does not seem to me fair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day objected to a manuscript Amendment, and, in one of those expansive moments of his, brushed it on one side. If we could brush this aside, and refer it to a later period, we might be able to understand it. There are, as it appears, two things, one of which is objectionable and the other of which I agree is a great improvement to that on the Paper; that is to say the date is now to be the age of entry into the insurance. But you have still an extra qualification.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman completely misconceives the effect of the Amendment. It is quite the other way about. All we have done here is to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentle-
1000
man the Member for East Worcestershire, although we have put it in language which is better from our point of view. It is not the case that we introduce another qualification which we say is if he has paid 500 contributions he gets full pay.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But there is still another point. I have an Amendment on the Paper, and I would ask the Government are they willing to accept that portion which limits it to his first becoming an insured person either under this Act or as a member of any society which shall become an approved society under this Act?
The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss that now.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If it is in order to limit the benefits to those who have paid 500 contributions it must also be in order to extend it to those who have done other things, such as become a member of other societies which subsequently become approved societies. If the Chancellor thinks it is out of order I will not say any more, but I should like to make one or two remarks upon it.
The CHAIRMAN: It has already been ruled out of order by the Deputy-Chairman. It has been laid down that a member of a friendly society which subsequently becomes an approved society will not be specially exempt from deductions or post-ponements under this Act.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not wish to argue the question, but this is a totally different question to disqualification.
Mr. FORSTER: I want to make sure that the case of the voluntary contributor is covered. I am, of course, bound to accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is covered, but my recollection of the form of words read out by the Attorney-General is that they have no reference to the position of the voluntary contributor at all.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I point out that there is no reduction at all in the case of the voluntary contributor. He has paid the full rate and there is consequently no reduction in his case such as there is in the case of the employed contributor.
Mr. FORSTER: I am, of course, bound to accept the assurance of the Government. Of course if it is found later on that some

1001
doubt arises an opportunity will be afforded of solving it. May I inquire how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to go to-night.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We sat rather late last night and there is perhaps a general desire we should get away early to-night. If we get Clause 9 I think we might then report Progress.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to ask as to the position of the man aged forty-eight at the commencement of this Act. As the Bill is drafted, I understand it will be impossible for him to make 500 contributions. In order to get full pay he would have to wait till he is fifty-six. To pay his 500 contributions would take eight or nine years of his life. When we see the Amendment on the Paper it may be all right. In the case of the man of forty-eight it is impossible for him to pay his contributions.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The man of forty-eight is all right. The 500 has nothing to do with the matter.
Mr. R. COOPER: I want respectfully to submit that we should have all the Amendments down on the Paper. We do not know what we are discussing in the Amendment the Government are putting forward.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not know whether it would be proper for me to offer an explanation of the Chancellor's Amendment, but I propose to do so. I do it for this reason: I want to know whether the explanation I have is the correct explanation. I certainly do not want to be voting for an Amendment under a misapprehension of what it is. The Clause as it stands places a limit on the benefits of those who are over fifty at the time they make a claim.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Clause as it stands seems to me to limit the benefit of those over fifty at the time they make the claim. I am bound to believe the evidence of my own sight. That applies for all time unless some Amendment is made. The Amendment which the Chancellor makes and which we have not on the Paper—I quite appreciate the difficulty of hon. Members opposite in dealing with an Amendment which they have not in writing—seems to me to propose that this
1002
limitation shall be confined to those who are over fifty at the time this Act is passed or within one year after the Act is passed.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "then" ["and has not then paid"], and insert instead thereof the words "at the date of any claim by him for such benefit."
Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I beg to move in Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "and maternity benefit" ["the rate of sickness benefit and maternity benefit."]
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a reasonable Amendment. I do not think maternity benefit ought to be reduced.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "college" ["has been spent in a school or college"], to insert the words "in indentured apprenticeship or otherwise under instruction without wages."
This Sub-section (4) gives some privileges to those who are at school or college or otherwise completing their education, but it only gives them in the case of scholastic education. That is not the only kind of education. To my mind anyone who is training himself for the work of his life should be given similar privileges. In order to achieve that object I move the wider form of words.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is a reasonable Amendment. I do not think that in cases of this kind there ought to be a reduction.
Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "or fifteen shillings for maternity benefit."— [Mr. Stephen Walsh.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again to morrow (Wednesday).
And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  Overseers and Income Tax.
  Overseers and Income Tax.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  LAUNDRY WORKERS.
  LAUNDRY WORKERS.
  County Longford (Population).
  County Longford (Population).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Witness Assaulted.
  Witness Assaulted.
  Creggan Electoral Division.
  Creggan Electoral Division.
  Dorset Farm School.
  Dorset Farm School.
  Plague in India (Mortality).
  Plague in India (Mortality).
  Southern Nigeria (Woven Goods).
  Southern Nigeria (Woven Goods).
  Public Vaccinators.
  Public Vaccinators.
  Mitford Board of Guardians.
  Mitford Board of Guardians.
  Posting Bogus Letters (Dismissal of Rural Postman).
  Posting Bogus Letters (Dismissal of Rural Postman).
  Greenock Labour Exchange.
  Greenock Labour Exchange.
  Supreme Court (Rules).
  Supreme Court (Rules).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
(Order No. 2.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDER.)
Reported, without amendment.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
(Guisborough Water Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, with Amendments.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
(Busby and District Gas Order, and Uxbridge Gas Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, with Amendments.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
(Harrow and District Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, without amendment.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Charnworth be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of The Marquess of Exeter; read, and agreed to.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND rose to move the insertion of the following new clause—
(1) If any operation of the Board for the purposes of or in connection with the construction of any reservoir by this Act authorised has caused any diminution of the supply of water from any well borehole pond pool spring stream or watering place or other source of supply existing at the date of the passing of this Act within the administrative county of Middlesex and within a radius of two miles from the site of any such reservoir the Board shall upon the written request of the owner (which term in this section shall include any lessee or occupier) of such source of supply repay to the owner all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the owner in obtaining such additional supply of water as may be or may have been reasonably necessary to make his supply of water the same as nearly as may be as his supply was before the commencement of such operations of the Board.
(2) The owner shall afford the officers servants or other representatives of the Board at all reasonable times after the passing of this Act access to the source of supply in respect of which any claim is made under this section for the purpose of ascertaining particulars thereof and the level of the water therein.
(3) Any question or dispute arising under this section shall be referred to and determined by a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or in default of agreement to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and subject as aforesaid the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1889 shall apply to any such reference.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, and I shall endeavour not to detain your Lordships longer than I can help upon a matter which is, of course, of a rather technical character. But I am afraid
508
I must spend sonic little time upon it, because it is necessary that I should put the whole case as distinctly as I can before you. To make a long story short, the Metropolitan Water Board propose to construct in the County of Middlesex two reservoirs of a very large size, and the method of construction is as follows. They intend to dig a ditch round these reservoirs—a ditch which in its whole circumference will reach a length of five miles. They mean to dig this ditch right down to the London clay, which lies 110 feet in some places below the surface. They intend to fill these ditches with concrete and then to dig out the interior of the circle so formed and fill it with water and so make a reservoir. This form of construction is not a very common one, I believe, and the scale on which it is proposed to do it in this instance is absolutely unique. It is perfectly evident that if you dig a ditch 110 feet deep and five miles long you will infallibly tap the whole of the water which rests upon London clay upon the water bearing surface. While this ditch is being dug and these works are being carried out the Metropolitan Water Board will have to pump extensively, and the consequence of their pumping, as we apprehend, will be that they will deplete all the wells in the surrounding district.
This is a populous district, full of small owners and occupiers who have wells, and we fear that the distress for water in consequence of the Board's operations will be very great. I can call in support of that statement no less weighty evidence than that of the Metropolitan Water Board's own engineer, Mr. W. B. Bryan, and with your Lordships' leave I will read some extracts from his evidence—
Q.—I think you told my friend Mr. Hutchinson this morning that during the time your trenches are open through the gravel to the London clay you will have pumping machinery here?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is that liable to pump the water out of the surrounding gravel for a radius of some distance?
A.—It is.
Q.—Are you aware that a large number of the houses in the village of Wraysbury are dependent to a great extent for their water supply on wells?
A.—I gained that from some of the petitions.
Q.—May I ask what you propose to do in view of that?
A.—It is rather difficult to say what would be the best means, but I should think the putting down of a small temporary pumping station taking the water from the existing sources and laying some temporary pipes of supply.

