Sitting of 24 May 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords],
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Inverness Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Inverness Harbour," presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 1st June, and to be printed.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Thames Conservancy Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords] and Thames Conservancy Bill; Report to lie upon the Table.
Rochdale Market Bill [Lords],
Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Halifax Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [Lords],
Penllwyn Railway Bill [Lords],
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords],
Swansea Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
  That they have agreed to:—
  Tamworth Gas Bill,
  Blackburn Corporation Water Bill,
  London Electric Railway Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to:—
  Slough Urban District Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable local authorities to acquire existing Ferries by agreement."—[Ferries (Acquisition by Local Authorities) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Great Yarmouth Port, and Haven Commissioners; to authorise the Commissioners to construct a dock and other works; to acquire the Fish Wharf undertaking of the Corporation of Great Yarmouth; to acquire lands; and for other purposes."—[Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the construction of the railway authorised by The Penllwyn Railway Act, 1906; and for other purposes."—[Penllwyn Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the construction of certain authorised tramways of the Imperial Tramways Company, Limited, and to revive the powers and extend the time for the acquisition of lands in connection therewith; and for other purposes."—[Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Swansea Gas Light Company."—[Swansea Gas Bill [Lords.]

DISTILLERIES (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return ordered, "showing the number of distilleries working in England, Ireland, and Scotland for the years 1906–7, 1907–8, 1908–9, and 1909–10, under different headings. (1) Distilleries manufacturing yeast: pot and patent, patent, and pot; (2) distilleries not manufacturing yeast: pot and patent, patent, and pot."—[Mr. Crean.]
EXPLOSIONS (HULTON COLLIERY).
Copy presented, of Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by R. A. S. Redmayne, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, and S. Pope, Barrister-at-Law, on the causes and circumstances of the Explosion which occurred at the Hulton Colliery on the 21st December, 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Copy presented, of Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1910, Report and Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION)ACT, 1898.
Copy presented, of Rule amending Rule 13 of the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Rules, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 168].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Coronation.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked whether arrangements could be made to give the cadets of the Royal Naval Colleges at Osborne and Dartmouth an opportunity of witnessing the Coronation Naval Review on 24th June?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): His Majesty's ship "Eclipse" will be used for the accommodation of cadets from the Royal Naval Colleges at Osborne and Dartmouth at the review, the arrangements being left to the discretion of the captains of the Colleges. If further accommodation is required, additional arrangements will be considered.
  Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ships will be in the line, or whether the cadets will have an opportunity of taking part in the procession, so that they may see the Fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think so. I have not considered the point, but I do not think it would be possible for any other ships to take part in the actual procession.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the ships carrying Members of the House of Lords and of this House follow the procession?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would rather postpone a statement on that point.

  Royal Dockyards (Admission of Foreigners).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether there were any portions of our dockyards not shown to foreigners?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are of course certain confidential matters which are not shown to anybody.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year instructions were received by the dockyard authorities to show the Commissioners of a Foreign Power anything they wanted to see?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific case to bring forward it would be much better to give me notice so that I could inquire into the matter.

  British and Foreign Navies (Armament).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what ships under construction for Foreign powers were to be armed with guns of 13.5-inches calibre or more?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Texas" and "New York" battleships building for the United States Government are the only vessels which are known with certainty to be intended to be armed with guns of 13.5-inches calibre or more.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman any information about German ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have given all the information I am able to give on the subject. These are the only two known with certainty.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether any British ships of the "Dreadnought" type, built or building, carry more than ten guns of 10-inches calibre or more in their main armament; whether any Foreign vessels of this type carry more than ten such guns; and, if so, which?
  Mr. McKENNA: No British ships of the "Dreadnought" type now built carry more than ten such guns. Thirty-one Foreign ships built or building carry more than ten such guns, and I will circulate their names with the Votes. [See Written Answers this day.]
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the largest and most powerfully-armed vessel present at the naval review on 24th June would be under a Foreign flag?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is believed that the United States ship "Delaware" will be the largest ship at the review, her normal displacement being 100 tons more than the "Neptune," the next largest ship. The armaments are very similar, except that the "Delaware" has fourteen five-inch guns against the "Neptune's sixteen four-inch.