509
Then the engineer was asked whether there was anything of that sort in his Bill, and he replied "No." But he added that there were contingencies in the estimates which would cover that. Next he was asked whether that provision would be covered by the 10 per cent. contingencies, and he replied in the affirmative. He was then asked—
"Is that the usual thing for the ten per cent. contingencies to cover?"
and he replied—
"That will not be a large matter; it will be a very small matter indeed as compared with the cost of Reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2."
Therefore, my Lords, you will observe, first, that the depletion of water is admitted by the Water Board's engineer, and that the supply to make good that loss to these small well owners would, on the engineer's admission, involve a very small cost to the Board. Then the following questions were put to the Water Board's engineer—
Q.—Are you prepared, as engineer, to come under an obligation to supply water if these wells fail?
A.—If it could be proved that these wells failed by reason of our works I think it would be fair that we should supply them with water.
Q.—But forgive me, you have just admitted to me that the water will be sucked out of the gravel for a very considerable area; many of these wells are within 200 yards of your works?
A.—I have just stated that if that be proved, it would be fair that we should supply them in some form or another with an adequate water supply.
Q.—Then I may take it you will be prepared to insert some obligation in the Bill to that effect?
A.—That would have to go through the solicitors and counsel for the Bill, but I have stated my opinion that it would be fair to do it.
Q.—There is another point, of course. How is a cottager going to prove that damage has been done by your pumping? That is an expensive matter?
A.—I am quite sure my Board would take a perfectly broad view of this matter.
Q.—Will you put a general obligation in the Bill?
A.—I am quite sure if the wells were depleted we should supply an adequate quantity either to the cottager or to other property owners.
I am afraid, my Lords, that the Board are taking rather a narrow view of the matter, and I appeal to the evidence of their own engineer to show three things—first, that the pumping will deplete the water; secondly, that there is no difficulty whatever and no great expense in the Board's supplying the well owners with water; and, thirdly, that in his opinion it would be a fair thing to do it.
There is another circumstance which shows that there is a real necessity for some provision such as I have proposed. I refer to the fact that the Board have come to an agreement with a large landowner near by to give him exactly the same compensation which they have refused to these small owners. They have come to an agreement with Lord Fitzhardinge to compensate him for any water they may pump away from any wells on his estate in consequence of these works. I ask, Why is Lord Fitzhardinge to have a protection which the small owner or occupier who cannot afford to appear before the Committee is denied? But I ought to state that Lord Fitzhardinge did not appear before the Committee. This was a matter of private agreement between the promoters and Lord Fitzhardinge, but it shows that the promoters are willing to consider the case of the big landlord though they entirely ignore the position of the small owner and occupier.
Now what are the objections to the clause which I propose to insert? So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are two main objections. One is a technical objection. It is that there is no precise precedent for the course which I am asking your Lordships to pursue in giving protection to these small owners. Underground water has been protected again and again in Private Bill after Private Bill, and provisions have been inserted for the protection of those who have the enjoyment of underground water. I have here a list of a dozen Bills each containing such a provision, but in most of those cases there is no provision for compensating the well owner during the construction of works. In a few cases, however, there is protection even during the construction of the works, but there is always protection for continuous damage; and one of the technical objections which the Board take, as I understand, to my proposal is that in this case there will be no continuing damage. They say that as soon as the concrete is filled in and the reservoirs made there will be no further depletion of the wells in the neighbourhood. That may be the case, but these works are going to take four years in construction. The damage done to a man who is dependent for his water supply upon a well in the neighbourhood will have to be endured for four years at least, and it may be longer, before his well would fill again. It does seem to me a very small point to take, that because in other instances there is continuing

511
damage and that here there is not continuing damage, therefore a man is to have his wells depleted of water for four years or more without any remedy.
There is a further technical objection taken, and it is that in most cases compensation is given to individuals named. In this instance we ask for protection for all well owners within two miles of the reservoirs. Such a general protection has been given over and over again; but again the technical objection is taken that it has not been given in cases where the damage is not continuous. Then there is another objection—it is the only objection with which I shall trouble your Lordships further—and it is the objection upon which, as I understand, the Committee base their decision. I have already told your Lordships that underground water has over and over again been the subject of protection in Private Bills. But last year a Bill, as your Lordships are aware, was introduced called the Water Supplies Protection Bill, which was referred to a Joint Committee. That Joint Committee made a Report, and my noble friend Lord Kintore, who was chairman of the Committee who considered this Bill, said that in consequence of the nature of the Report of that Joint Committee he considered that protection should not be given to these small owners. I speak with great respect of anything which falls from my noble friend Lord Kintore. We all know that he has a great deal of experience of Private Bill Committees and that he gives much attention to these questions, but I humbly submit that he has entirely misunderstood the Report of this Joint Committee. I ask your Lordships' leave to read what my noble friend quoted from the Report of the Joint Committee, and I will then ask you whether, in your opinion, it bears the interpretation which he put upon it. The Joint Committee in their Report [Paragraph 3] said—
"As regards the question of compensation, it is clear that to give a right to compensation for loss of subsoil water, even within the limitations proposed by the Bill, involves an important alteration of the general law, which, as it stands, recognises no property in underground water unless it is flowing in a known and definite channel. But as the law was settled before the conditions in which its equity is now challenged had come into being, it is urged on the Committee as reasonable and proper that the law should be now reconsidered in view of the altered circumstances of the present time."
512
And the Joint Committee go on to say—
"On the evidence given before them the Committee are satisfied that serious damage has been done to private property in particular localities by the pumping operations of water authorities, and they think it not improbable that similar injury is also caused by collieries, breweries, railway companies, and similar agencies who, like water authorities, extract water from the subsoil, but unlike them, are under no statutory obligation as regards the use to which such water is put. It has been forcibly urged on the Committee that if it be fair and equitable to levy compensation, as the Bill proposes, from water undertakers for injury done by the abstraction of water from the subsoil of private property, then the application of the same rule or treatment to all other agencies or industries causing similar injury cannot be resisted. In other words, it is claimed that any such change in the law as the Bill proposes, should, if approved by Parliament, be made of general reciprocal application."
Then they go on to say—and this is the part of the Joint Committee's Report, I understand, on which my noble friend Lord Kintore relies—
"In these circumstances the Committee can go no further than to say that while they consider as worthy of notice the considerable body of evidence on their Minutes in favour of the principle of compensation for damage done by the abstraction of subsoil water, and while they also desire to draw attention to the evidence as to the difficulties to which it is alleged the general application of the principle of compensation would lead, they are unable to form a definite conclusion or make any recommendation on the subject (which is, indeed, of vast and far-reaching importance) without further careful and detailed inquiry. It is not only for this reason but for other reasons, to be presently mentioned, that they wish to repeat the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal contained in their third Report published in 1903—that a comprehensive inquiry into the whole subject of surface and underground water supplies should be held before any legislative action is taken of the kind proposed in this Bill."
And then my noble friend Lord Kintore, having read that extract from the Report of the Joint Committee, said—
"Those were, I think, wise words, and they cover the clauses you propose, and the Committee all think they should be refused."
It appears to me that my noble friend thinks that because the Joint Committee said they were not prepared with any general recommendations affecting the whole question of underground water, therefore they meant to say that no relief to any of those who enjoyed underground water should in future be given under any Private Bill until there had been a general inquiry. I cannot believe that to have been the intention of the Joint Committee. What must have been in their minds was this—"We do not

513
without more inquiry and more evidence see our way to lay down general principles with regard to underground water, and therefore, pending such further information, you must go on as you were before." And the situation which existed before was that each Committee on each Private Bill judged the case on its merits and gave protection for subsoil water when they thought the case demanded it. I admit that that is a happy-go-lucky way of dealing with this matter, but it is the only course open to us until there is sonic definite general rule laid down on the subject. In the case of Lord Fitzhardinge relief is given. The justice of the case is so patent that the promoters have given relief there. Therefore with all respect to the noble Earl I cannot think that your Lordships' House ought to support his contention, but, on the contrary, ought to say that until full inquiry has been carried out into all the circumstances Committees on Private Bills shall go on as before, judging each case on its merits and giving relief where they think relief should be given.
Let me go back for a moment to the question of principle. We are told that there is no precise precedent for this clause. I have told your Lordships in what sense there is not a precise precedent. There is precise precedent for everything in this clause, but it cannot be found in one Bill. There is a precedent in the Barry Railway Bill, only that in that case it was in favour of a general owner and not in favour of a district. In various Bills precedents are to be found; and all you are asked to do to-day is, in a case where the justice of it demands, to so far establish a precedent as to combine what you find in various Acts and put it into this one Bill on this one occasion. I do not know why we should be so afraid of precedents if the justice of the case demands this protection. Committees upstairs make precedents every year. It is better that your Lordships' House should make precedents than that they should be made by Committees. Your Lordships have a growing practice now of sending Private Bills to Joint Committees. I know there is a great deal to be said for that course, but it has this disadvantage, that you have no reconsideration of points of this kind. It constantly happens that justice which cannot be obtained in one House is obtained in the other when Private Bills go before two Committees; but where a Bill is subjected to one inquiry only there is no redress of grievances supposing that Committee should
514
have omitted anything, unless your Lordships are willing to amend the Bill in this House on Third Reading and consent now and then to establish small precedents. I think I have said all I need say on this subject. I have endeavoured to put the case fairly before you, and I hope you will support the insertion of the new clause which I now move.
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause—
(1) If any operation of the Board for the purposes of or in connection with the construction of any reservoir by this Act authorised has caused any diminution of the supply of water from any well borehole pond pool spring stream or watering place or other source of supply existing at the date of the passing of this Act within the administrative county of Middlesex and within a radius of two miles from the site of any such reservoir the Board shall upon the written request of the owner (which term in this section shall include any lessee or occupier) of such source of supply repay to the owner all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the owner in obtaining such additional supply of water as may be or may have been reasonably necessary to make his supply of water the same as nearly as may be as his supply was before the commencement of such operations of the Board.
(2) The owner shall afford the officers servants or other representatives of the Board at all reasonable times after the passing of this Act access to the source of supply in respect of which any claim is made under this section for the purpose of ascertaining particulars thereof and the level of the water therein.
(3) Any question or dispute arising under this section shall be referred to and determined by a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or in default of agreement to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and subject as aforesaid the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1889 shall apply to any such reference.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, it is never an easy task or a pleasant one for any one sitting on these Benches to have to ask your Lordships to refuse to agree to any Amendment proposed by the noble Duke. I can assure you that it certainly is no pleasant task for me, for my noble friend would be entirely right were he to claim me to be in large measure in sympathy with the general objects which I understand he intends his clause to serve. The noble Duke, I am glad to think, will find in this House and outside many ready to agree with him and me that some rights still attach to property, and that, where a property in private ownership is materially and permanently injured by the operations of a public authority carried on in the exercise of its powers, the owner should be compensated.

515
Though technically this is a Private Bill, it is in fact a Bill of very considerable public interest, and it contains various proposals of equal public importance. As originally opened to the Joint Committee to whom your Lordships referred it for consideration it contained yet more. For example, it contained proposals the effect of which would have been to place the Metropolitan Water Board out of the reach and beyond the control of Parliament for some sixty or seventy years. During the first decade of that time the scenic beauties of the Thames from Staines past Runnymede and Magna Charta Island up to Old Windsor would have been irretrievably ruined, and, again, the liability of the riverside lands in the district to floods would in our judgment not have been appreciably lessened, while the new intake for the large further supply of water to London contemplated by the Bill was planned to be placed directly opposite to the Windsor sewage farm only separated from the river by a low and porous bank.
Inclusive of a few days devoted to hearing the Thames Conservancy Bill, which was referred to the Joint Committee by the House of Commons, we sat altogether from the end of March till the beginning of June considering this Bill and the sixty-four petitions against it, and it must be a satisfaction to every member of the Committee, that, barring a single dissent early in our proceedings, all our decisions were come to unanimously, and further and of greater importance, that with the single exception of the case before the House at this moment our decisions have been accepted by all parties with a loyal determination, by working under them, to provide a supply of water admirable and adequate for twenty-five years and more, and still further to improve and add to that great work of river purification which has been carried on so well by the Thames Conservancy Board at great expense in the past.
During the hearing a clause similar in effect if not identical in words was pressed for by the Middlesex County Council. It was argued that where the water level in any well in the county council's area was even temporarily lowered by the trenching, the Water Board should be held compelled to add water up to the deficiency. We were not of ourselves prepared in a Private Bill to take this new departure, involving such a large question of principle, so in the confident expectation that the matter would
516
be raised in one or other House of Parliament we decided as a Committee to take no action. The Motion of my noble friend, whose services both in Parliament and as an Alderman the Middlesex County Council are indeed fortunate to be able to rely upon, relieves us in that regard of any disappointment. The county council support the noble Duke in a Memorandum which I have seen, and I think I do it no injustice in saying that it endeavours to make three points. It says that it is now the settled practice of Parliament that water undertakers, when seeking fresh powers to construct new works, shall be put under obligation to make up in some form to owners of private wells in the vicinity any deficiency of water caused by the operations of the water undertakers; and in support of that assertion it quotes fourteen Acts of Parliament which have been passed between the years 1906 and last session. But, my Lords—and I think the noble Duke, having looked into the matter, frankly admits this to be the case—not one of those cited Acts is on all fours with this Bill. All of them are Acts sanctioning the sinking of new wells upon gathering ground of underground water already being drawn upon. As there exist no legal rights in underground water and as I believe it will pass the wit of man to devise enactments in regard to underground water which will in practice prove to be equitable all round, I think those compensation clauses were quite proper to be inserted. But this Bill has nothing to do with underground water. It relates entirely to surface water, to river water, proposed to be raised into reservoirs for storage and subsequent distribution. And, moreover, the pumping sanctioned in the Acts cited was intended to be permanent, and consequently any damage caused by the pumping would be permanent also, which is by no means the case here.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Might I ask the noble Earl whether he has looked at the Barry Railway Act?
THE EARL OF KINTORE: Yes, I have seen it.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The clause there was not in respect of pumping underground water, nor in respect of permanent damage.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: Oh, yes. I think that clause was inserted to meet the case of a permanent supply being possibly severed by the driving of a tunnel. The Middlesex County Council next point in their Memorandum to the clause inserted for the protection of Lord Fitzhardinge. I pass that by because, as my noble friend admits, the clause was an agreed one and was attached to the Bill as a manuscript clause when first presented to the Committee. I come to the last point—the reference to the extremely able and valuable Report of Lord MacDonnell's Joint Committee on the Water Supplies Protection Bill of last session. One of the three main objects of that Bill was to restrict the powers of authorised undertakers by rendering them liable for compensation for injury to private supplies due to their operations—the very object of the noble Duke's clause. Lord Maconnell's Committee took a great deal of evidence on this point, and their Report, which as the noble Duke truly said weighed greatly with my Committee, contained these words—
"The Committee wish to repeat the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal contained in their Third Report published in 1903, that a comprehensive inquiry into the whole subject of surface and underground water supplies should be held before any legislative action is taken of the kind proposed in this Bill."
With that Report before us we were confirmed in our opinion that it would be improper for us to allow compensation for which there was no exact precedent to be inserted before this House had been consulted and before inquiry into the whole question of water supply had been held. The necessity for such an inquiry is patent and admitted, and as one whose lot it has been to hear the evidence in connection with not a few Water Bills I would like without presumption and very earnestly to support that recommendation. The haphazard and arbitrary way in which local sources of supply are sometimes wasted, sometimes withheld from use, and sometimes appropriated for other and distant places without regard to the places from which the water is taken, is becoming an everyday experience of Parliamentary Committees. The time seen is to me to have more than arrived when such an inquiry ought to be held, and it is much to be hoped—may I address this remark especially to my noble friend Lord Allendale?—that the Local Government Board will be able to see their way to instigate such an inquiry at the
518
earliest moment, and if this discussion this afternoon in any way conduces to that inquiry being held I for one shall be well content.
Holding the views I have mentioned, it was not, of course, necessary for the Committee to hear counsel for the Metropolitan Water Board in opposition to this proposal; but since the noble Duke gave notice of this new clause I have received from the Metropolitan Water Board some notes bearing on it with a covering letter. Your Lordships are always ready, indeed anxious, to hear both sides of a case before forming an opinion, and I would ask you with some confidence, more especially as I very infrequently intrude upon your Lordships' time, to give me three or four minutes more while I lay before the House the views of the Metropolitan Water Board. In reference to the cited cases in the Memorandum of the Middlesex County Council, the Metropolitan Water Board say—
"The Water Acts quoted are Acts authorising the sinking of wells and the abstraction of water by pumping as a permanent means of supply, and any injury that might be caused under those Acts would be of a permanent nature. In the case of the Railway Acts referred to, the apprehended injury was also of a permanent nature."
They then go on to say—
"The works to be authorised by the Board's New Works Bill, so far as they affect the present question, consist of reservoirs, and any subsoil water would only he temporarily interfered with during the limited period for which pumping would continue in the construction of the puddle trenches. The clause desired by the Middlesex County Council would impose upon the Metropolitan Water Board the expense of providing a permanent supply for merely a short temporary interference. The words 'reasonably incurred' would be no protection to the Board, for an arbitrator would very likely hold that the laying on of a supply from the nearest authorised undertakers was reasonable seeing that local supplies would or might be liable to depletion. There is no precedent for inserting such a clause in a Bill authorising the construction of reservoirs not connected with a pumping submits. The insertion of the clause is an endeavour to impose upon the Metropolitan Water Board the general principles involved in the Water Supplies (Protection) Bill which was considered last session by a Joint Committee presided over by Lord MacDonnell. These proposals, as that Joint Committee reported, would involve an important alteration of the general law of the land which should not be made without a comprehensive inquiry into the whole subject of surface and underground water supplies. It would be unfair to the Metropolitan Water Board and the other large corporations and water authorities who opposed the passing of that Bill now to insert a clause giving effect to these principles before such an inquiry has been held. The Board's evidence on the subject has not been heard, but the case would no doubt be quoted as a precedent for