  Merchant Vessels (Supply of Guns).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Admiralty would supply suitable guns and fittings to selected merchant vessels if the owners would make proper structural preparation for their reception and provide effective and proper upkeep?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty will give due consideration to any proposals they may receive from shipowners. They cannot undertake to answer a hypothetical question of this kind.

  Royal Dockyard Apprentices (Pensionable Service).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the
  Admiralty if he was aware that the pensions of all persons holding established positions in the dockyards were calculated on their completed years of established service from the age of sixteen, time served as apprentices not being reckoned for pension; that there are a number of men in the dockyards who were entered as hired boys and received training qualifying for employment as skilled labourers and mechanics, and that under the regulations these men counted their service for pension from the age of sixteen; and, seeing that the apprentice class, bound to serve
  240
  six years, lost four years or more pensionable service as compared with the man who entered as hired boy, would he endeavour to remedy this grievance of the apprentices?
  Mr. McKENNA: The facts are substantially as stated. The matter is receiving consideration, but is is obviously one affecting more than one department.

  Engineer-Commanders (Royal Navy).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was done with the money voted in the Navy Estimates of 1903–4 and 1904–5 giving engineer-commanders a minimum rate of pay of 24s. a day; and whether he was aware that a number of these officers had not received that rate of pay?
  Mr. McKENNA: All the engineer-commanders for whom pay at the rate of 24s. a day was provided in the Estimates of 1903–4 and 1904–5 received pay at that rate. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the Noble Lord to my replies to his questions on Thursday last.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there has been a breach of faith, and that there is a sense of injustice in the service because these meritorious officers were promised a certain rate of pay and have not received it?
  Mr. McKENNA: I know of no such official statement as that referred to by the Noble Lord, and I have overwhelming evidence that there has been no breach of faith. If the Noble Lord can refer me to the author of the official statement in regard to which there has been a breach of faith, I shall be glad to deal with it.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I will do so.

  Kitchen Committee (Retirement of Waiters).
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that all the staff of this House other than the waiters under the Kitchen Committee receive pensions on retirement, he will propose to the House a grant of a pension out of the Civil Service Estimates to Messrs. Platt and Collins, who have had 35 and 25 years' service respectively; and whether he is aware that in the case of Mr. Collins his health has been seriously impaired owing to the continued late sittings of the House?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I understand that Messrs. Platt and Collins are in the employment of the Kitchen Committee, not of the House, and consequently I have no power to grant them pensions.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Sir A. Jacoby most generously left a sum of £1,000 to form a nucleus of a pension fund for the attendants and waiters in this House? Will he consider whether it would be possible for him in some way to supplement that sum, in order that a real pension fund might be formed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I shall be happy to consider any suggestion of that kind. I think it is a misfortune that there is no fund available for an exceedingly deserving case of this kind. I am sure it would be the general wish of Members of the House.
  Mr. MARKHAM: May I inquire, seeing private Members have no power to propose money resolutions, how they can proceed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only way a private Member can proceed by the procedure of the House is to call attention to the matter in the Committee Debate.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that but for the assistance of Messrs. Platt and Collins all-night sittings of this House would become impossible?

  Mauritius (Sale of Intoxicating Liquors).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could state the general conditions under which intoxicating liquors are sold in Mauritius; what proportion of the revenue of the colony was derived from this source in 1909–10 as compared with 1899–1900; and whether there are any restrictions upon the sale of drink to children and other persons?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Retailers of intoxicating liquors, tavern keepers, hotel keepers, etc., are required to take out licences which are printed on pages 1,187, will find full details in the laws as to licences which are printed on pages 1,187, etc., of the revised edition of the laws of Mauritius, which is in the Library of this House. I am unable to give the figures asked for, as the returns in my possession
  242
  do not show what portion of the revenue from import duties is derived from liquor. The sale of liquor to an intoxicated person is prohibited, as is the sale of spirits to be consumed on the premises to any person apparently below the age of fifteen.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the question of the sale of intoxicating liquors be discussed at the Imperial Conference?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Any question brought forward by the representatives may be discussed.