519
imposing the clause on water authorities in every similar Bill. The matter of the underground sources of supply was fully dealt with in Lord MacDonnell's Report, and pending the inquiry therein suggested no general compensation clause of the nature proposed should be imposed in a Private Bill without the promoters of such Bill having an opportunity of fully considering its effect and calling evidence before the Committee considering the Bill. The clause suggested by the Middlesex County Council is of very wide application and refers to the diminution of any supply of water not only to any well but to any borehole, pond, pool, spring, stream or watering place. Any pond, etc., whether actually used or not, might be claimed to be a potential 'source of supply,' and any lowering of its water level would apparently have to be met by the provision of a substituted supply which in most cases would probably have to be permanent."
Then the Board refer to the Fitzhardinge clause, and say—
"The county council referred in the course of the proceedings before the Joint Committee, and refer again in their Memorandum, to the fact that in the clause contained in the Bill for the protection of Lord Fitzhardinge (Clause 30) the Board are required to give a new or additional supply in the event of Lord Fitzhardinge's existing supply being diminished. The circumstances in that case are, however, special, for Lord Fitzhardinge was able to convince the Board that there was a substantial risk of injury to his well owing to the obstruction in the flow of water which will be caused by the laying of a number of very large trunk mains in close proximity to it. The provision has no reference to any possible injury resulting front temporary pumping."
And the Water Board wind up by saying—
"The matter is of such far-reaching importance that it should not be in any way prejudiced before it is fully inquired into and dealt with by general legislation applying to all water seeking undertakings, whether for public water supply or for railway or mining purposes."
Before I sit down I should like to be allowed to read the letter from the Metropolitan Water Board which covered these notes, and which is dated July 4. In it the Board say—
"The Law and Parliamentary Committee of the Water Board have this morning given the most careful consideration to the clause which the Middlesex County Council desire to insert in this Bill. My Committee entertain the strongest view that the clause should not be inserted, inasmuch as it deals with a vital question of principle and proposes to alter the general law as to rights in underground water. It is understood that this important question is to be made the subject of a general Parliamentary inquiry on the lines indicated by Lord MacDonnell's Joint Committee of last session, and my Committee feel that it would be unjust in the extreme to impose this clause upon the Water Board until there has, at all events, been a reasonable opportunity for the general inquiry to be held. There is no doubt whatever that if the proposed clause be imposed upon a water undertaking of such first class
520
importance as that of the metropolis, it will attain great weight as a precedent, will go far to prejudice the question of the proposed inquiry, and thereby seriously damnify the water undertakings throughout the kingdom. The gravity of this injustice would be increased by the fact that the Middlesex County Council propose to insert the clause without affording the promoters the opportunity of calling evidence against it, for it will be remembered that your Lordships' Joint Committee struck out the proposed clause without hearing evidence against it. The Water Board are most willing to facilitate to the utmost a general inquiry into the whole question of compensation for interference with water rights, an inquiry at which the arguments for and against the whole question could be adequately dealt with, and the conclusions arrived at embodied in a model clause or Public Bill. They feel, however, that it would be a grave injustice to themselves and to others to prejudice the question by the insertion of a clause in the present private Bill, and on these grounds of high principle my committee feel that such legislation in the present Bill is open to the most grave objection."
Agreeing generally, as I do, with the terms of that letter, which seems to me to be clear and convincing, and subject to anything that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board or the Lord Chairman may desire to say, I should like to express the hope that my noble friend will rest satisfied with the discussion he has raised this afternoon and will not on this occasion press his proposal further.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, this is not, strictly speaking, a question arising on a Public Bill, but the question is one of such far-reaching importance and affects so many rights that it well deserves the attention it has received. No one could have listened to the noble Duke, who went very thoroughly into the circumstances of this case, without feeling that the point which he pressed is one which has too much in the past escaped attention, and the neglect of which has inflicted great hardship. In the law of this country there is no right to percolating water, and in the absence of such right there is no doubt that these great undertakings brought into operation with statutory powers have inflicted a great deal of hardship. On the other hand, it has been necessary to provide great masses of the public congregated in populous areas with a supply of water, and it has been impossible to get that supply without executing works which inflicted this kind of injury.
Parliament is really placed in a dilemma. This is not, of course, a Bill for taking percolating water, but it is a Bill for

521
making works which do to some extent temporarily affect the supply of percolating water, and the question is what is to be done? Parliament has to try to adjust the balance of convenience and inconvenience and to settle the matter in the general interest in the way that is least injurious. This is not a matter that can be dealt with according to any abstract principle. I doubt very much, if we had all the light that an inquiry might give—and I am far from saying there ought not to be such an inquiry—that we should be able to discover any principle to solve the concrete difficulties pointed out by the noble Duke. On the other hand, you have to remember that the Metropolitan Water Board has to supply the needs of this great metropolis, that it is urgently needed that a further supply of water should be got, and that that cannot be got under existing circumstances without inflicting considerable inconvenience, and, perhaps, a little injury. Parliament has taken the only course it could take. It referred the matter to a strong Committee presided over by the noble Earl who last addressed us, with instructions to do what is right in protecting, in all the cases where protection should be given, anything approaching to injury. I do not think the noble Duke would say himself that it would have been possible to cover every individual case.
There must be some hardship in a case of this kind, but the necessities of the public are so great that you must make up your minds to face some hardship. The Committee took the general question and then the principal cases brought before them, and they have introduced a large series of protective clauses covering the ground to the utmost extent they reasonably could. Again I say there may be points in which the Bill could have gone further, but I doubt it very much, after looking at what has been done. What you have in substance is this—not, as it emerged from the Committee, a Bill for abstracting percolating water, but a Bill for making works which are absolutely vital if a new supply of water is to be brought to London, and containing a series of protective clauses covering all the cases which the Joint Committee thought could be covered with a view to minimising the hardship to owners. Again I say to the noble Duke that I feel that probably there are cases which
522
the Committee have not been able to cover. You cannot cover all the cases unless you make the law different, and give some rights in percolating water. But there being no such legal rights it is impossible to devise any scheme which will prevent people suffering a certain amount of inconvenience.
The only course you can take is to trust a Committee of this kind to do the best they can in putting in protective clauses. It is impossible to insert any general clause such as has been referred to without contravening the recommendations of Lord MacDonnell's Committee of last year. The result is that it seems to me, as far as I can judge, that you have got the best substitute that you could have in the clauses that are in the Bill. For my part I feel that if this Committee over which the noble Earl presided and which gave so much labour to this question has not done the best that could be done in the circumstances in which action was absolutely necessary, then there is no other course. I do not think that the clause suggested is one that can be supported either on grounds of law or in face of the recommendations to which your Lordships' attention has been called. If the recommendations of the Committee which had this question fully before them were departed from, we should be making a precedent and throwing the administration of this class of public business into a state of uncertainty which would make our later condition worse than the condition in which we now stand.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that a decision for winch I was responsible is quoted as an indirect precedent for the Amendment asked for. With due respect to the noble and learned Viscount opposite and to the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, I entirely fail to see that they have answered one very crucial objection. The case is a fairly simple one. Here the Middlesex County Council come and ask for a very limited and for only a temporary protection, and the reply they get is that we are not going to give them the protection, however limited it may be, because there is no precise precedent for it. Everybody who has served as Chairman of a Private Bill Committee knows that whenever a thing of this kind is asked for he is always met by

523
this question of precedent, and the question really turns upon the circumstances of the case.
The point I wish to make is this, that in the course of the proceedings, as I think was pointed out by my noble friend the noble Duke beside me, it was admitted by the promoters of the Bill that the Middlesex County Council had a clear right to the limited protection to which I have just alluded. I should like to refer again to the evidence of the Water Board's engineer. The engineer admitted that if these people were going to suffer from the operations of the Metropolitan Water Board it was only fair and equitable that they should be compensated; and to the final question that was put to hint he replied:—
"I am quite sure that if the wells were depleted we [the Metropolitan Water Board] would supply an adequate quantity either to the cottagers or to other property owners."
When the promoters' engineer gave an undertaking of that kind I have always understood that it was a thing winch was eventually insisted upon if the Bill was passed. In this particular case that does not appear to have been done, and I fail to see why.
I should like to ask whether it is not possible to settle the question amicably now. If there is anybody here who represents the Metropolitan Water Board, all he has to do is to give an undertaking that the pledge given by the engineer will be carried out, and I imagine that the Bill would then pass without any further discussion or dispute. But the result of this discussion increases the conviction which I have always felt that in dealing with cases of this kind some more settled lines are distinctly advisable. I have myself frequently had considerable difficulty in endeavouring to decide points of this kind. As is obvious from the experience in regard to this particular Bill, the decision rests on the haphazard view which happens to be taken by the chairman, and it is clear, therefore, that these decisions must frequently conflict. I think it would be a desirable thing in the interests of Private Bill Committees if there were model clauses by which chairmen could be guided. But at the same time it seems to me an extreme hardship that, because there is no precedent and because there is no model clause,
524
these people who are going to suffer from the operation of this Bill should not be permitted the protection for which my noble friend asks. It seems to me their case is so clear that if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, as reference has been made during the course of this discussion to the Report of the Joint Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks on this subject. The Joint Committee was appointed to consider a Bill introduced into your Lordships' House by Lord Desborough. That Bill was largely promoted by owners of property, mostly in Hertfordshire, who complained that by the extension of the works of a water company, the name of which I forget for the moment, their property would be greatly damaged; and no doubt before the Committee a considerable volume of evidence was produced from which it might be inferred that the construction of waterworks and the sinking of wells in any great number does deplete the subsoil water supply of the neighbouring country and affects grazing and also the trees and other amenities of the locality.
The members of the Committee generally were impressed with the feeling that there was a grievance which ought to be remedied if it could be remedied. At the same time they thought that the scheme of the promoters of the Bill was an extravagant one in so far that it went to alter the old common law of the country which allows no right of property in subsoil water unless that water runs in a clearly defined channel. The promoters of the Bill also desired to shift the burden of proof and to put on the water companies or other undertakers the duty of proving that no damage had been caused. Our inquiries proceeded a considerable way, and then we came to the conclusion that if any damage had to be compensated for it ought not to be on such a narrow inquiry as we alone were competent to institute. We came to the conclusion that it was not water companies alone who caused this abstraction of subsoil water, but that railway companies, breweries, and many other commercial undertakings also abstracted subsoil water and caused a considerable amount of damage.