  Referendum (Australia).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a reply to the despatch sent by him on 15th March to the Governor General of the Commonwealth, asking for a Report as to the workings of referenda recently taken in Australia; and, if so, whether he would make such Report available to Members of this House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No reply has yet been received.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SANATORIUM BENEYITS.
    Mr. ASTORasked, in the event of the sums available for defraying expenses of sanatorium treatment under Section 15 (2) of the National Insurance Bill proving inadequate for the maintenance of all suitable cases in sanatoria, will an insured person suffering from consumption be debarred from obtaining sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Local Health Committee, under Clause 15 (3), is responsible for selecting the cases to be sent to approved sanatoria for sanatorium treatment at an agreed payment at the cost of the Insurance Fund. I am advised that the sum allocated is sufficient to provide the necessary accommodation.
    Mr. ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that every insured person suffering from consumption will get adequate treatment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot really express an opinion as to whether all these cases ought to be sent to sanatoria. But I am advised that the accommodation to be provided for the sum we have placed at the disposal of the health committees will be quite adequate for all the cases likely to be sent there. If the sum is inadequate

    243
    the hon. Member will find provision in the Bill for further assistance, either through the medium of the local rates or the Treasury. The Treasury, I presume, would be responsible for one-half and the local rates for the other half if more accommodation is required.
    Mr. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to prevent those who can afford to pay for treatment at home being sent to sanatoria?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather not express an opinion upon that. It is a question which really ought to be considered very carefully after the medical advisory committee has been set up in the Bill. I do not think it would be advisable to tie our hands at this stage, and before we get information.

    WOMEN OUTWORKERS.
    Mr. GOULDINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on whom the responsibility of paying the employers' share of contributions under Part I. of the National Insurance Bill will rest in the case of women outworkers employed on piece work given out more or less irregularly by two or more masters or shopkeepers, but subject to special orders under Part VI. of the Factory and Workshop Act,1901?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under paragraph (4) of the Third Schedule the responsibility would rest in general on the first person employing the outworker in any week, or as an alternative on such other employer as may be prescribed by regulations framed by the Insurance Commissioners.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETY FUNDS.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANhad the following question on the Paper: To ask if a member of a friendly society who has been paying 7d. a week to his society becomes insured through that society; "and" will he in future pay 2d. whilst the employer pays 3d. and the State 2d. into the funds of the friendly society?
    The word "and" should not be in the question.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was not quite sure what the hon. Member's question was, but I will answer it as on the Paper. In the circumstances described the society can substitute the benefits and contributions under the Bill for similar benefits hitherto given, and the contributions hitherto paid in respect of them. The member will pay
    244
    the full contributions prescribed by the Bill, but the funds already accumulated by the society may be applied, under Clause 55, among other ways towards the payment of the members' contributions under the Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: What proportion of the 7d. would be regarded as representing the death and funeral benefits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have nothing to do with death and funeral benefits under the Bill. As a matter of fact, we could not possibly under this Bill collect any money or allocate any portion of the fund to that purpose.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman does not quite understand. I mean what proportion of the 7d. now paid to the friendly society will represent, and therefore be deducted from, the amount due from that society in respect of death and funeral benefits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is entirely a matter for the society itself. We shall have nothing to do with it. It depends, of course, upon the amount of funeral benefit. Therefore it is a question rather to be addressed to them than us.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if a member of two friendly societies who has become insured in one society under Part I. of the Act, and who has been earning 20s. a week, and who, on falling sick, would be entitled to pay at the rate of 25s. a week, is compelled to forfeit 5s. a week of the amount of sick benefit to which his contributions have entitled him; and, if so, which of the two societies would be credited with the 5s., or would the State receive the whole money?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the circumstances described the member's contributions to the society in which he is insured for the purposes of the National Health Insurance Scheme would only entitle him to so much as would bring his sick pay up to 20s. It is therefore not the case that he would forfeit anything to which he would be entitled. The society in which he is insured for the purposes of the National Health Insurance Scheme would reap the advantage of not having to pay more than the amount due under the scheme.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a man is lying sick it costs rather more for better food, and so on, than when he is receiving

    245
    wages, and will he therefore consider the advisability of altering what seems to be a hardship?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is, of course, one of the questions that I shall probably have to consider when we come to Committee. I would rather not express an opinion upon it now.