525
In particular cases the parties interested have been able to come to an agreement with the company that wished to extend its wells, and no doubt compensation has been agreed upon in many cases. In one large case that came before us we found that compensation had been paid for a considerable tract of country. But we were unable to make up out minds that any such provision as the noble Duke has placed on the Paper could possibly be supported by the evidence before us. We were also strongly impressed with the view that the resources of subsoil water throughout the country were not being properly husbanded, and that rivers were subject to pollution. Great water companies marked out large claims throughout the country, spheres of influence, as it were, within which they objected to any sort of competition. The result was that growing towns were seriously interfered with, and on the whole it seemed to us that the case was one which called for a much wider inquiry than we were authorised to make. And might I take this opportunity of impressing upon your Lordships that it is a matter of extreme importance for the future of this country that this subject should be fully inquired into and a map of the subsoil water supply and other water supplies of England recorded, so that when any particular company desires to increase the sphere of its operations it may consult the map and know how it is to proceed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to speak with the greatest respect of the Joint Committee which sat on this Bill. What the noble and learned Viscount opposite said is perfectly true, that when you have appointed a strong Committee primâ facie you ought to have profound respect for the finding at which they arrive; but I shall say a word or two in a moment why I do not think that that view is necessarily antagonistic to the general line which the noble Duke has taken. But first of all I should like to call your Lordships' attention to this fact, which is my principal reason for venturing to intervene—that this is part of a very big question which involves enormous hardship to a number of perfectly unoffending persons. I belong to the County of Hertfordshire, to which Lord MacDonnell referred, and which has suffered acutely under the necessary requirements of the metropolis for water. It is perfectly true, as the noble
526
and learned Viscount said, that this great city must be provided with water, but it is also true that immense hardship may be inflicted upon those areas from which the I water is drawn.
We have suffered enormously in Hertfordshire. We have been involved in a sort of life and death struggle to maintain our water. Sometimes we have succeeded, sometimes we have failed, but I am certain we enjoy general sympathy in the efforts to which we have been put. It is not proposed here to prevent in any way the making of these great reservoirs, necessary as they are. There is no such question. The only point is whether it is just or unjust, if this great corporation, the Metropolitan Water Board, make these works, that they should give compensation for any injury they inflict in so doing. It is not a question of a very large sum of money, as I shall show directly. I have reason to think that those who will suffer are small people, and they are engaged in this great controversy with this rich, important, and influential corporation. They do not say "Stop the waterworks," but "Give us that little compensation due to us in consequence of the injury you inflict upon us." That, primâ facie, is all that is asked.
The injustice to these people who lose their water is admitted by the noble and learned Viscount. It is admitted by the noble Lord who presided over the important Committee who considered it. It is admitted by everybody. The main reply to the demand for redress is, Wait, if you please, for the Report of an important I Commission which has not yet been appointed. As your Lordships know, we may wait till the Greek calends, or at least we may wait for a great number of years, before we get the Report of such a Commission. There is no sign of its being appointed. No doubt the inquiry will be a long one, and it will be a very long time before any Act of Parliament follows on the findings of that Commission. Meanwhile all these humble individuals as to whom the injustice is admitted by everybody are to go on suffering. I do not think that is just. The second answer is that there is no precedent for compensating people for a temporary injury. There are, it is said, precedents for compensation for a permanent injury but none for a temporary injury. I do not admit that. But, even so, that argument is worthless. The only difference

527
between a temporary injury and a permanent injury is that the former is very much smaller. If injury is to be compensated for at all, there is no less reason why a temporary injury should be compensated for. It is a very much smaller matter it is perfectly true, but that is an argument on my side and not against me. There is to be no compensation unless there is loss. The loss would have to be shown before the compensation would become due.
I turn to the Committee over which my noble friend Lord Kintore presided. The noble and learned Viscount said we must not fly in the face of the Report of that Committee; but we have had the opportunity of hearing the noble Earl who presided over that Committee, and what did he say? He said that the Committee did not like to enter upon a new departure, but were quite sure the point would be raised in one or other House of Parliament. In other words, my noble friend and his colleagues did not think, the matter being in a sense novel, that it was right for them to undertake the responsibility for a new departure. But they said it would, of course, be raised in one or other House of Parliament—in other words, they left it to Parliament to correct any injustice in the decision to which they arrived. How, then, can it be said that in accepting the Committee's advice and undertaking the consideration of the matter we are flying in the face of the Report of that Committee? It is evident that they left the matter to us thinking they had not sufficient authority themselves to decide it. I said just now that if it was a new departure it was only very slightly novel. The noble and learned Viscount seemed to think that there was some difficulty in assessing the compensation. I do not think so. It is going to be done here in the case of Lord Fitzhardinge, and it was done in the case of several private owners in the Barry Railway Bill.
The Barry Railway Act, by the way, is exceedingly in point. It is quite true that that is not an Act connected with a water company, but it is only incidental, as it were, that the question arises in connection with a water company's Bill in this instance. In the case of the Barry Bill it was the making of a tunnel, and the case of the making of a tunnel is very much on all fours with the making of a reservoir. In the Barry case certain owners represented that they were likely to lose a certain
528
amount of water, I believe through the construction of the tunnel, but at any rate in consequence of the tunnel, and they received compensation. There was no difficulty, and both Houses of Parliament passed the necessary Act to confirm that agreement. For these reasons we do think that your Lordships' House is called upon to decide on this matter. We think that to ask us to wait until a nebulous Royal Commission has decided the point is a not sufficient answer, and we ask, in the name of these comparatively poor landowners and occupiers who are in controversy with i an enormously powerful corporation, that the justice which your Lordships' House never refuses, and which cannot in the end come to any large sum, should be granted to them.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, this case has been so thoroughly gone into that I do not feel I ought to detain your Lordships very long in putting before you my reasons for saying that I, for one, should regret if your Lordships decided to reverse the decision come to by my noble friend Lord Kintore's Committee and insert this clause in the Bill at the present stage. My noble friend Lord Newton used a strong expression. He spoke of a pledge having been given by the Water Board's engineer in the witness chair that some such clause as this should be put in; but I think my noble friend will realise that his language is a little too strong, for in the quotation which the noble Duke read from the engineer's evidence it was quite clear that I when the engineer was asked whether he would agree to a clause to that effect being put in he referred the cross-examining counsel to the Board's counsel and solicitors, who obviously were the right people to be consulted.
LORD NEWTON: I would refer the noble Earl to Question No. 1183.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have not got the evidence before me. I am merely speaking from my recollection of what was read by the noble Duke. As I have said, I do not wish to go into this matter in any detail, because the details have been placed before your Lordships in the speeches which have been made and in the Memoranda circulated. I have had the Memorandum of the Metropolitan Water Board and that of the Middlesex County

529
Council before me for some time, and I have gone into them very carefully with my advisers, and the conclusion that I have come to is that the Memorandum of the Metropolitan Water Board is substantially accurate, but that there are considerable inaccuracies in the Memorandum which supports the case of the noble Duke, especially as regards precedents. I may say that we have interviewed the parties, and we have absolutely failed to get from them a single precedent on all fours with the case which the Middlesex County Council submit.
The noble Duke laid stress on the Barry Act. I confess that I have not gone very carefully into the Barry Act, but I have looked through it and I cannot find an exact precedent for the clause which the noble Duke desires to insert in this Bill. Clause 33 in the Barry Act is obviously the clause which the noble Duke has in mind. That is a clause dealing, not with temporary pumping, but with permanent pumping. It was a clause inserted for the protection of a particular landowner in a particular case, and that is a thing very often done on merits. It is a different thing altogether from what your Lordships are asked to do this afternoon, which is to put in a general protection against any case that may possibly arise. The same argument holds good in the case of Lord Fitzhardinge. Lord Fitzhardinge's case, I am informed, is this. A number of very large trunk mains are to be laid close to an existing well, and obviously there is a danger of their doing that well permanent damage. That is the position of affairs, I understand, in which this protection has been given. Again, it has nothing to do with temporary pumping while the works necessary under the Bill are being carried out. In the case of this Bill the Middlesex County Council ask your Lordships to put in a protective clause for landowners, some of whom may be small but we have no reason to doubt that some may be big, but none of them thought fit to appear before the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is an expensive process appearing before a Parliamentary Committee.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: As a rule landowners, if they are going to suffer great damage, do appear, and do not get the county council to appear for them.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Can the noble Earl say that there are any large landowners besides Lord Fitzhardinge in that neighbourhood? My information is that there are not.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have seen no list of the landowners affected, and neither party has produced one. As regards the other cases quoted in the Memorandum of the Middlesex County Council, they are all either cases of permanent injury to a water supply through permanent pumping or special cases like that of Lord Fitzhardinge. I was amused to see cases at Lincoln and Cambridge quoted. As far as I can make out, the principal case there for protection was a case of possible damage to roads and bridges, which I do not think can be claimed in support of the clause which the noble Duke has placed before us. I think it is admitted quite frankly that there is no exact precedent. I would point out that no case has been quoted which is at all near; and, as I say, in the course of vivâ voce examination the Middlesex County Council have been unable to produce one as regards the general position that has been stated by Lord Kintore and other noble Lords. I do not close my eyes to the fact that general legislation may, perhaps, be, necessary in a case such as this. It may or it may not; but the fact remains that those of your Lordships who have had to consider such a matter under the guidance of Lord MacDonnell have come to the conclusion that there is not at present sufficient information before us to enable us to come to a definite decision. As I have said, it may be desirable to give general protection; but those who have been most closely into the matter do feel that there is not enough information before us to make up our mind. If your Lordships insert this clause this evening you will be taking a very strong step in the direction of making up the mind of Parliament, and I should regret very much if such a step were taken in view of the small amount of information at our hands.
The noble Marquess says this is a small matter. I can assure him it is a very large and expensive matter. What has to happen? Under the clause the promoters will be liable for damage if there is any diminution of water anywhere within two miles of these two or three reservoirs.

531
What does that mean? They would have, before beginning to dig their reservoirs, to take the level of every small pool in the district. They have no powers to do it. This clause generously gives them power to go and inspect once a claim has been made, but once a claim has been made it is assumed that damage has been done and that the water supply has fallen. No facility is given to the Water Board to make the inspections, but they would be necessary and would be a very expensive operation. Therefore do not let us imagine that this is a small matter. This is putting a very serious burden on the Metropolitan Water Board. I do not suggest that that is any final reason for not putting the burden upon them if it is necessary. I only mention it because it has been argued that this is a very small thing. In view, first, of the absence of precedents; secondly, in view of the fact that it would be a considerable step for Parliament to take in an alteration of the general law, an alteration that no one has made up his mind how to carry out if it is to be carried out; and, thirdly, in view of the fact that this is a clause asking for protection for people who have not thought it worth while to come themselves and ask for it—I should for these reasons regret it if your Lordships reversed the decision of the Committee.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that I had to consider this question for more than thirty years at the Bar, and I have had, strangely enough, one or two cases since I have been on the Bench. What seems to be overlooked is that what is asked for here is not in respect of abstraction of water permanently when the works are made, but abstraction while the works are being constructed. I venture to say that in many Private Bills, where it was said that the making of a tunnel would drain wells until the tunnel was rendered watertight, a special clause was inserted in order to protect the people affected. I believe the Barry case was one, but others could be found.
If the noble Duke's clause dealt with the case of water abstracted by reason of the existence of the reservoir I could not support the noble Duke. I agree
532
with the noble and learned Viscount opposite that there are many who think that our law has not been sufficiently careful of rights regarding underground water. My noble and learned friend Sir Edward Fry takes a strong view upon that. But I wish to deal only with this particular Amendment. These landowners do not say that when the reservoirs are constructed the result will be that their wells will be drained and that therefore they should receive compensation. As I have said, we could not in the present state of the law support that; but it is thought that in the course of the construction of the reservoirs the wells will be temporarily interfered with. They desire temporary protection, and if Private Acts are looked through I am confident it will be found that there are many precedents for compensation being allowed where wells are temporarily interfered with during the construction of works. I ask your Lordships to consider from a broad standpoint this particular claim. Having listened to this debate, I am satisfied that the claim of the noble Duke cannot be resisted upon the ground that there is anything in principle against it. It does not involve the considerations which Lord MacDonnell referred to—namely, rights as to underground water. I believe that where it has been shown that in the course of the construction of works temporary damage would be done, whether it be to roads, to water courses, or in respect of subsidence or anything of the kind, special clauses for protection, have constantly been inserted.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the Metropolitan Water Board are, as your Lordships know, largely in touch with the London County Council, the interests of whose ratepayers are very much involved in the decision which may be come to tonight, and I wish to draw attention to one or two points on which the Water Board contest the figures which have been put before the House by the noble Duke. The noble Duke drew a picture of sufferings that might be involved through the construction of a trench which he said would be five miles long, and which would take, I think he said, four or five years to make, and which also would in certain cases go to a depth of 100 feet. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has cleared away to some extent the difficulty of inserting a clause to meet a

533
temporary grievance. But the whole gist of the matter really lies in this—whether the supply of water will be affected to the extent which the noble Duke believes. The information which I have is this. The trench will not take five years to make, but will be made in four or five months. The whole length will no doubt be four or five miles, but the system of construction will only involve about 100 yards of the trench bring open at one time. As each section is completed the previous section would be filled in, and therefore the water which had been abstracted would no longer be abstracted from that surface. What your Lordships are dealing with, therefore, is not a question of years but of months, and not a question of miles but of yards; and while no doubt such a case may occur as would involve tunnelling to a depth of 100 feet, the distance which the Metropolitan Water Board's engineers anticipate they will have to go down is about forty feet. Therefore the whole question is very much narrower in compass than the Middlesex County Council are inclined to fear. I thought I ought to mention these facts because they are some guidance as to the position m which we stand. The insertion of the proposed clause would put the Water Board as representing the ratepayers to a very heavy expense for a comparatively small difficulty and one which would be of a very much more temporary nature than the noble Duke imagines.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I wish to ask whether it is not advisable to give more consideration to this question than is possible to-day. I understood the noble Lord behind me to say that it would be impossible for him to support any general clause giving compensation for permanent diminution of water, but that he was prepared to support a clause—and he knew precedents—giving compensation for temporary diminution of water during the construction of the works. It seems that something of that kind might be done without in any way trespassing on the recommendations of Lord MacDonnell and his Committee as regards permanent loss of subsoil water. In this Bill there is a clause giving to Lord Fitzhardinge compensation in a particular case where it is admitted that a temporary loss of water would be occasioned. Would it not be possible if this debate were adjourned for the Water Board, who, after
534
all, have not been directly represented in this discussion, to reconsider the subject from that point of view, and confer with the noble Duke behind me and those supporting him to see if some clause could not be framed which would extend to cases where it could be definitely shown that the same amount of injury might be done temporarily as in Lord Fitzhardinge's case, the same compensation which is already provided for in that particular instance? In order to raise the point I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is another consideration which must be taken into account. This is not a matter that could be disposed of quickly. To hold an inquiry such as the noble Viscount has suggested it would take weeks before the numerous parties interested could be brought together, and I understand this Bill presses. Speaking for myself, I have given reasons to show that I do not like the clause, but I would rather take this Bill, as it is an urgent Bill, with the clause in it than take it with the inquiry suggested by the noble Viscount. Like my noble and learned friend I have had some experience of what these inquiries are; they are most difficult things, because in these cases you are dealing with parties who have intangible rights, not legal rights. The reason for this Bill is so great that, speaking for myself, I must repeat that though I object to the clause I would rather have the Bill with the clause in it than lose the Bill through the adoption of the course proposed to be taken.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion to adjourn the debate, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether the proposed new clause should be inserted,
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-contents, 58.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Stradbroke, E.

Forester, L.

Westmeath, E.

Gwydir, L.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Macnaghten, L.

Llandaff, V.

Mostyn, L.

Abingdon, E.

Muskerry, L.

Camperdown, E.

Alverstone, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Basing, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Mayo, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Templemore, L.

Morley, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Portman, V.

Ilkeston, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. [L. President]

St. Aldwyn, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

Abinger, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bath, M.

Allendale, L.

Lucas, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Armitstead, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Barnard, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Carrington, E

Blyth, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Cromer, E.

Charnwood, L.

Robson, L.

Dartrey, E.

Colebrooke, L.

St. Davids, L.

Denbigh, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sanderson, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

De Mauley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Devonport, L.

Shaw, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Shuttleworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Eversley, L.

Southwark, L.

Gough, V.

Farrer, L.

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

Haldane, V.

Glantawe, L.

Hatchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Haversham, L.

Swaythling, L.

Heneage, L.

Welby, L.

Knutsford, V.

Herschell, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 138.)
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
1. Statute II, for University College, Dublin;

2. Statute II, for University College, Cork;

3. Statute II, for University College, Galway;

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 139.)

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND INSURANCE SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to encourage the formation of Agricultural Credit and Insurance Societies—Was presented by the Earl Carrington; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 140.)
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the Session.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, in moving that the House do go into Committee on this Bill I wish to say a few words. In the first place, I desire to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alverstone, for so kindly giving up so much of his valuable time to presiding over the Committee which considered this Bill, and for assisting me in passing it. The Committee were practically unanimous on the Bill with the exception of one single point. That was an Amendment moved by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh for the purpose of enabling landowners to affix to ways which they did not intend to dedicate to the public notices to that effect, such notices to be conclusive that no dedication was intended. I understand that Lord Clifford's intention is to enable landowners to continue the user by the public of ways of this kind without at the same time going through the formality of closing the path from time to time in order to prevent the right growing. In that view I entirely concur. At the same time there is some little doubt whether the Amendment does not go rather further than the noble Lord intended, and my noble and learned friend Lord Robson found some difficulty in the proviso on this point. I do not propose at the present stage to take any exception to it. I have no doubt the whole Bill will be very carefully considered by the Government draftsman in another place, and I hope it may turn out that the objections of my noble and learned friend are not serious, and that the Bill will pass in its present form. I merely think it desirable to say to-night that it may be necessary hereafter to make a small Amendment in this clause. At the same time I am in general sympathy with the view of the noble Lord (Lord Clifford) on the subject, and I hope it may be possible for the clause to be passed in its present shape.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Eversley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The first Question I have to put is that the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made.
On Question, Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Public use of way for twenty years conclusive that way is a public highway.
2. Where a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway unless it shall appear that there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way, or unless during such period of twenty years there was not at any time any person in possession of such land or water capable of dedicating such way. And where such way has been enjoyed as aforesaid for a full period of forty years, such way shall be deemed conclusively to have been dedicated as a public highway unless there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way, and in either of the cases in this section mentioned, a notice by the owner of the land over which such way passes inconsistent with its dedication as a highway, placed and maintained in such a manner as to be visible to those using it, shall, in the absence of any proof of a contrary intention, be sufficient evidence to negative the intention to dedicate such way as a public highway: Provided that each of the respective periods of years mentioned in this section shall be deemed and taken to be the period next before the time when the right of the public to use a wav shall have been brought into question: Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall affect the incapacity of corporations or other bodies or persons in possession of land for public or statutory purposes to dedicate any such way where such way would be incompatible with such public or statutory purposes: Provided that in the case of any land let on lease the person for the time being entitled to the reversion shall, notwithstanding the existence of any such lease, have the right to cause such notice to be placed and maintained.
LORD EVERSLEY: I move to leave out the words "or water" ["or unless during such period of twenty years there was not at any time any person in possession of such land or water"]. This is an Amendment to carry out the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. The words were omitted in Committee, but apparently the clerk did not take a note of it. The case is provided for by words which appear at the end of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("or water").—(Lord Eversley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I have a drafting Amendment, and in moving it I would take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for his kind reference to my small services in connection with this Bill. It is considered better for the purpose of drafting that the proviso at the end of the clause—
"Provided that in the case of any land let on lease the person for the time being entitled to the reversion shall, notwithstanding the existence of any such lease, have the right to cause such notice to be placed and maintained"
should be transposed and should come in after the words "public highway" ["shall, in the absence of any proof of a contrary intention, be sufficient evidence to negative the intention to dedicate such way as a public highway"].
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, after the word ("highway") insert the proviso appearing at the end of the clause.—[Lord Alverstone.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 141.)

SMALL HOLDINGS (TENANTS ACQUISITION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Account to be kept by county council.
1. In fixing the rent to be paid for any small holding purchased by a county council and provided by the council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, a county council shall determine the proportion of such rent which is attributable to the sinking fund intended to recoup to the county council the cost of the acquisition of the land and of the adaptation thereof as a small holding, and shall keep a separate account of all such part of the sums received on account of rent as are so attributable (in this Act referred to as
540
"the recoupment account"); and the tenant of a small holding shall be permitted, at all reasonable times, without payment, to inspect, by himself or by any person authorised by him in writing, the recoupment account relating to the small holding of which he is the tenant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move, after the word "rent" ["a county council shall determine the proportion of such rent"], to insert the words "if any." This is really only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("rent") insert ("if any").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the next line I move to leave out the words "sinking fund" and to insert "instalment of principal." The words "instalment of principal" are taken from the Act of 1908.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("sinking fund") and insert ("instalment of principal").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I next propose to leave out the words "of a small holding" ["(in this Act referred to as 'the recoupment account'); and the tenant of a small holding"]. The words are not required here and are mere repetition.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line l4, leave out ("of a smallholding").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Rights of tenant of small holding.
2.—(1) If the county council gives to the, tenant of a small holding notice to quit, the county council shall repay to such tenant all sums paid by him in respect of the holding which have been credited to the recoupment account.
(2) The tenant of a small holding may at any time during his tenancy give to the county council six months' notice in writing of his desire to purchase such holding (in this Act referred to as a "notice to purchase"), and if within such period the tenant pays to the council the difference between the total amount of the sums paid by him in respect of such small holding and credited to the

541
recoupment account and the total amount necessary to recoup to the county council the cost of the acquisition of the said land and its adaptation us a small holding, the council shall transfer the laud to the tenant in fee simple.
(3) When the total amount of the sums paid by a tenant and credited to the recoupment account are equal to the total sum necessary to recoup to the county council the total cost of the acquisition of the land leased to such tenant and the adaptation thereof as a small holding, the county council shall transfer such laud to the tenant in fee simple.
(4) If a tenant who has acquired a right under this Act dies during the tenancy, the benefit thereof shall survive as personal property to his legal personal representatives, who shall be entitled to exercise the right which such tenant might have exercised if they give notice of their intention and take any other steps necessary within three months after the death of the tenant, and not otherwise.
(5) Any difference which arises under the provisions of this Act shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to leave out subsection (1). My reason for proposing to omit these words is that I think as they stand they would be too much in favour of the tenant. For instance, a tenant might wish to leave his holding and might set to work deliberately to deteriorate it, and then if the county council gave him notice he would be entitled to receive back the sums which he had paid to the recoupment account. I think this would be unfair on the county council and, moreover, I think it would be unfair to the successor of this tenant, because the successor would have a much shorter time to run, yet he would have to repay the whole of the loan in the smaller number of years, it is for that reason I propose to leave out these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 19 to 22 inclusive.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is at the commencement of subsection (2), to leave out the words "of a small holding." These words are not necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("of a small holding").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My next Amendment is to leave out, for exactly the same reason, the words "in respect of such small holding."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("in respect of such small holding").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My next Amendment, is to leave out the whole of subsection (4). My reason for proposing this Amendment is that this matter really appeal's to me to be one which is personal to the tenant himself. If he has been called upon to repay instalments of principal, I think it is quite fair if he sees tit to pay the remaining instalments that he should be able to become the proprietor of the property. If that is to be a right, however, which he is to be able to pass on, I think it might involve some complication and might be rather unfair to the county council. I am particularly anxious to meet the case of what I think is an undoubted hardship to a tenant who is himself called upon to pay instalments of principal, and I think it should be in his power at any time to pay up the instalments and become the proprietor of the property. But I think it is questionable whether you ought to extend that benefit so as to enable this to become a right which he can leave to his representatives. It does not seem unfair at first sight that a man should be able to leave this to his representatives, but I think in all the circumstances of the case it is perhaps better that the tenant's right should be limited to himself.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 15 to 21, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Title:
An Act to provide for the acquisition by tenants of small holdings in respect of which a rent in excess of the gross annual value is received by county councils.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: moved to leave out "a" and to insert "the."
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 2, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to leave out the words "in excess of the gross annual value is," and to insert the words "includes instalments of capital expenditure." The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture took exception to the words "in excess of the gross annual value." I thought there was something in his objection, and therefore I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("in excess of the gross annual value is") and insert ("includes instalments of capital expenditure").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is, That I report this Bill with Amendments to the House.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: May I on that ask a question of the noble Earl who is promoting this Bill? The first subsection of Clause 2 provides that—
"If the county council gives to the tenant of a small holding notice to quit, the county council shall repay to such tenant all sums paid by him in respect of the holding which have been credited to the recoupment account."
That, of course, would be perfectly fair if the notice was given without any default on the part of the tenant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That subsection has been struck out.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Perhaps I may ask the question all the same. Would any fund belonging to the tenant under this Bill be liable for any default of the tenant in his tenancy, because I think it ought to be. Of course, a county council may have to get rid of a tenant for bad farming, or for some breach of covenant, and in that case surely the county council ought to be able to obtain compensation from any fund to which the tenant may be entitled.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I apprehend, in the ease which the noble Viscount has mentioned, that the general security which the county council have they would have under the existing law. That does not touch this matter. With regard to this particular subsection, I
544
gave reasons just now to the House why I thought it was desirable to leave it out. It was really for the very reason which the noble Viscount has suggested—namely, that there might be tenants who would deteriorate their holdings with the avowed object of getting notice and being turned out, and then upon that receiving the payments which they had made to the recoupment account.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 142.)

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very sorry. I had wished to get rid of this Bill one way or the other, but it seems constantly dragging on. My noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury is not able to be here to-day to continue the discussion. Therefore I hope your Lordships will consent to this stage being postponed until next Tuesday.
The Report of Amendments put off to Tuesday next.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  MARGAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

    GREATER LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    E. Eldon,

    L. Digby,

    L. Wynford,

    L. Lamington (Chairman),

    L. Brabourne;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on

    545
    Monday next, at Twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

DACOITY IN INDIA.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will, in the absence of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, be able to answer the Question which stands in my name on the Paper—namely, whether it is a fact that on April 1 last, in the High Court at Calcutta, before the Chief Justice, 18 men who pleaded guilty to the charges of being members of a gang of dacoits, and of having committed a series of dacolties in the district of Khulna, were released on the suggestion of the Advocate-General, acting under instructions from the Government, and suffered no further penalty than being bound over to keep the peace; and, if so, what were the reasons for this decision, which has caused profound uneasiness in Bengal.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, the subject which the noble Lord has raised is one of some importance and interest. The facts are that on December 10, 1910, sixteen men were I committed by a magistrate in the Khulna I district in Bengal to take their trial before a special tribunal of the Calcutta High Court, under Section 400 of the Penal Code, on a charge of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually o committing dacoity. The case was one of great complexity; the evidence was extremely voluminous, the proceedings in the lower Court, in which the parties were not represented by counsel, lasting nearly a month. Two hundred and forty-eight witnesses were examined, and a large number of documents were also examined. They were put in to prove the connection of the accused with six dacoities committed I in the district of Khulna and Jessore and I their association for the purpose of carrying out these dacoities at four places in the district, and at more than eleven places in the City of Calcutta.
When these transactions took place I was acting Secretary of State, and therefore I am not dependent merely upon informa-
546
tion supplied for the purpose of answering the noble Lord's Question. After the committal of these 16 men, two others who had absconded were arrested and also committed. The High Court thus had before them 18 persons against whom 268 witnesses were to be brought up by the prosecution, while there was every probability of an equal number being called for the defence. Recent experience has shown that trials of this kind before a special tribunal, set up, as the noble Lord may know, by a special law, are apt to last several months, and there was a prospect of this trial continuing during the whole of the summer—a state of things that would have created a very bad impression throughout, the country, where, as anybody may imagine, these trials produce constant and prolonged irritation. The result, moreover, would in any case have been uncertain, as the evidence of many of the witnesses had been given in the lower Court with extreme reluctance, and the issue depended to a large extent on the testimony of approvers, which is always of very doubtful value. When the case came before the High Court a nolle prosequi was entered by the Advocate-General in regard to one of the accused, who was thus acquitted, and the remaining seventeen pleaded "Guilty" Thereupon the Advocate-General, acting on the instructions of the Government, submitted to the Court that as the accused had been in custody for eight months, and had practically admitted their guilt, their release might be ordered as an act of clemency on the part of the Crown, on the condition that the accused would enter into recognizances to appear to receive sentence when called upon—not merely, as I think the noble Lord's Question rather suggests, to keep the peace, but to come up for sentence when called upon. The youths who were thus provisionally released left the Court shouting "Long live the King Emperor," and on their return to their villages they were sent for with their friends and relations by an eminent Hindu gentleman, who gave them a severe lecture on loyalty and the necessity of turning over a new leaf, and it is believed that the people of their district will keep an eye on them and that the end of this transaction will be all that could be desired.
I can only say, further, that in a case of a similar kind, that of the Howrah gang,

547
which was heard a little time before—I mention this because the noble Lord may not be aware of it—I was in constant correspondence with the Viceroy during the whole of that transaction, and I am in. strong agreement with him; and the complete failure of the Howrah gang ease is ample justification for the action taken in regard to the Khulna gang case. That is to say, there was a large number of prisoners, and all except a few—two or three, I think—were eventually acquitted by the High Court. The trial was long, there was great publicity and a good deal of irritation, but really there was no substantial advantage gained, and no case for punishment was believed to have been made out in the case of the majority of the accused. I hope that the noble Lord will believe that the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, examined all these particulars himself, in concert with the Government of Bengal, and so far as I can understand it, at the time following the matter very carefully, the proceedings were thoroughly justified.
LORD WYNFORD: I trust that I shall not be out of order in referring to the answer of the noble Viscount, and in asking for information on one further point. I had hoped that it would have been brought out in the reply. From what I have gathered and also from the answer just given by the noble Viscount, I am inclined to think that there was some sort of pre-arranged agreement—I might almost call it collusion—between the Executive and the Chief Justice previous to the prisoners pleading "Guilty." What I should like to ask the noble Viscount is whether he can assure me that in this case there was no such pre-arranged agreement; that there was no agreement that these prisoners should be released on condition that they pleaded guilty, because if there was such an agreement it surely forms a very dangerous precedent in the administration of the law.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I understand that a very eminent and entirely unsuspected lawyer did make a communication to these men. The whole of the transaction, including that, was entirely approved when it transpired, not only by the Viceroy himself but by the whole of his Council. That ought, I think, to convince the noble Lord that there
548
was nothing very sinister or perilous by way of precedent in what took place.
LORD WYNFORD: Surely it is very irregular for this sort of arrangement to be made before the trial actually took place. As I understand—and the noble Viscount has not contradicted me—there was some arrangement whereby these prisoners were actually promised release provided they pleaded guilty. May I ask the noble Viscount whether that was the case?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: If the noble Lord is not satisfied with what I have said I think he had better put another Question on the Paper. This seems to me to be out of order.

MOROCCO.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH rose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he could lay on the Table copies of Treaties or extracts from Treaties embodying "our Treaty obligations to France" I in connection with Morocco.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid, from what I understand, that my noble friend will not grant the Return which I am endeavouring to obtain from him. If the noble Viscount has arrived at an adverse decision perhaps he will allow me to make, just one or two observations to explain why he should reconsider that decision. I am told that it would be difficult to make this Return, in fact that it could not be made. The desire is that there should be laid before Parliament copies of Treaties or extracts from Treaties embodying our Treaty obligations to France in connection with Morocco. It is said they are difficult to extract. I have examined what appears to be the main part of our Treaty obligations, and it appears to me that it would be easy to give the Treaty between France and ourselves which was concluded when the noble Marquess opposite was Foreign Secretary. Only four clauses are concerned—the second, fourth, seventh, and ninth; they are very simple clauses and could easily be put into a compact form. It is said that the Algerciras Act considerably affects those obligations, and that it is a voluminous document; but I do not think it has been established, or, at least, it is very doubtful, that there are any Treaty

549
obligations in it towards Fiance involving us. But it is not of a very difficult character.
I submit that it is not difficult to put before the country or Parliament in a simple form the Treaty obligations which are referred to. Indeed, a subsequent statement has been made which contradicts the one as to difficulty. It is said, "Oh, you can do it yourself. Any private person can get any of the documents, and can easily make the extracts." Then again, it is said that it has been done by the newspapers. The newspapers do perform a very useful public function when they give extracts from public documents so as to convey to the public their simple essence, but they do so on their own authority, and the extracts do not carry with them the authority which a Government communication would command. The great utility of such a Return as the one for which I ask would be that it would tend to the education of the public as to the character of our Treaty obligations with France in connection with Morocco, and the authority of a communication so put forward would be such as to conclude differences which might arise in similar documents in newspapers. We may be told that the differences arising out of the question of Morocco are, perhaps, passing away. There is great hope that they will be settled. I hope so too. But there is no reason to apprehend that the publication of this Paper would cause any delay in settling the questions which may have arisen and which may be under discussion by the respective Governments—on the contrary, it may facilitate the settling of those questions. I press upon the noble Viscount the expediency of considering the granting of the request which I make to him.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, the concluding observation of my noble, friend takes us on to what is rather at the time, delicate ground, and I am sure he will excuse me if I do not touch that part of the question. It would be highly inconvenient, or might be. The answer to the Question on the Paper is this—The Treaty obligations referred to are those contained in the Anglo-French Declaration of 1904, which was presented to Parliament in a very slender Blue
550
Book in the Treaty Series No. 6, 1905. This country is also, as my noble friend is perfectly well aware, one of the signatories to the General Act of the International Conference at Algeciras relating to the affairs of Morocco. The obligations under that Act are shared by all the other signatory Powers. The Act has just been laid before Parliament in the Treaty Series No. 4, 1907. If any member of this I House or any member of the public is interested, as he may well be, in the terms of our obligations to France, and the terms of our obligations under the Algeciras Act, along with the other signatory Powers, I think it is really very little trouble for him to turn over the pages of these two Blue Books—barely Blue Books, and one of them of the most slender character. I would also point out that the clauses relating to our obligations to France concerning Morocco are rather involved, and a selection of them would not be so perfectly simple a transaction as my noble friend appears to think. He is quite right when he says that the public Press has already—I have one before me now—produced a sort of précis of the effect of these two instruments, perfectly adequate—a couple of columns intelligible to the plain man in the street. I hardly see I what is to be gained by governmental publication, and I may perhaps point out to my noble friend that, though I doubt if anything could be gained, the deliberate publication of selected extracts from these two important instruments at this moment might be open to a dubious and perhaps injurious construction. What may happen by-and-by I do not know, but I am afraid, for the present at all events, I must beg to be excused for not complying with my noble friend's wishes.

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to facilitate the foundation of new Bishoprics and the alteration of Dioceses, and to amend the Bishops Resignation Act, 1869, and for other matters incidental thereto—Was presented by the Viscount St. Aldwyn; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 143.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.