    PROVIDENT DISPENSARIES.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether, under the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, the position of the provident dispensaries will be altered; and, if so, in what respect; and would the present subscribing members, numbering about 110,000 in London alone, receive subsidies from the State and employers, respectively, in aid of their contributions for free medical relief?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no reason why provident dispensaries should not form or join "approved societies" for the purpose of administering the benefits (including medical attendance), provided by the Bill, for the benefit of so many of their members as are insured under the Bill.
    Mr. PEEL: Is it possible for them to be recognised as societies under the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The difficulty of that is they could not be recognised as approved societies unless they are prepared to pay full benefit; but there is nothing to prevent them coming in as approved societies if they comply with the requirements of the Bill.
    Mr. PEEL: Is it a fact that the condition they do not fulfil is they are not registered under any Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should rather like to consider that, but I think there are many other conditions; for instance, they do not pay sick benefit, and I am not sure they provide medical attendance in all cases. It is quite a different purpose they serve at present, and it depends entirely whether they would like to become approved societies under the Bill; if they do they can become approved societies.

    LOCAL HEALTH COMMITTEES.
    Mr. GOULDINGasked whether the local health committees will have power under the National Insurance Bill to build sanatoria themselves as well as to pay for treatment of persons in sanatoria erected by other authorities or persons?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply is in the negative.

    UNINSURED PERSONS (SANATORIA TREATMENT).
    Mr. GOULDINGasked whether the sanatoria established under the National Insurance Bill would be available for uninsured wives of insured persons?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The sanatoria to be provided under Clause 47 of the Bill would not be limited to the treatment of insured persons, but the expenses of sanatorium treatment for an uninsured person could not be met from the funds contributed by the insured persons.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. HARRY HOPEasked if those agricultural workmen in Scotland who at present receive six weeks' full wages if laid off work by sickness, without contributing anything, will be compelled to come under the National Insurance Bill, or will they have the option to remain as they are at present?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Agricultural labourers will be compulsorily insured. I may point out that the new benefits to which they will acquire a right are likely to exceed considerably the value of the contributions for which they will become liable.

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE SOCIETIES.
    Mr. CASSELasked on what grounds it is proposed to exclude from the category of approved societies under the National Insurance Bill industrial assurance societies which distribute profits on their other business, but not profits arising from State insurance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have already pointed out, it will be possible under the Bill to utilise the organisation of an association not itself qualified to be an approved society to assist in the creation of a self-governing society on a mutual basis which would be so qualified.
    Mr. CASSEL: Would it be possible even for an industrial insurance society which now pays profit out of funds, other than those which arise for State insurance to come in?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is nothing to prevent any citizen of this country from forming an association which as long as it complies with the conditions of the Bill

    247
    would become an approved society, and therefore industrial insurance companies would be in the same position as any other citizens in the country.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to allow these companies and societies to use their offices, agents, and so forth to get hold upon the scheme in order to secure gain?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what they could not do. They could not use any of the money for enhancing their profits for other parts of their business.

    RATES AND TAXES.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, in cases where a tenant is an insured person in receipt of sickness benefit and does not pay rent for a period of three months or more, and the landlord is prohibited under Clause 51 of the National Insurance Bill from taking proceedings for the recovery of such rent, any provision is made, or is proposed to be made, exempting the landlord from payment of rates and taxes in respect of the said premises during such period?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply is in the negative.

    WAGES DURING ILLNESS.
    Mr. BIRDasked whether, in view of the fact that in the case of absence from sickness Members of Parliament, who will not be forced to contribute to a State insurance fund, will still be paid their salaries in full, he will, under the National Insurance Bill, extend the same advantage to workmen and workwomen, from whose earnings insurance contributions are to be compulsorily deducted, of also receiving their wages in full when suffering from illness?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason for this disadvantageous treatment of the workman as compared with the well-to-do Member of Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not possibly do that in replying to a question.

    COMMITTEE STAGE.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in view of the short space that has elapsed between the introduction of the National Insurance Bill and the date fixed for its
    248
    Second Reading, coupled with the fact that as at present arranged two Parliamentary days only are to be allotted to the Second Reading stage, he will undertake that the Committee stage shall not be commenced before 1st July at the earliest; and whether, in view of the uncertainty and apprehension that exists among important classes of the community, he will recommend the appointment of three small Select Committees who will be empowered during the next few weeks to receive the views and evidence of the medical interest, those connected with insurance collecting societies, and large employers of labour respectively, and submit such evidence in the form of reports, to be available to Members before the Committee stage is entered on?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government will take care that there is an ample interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stages. I am afraid I cannot adopt the suggestion in the form in which I wrote my question.

    MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other means of obtaining the views of the medical profession before this Bill comes to the Committee stage?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are many better ways than appointing a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is ready and most willing to receive any representations and to adopt any practical suggestions.

    COMMITTEE STAGE.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from friendly societies and other industrial insurance companies to the effect that their meetings are largely held during the Whitsuntide recess, and stating that they would be very glad if the Second Reading of this Bill could be postponed until after those discussions have taken place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee stage will be postponed until after that time.

    Finance Act, 1909–1910.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state in how many cases repayment of excess of Income Tax under Schedule A has been made under Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; what is the aggregate amount of Treasury disbursements under

    249
    this head; and what is the amount now standing to the credit of the fund for this purpose constituted by the annual apportionment of £500,000?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Claims are still coming in, and, indeed, they may still come in up to the end of the present financial year, consequently I fear I cannot yet give the figure which the hon. Member desires.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much has been repaid up to date? He has not answered that part of my hon. Friend's question. I think he might answer that?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot. I understand that there is a difficulty in doing that. But I shall make an effort to find out.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We only wish for the amounts actually paid in up to date.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot give it now.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that under Section 17, Sub-section (5), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no Undeveloped Land Duty can be charged on any agricultural land let on a tenancy created before 30th April, 1909, until the first date when the tenancy could have been determined since the passing of the Act; and, seeing that in certain cases duty has been charged, levied, and paid in respect of land entitled to the benefit of this exemption, whether in these cases the money will be refunded to the owners immediately?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Full opportunity has been given to owners to claim the benefit of the exemption contained in Section 17 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and no claims for repayment have been preferred.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right to prefer claims from a Department for a tax which is not really leviable? Is he aware that the terms of this taxation being so complicated the Department knows where the tax is leviable, but individuals do not, and will he take care that in future these claims are not made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has given me a very, very complicated question, which I would rather not answer straightaway. The hon. Gentleman has assumed that something or other
    250
    is illegal, which I could not possibly assume, until, at any rate, I have had time to look into the matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the form of my question has been altered? As I wrote it it was: "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under Section 17, Sub-section (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no Undeveloped Land Duty is chargeable?…" That is the form in which I wrote my question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is not here as a lawyer—a question an answer to which he can obtain on payment of a guinea.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the yield for the financial year 1910–11 of the Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, Reversion Duty, and Mineral Rights Duty, respectively; and the cost of collection of these duties, including the cost of the valuation upon which the two first-named duties are based?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I explained in my financial statement last week, practically the only duty which has yielded any considerable sum up to the present time is the Mineral Rights Duty. In the case of other duties, in consequence of the small number of the settled valuations, the yield has been trifling, the sums paid into the Exchequer on account of Increment Value Duty having been £130, of Reversion Duty £260, and of Undeveloped Land Duty £2,350. The cost of collection for the whole sum of £520,000 was £7,230, excluding the non-recurrent expenditure on valuation, which as I have already mentioned is more than paid for by the more accurate valuations for Death Duties.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it not the fact that the ordinary method of valuation for Death Duties could be perfectly well carried out under the old Act, and that no portion of these Death Duties is due to the new Act at all?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member's information is quite incorrect in that respect.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the incompleteness of the Census returns for Ireland of 1841 and 1851, the destruction of those of 1861, and the non-existence

    251
    until a later date of compulsory registration of birth, he will introduce into the proposed Government Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act provisions to meet the difficulties thus created, and to facilitate the grant of pensions to old persons who are without documentary proof of age?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The pension authorities already have the power to grant an old age pension in the absence of documentary proof of age, if other satisfactory evidence is forthcoming.

    Income Tax Assessments.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the number of assessments for Income Tax under Schedule A received from Ireland in respect of the years 1909–10 and 1910–11, respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information the hon. Member asks for is not available.
    Mr. NEWMAN: When will it be available?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice of that.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is there no record at the Treasury of the number of assessments under Schedule A for last year or the year before?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information I have given is the only information I have received from the Treasury. They inform me the information is not available.

    Payment of Members
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Income Tax to be deducted from the salaries to be paid to Members will be deducted at the source, as in the case of other Government salaries?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. FELL: Will it be deducted at the rate of 1s. 2d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. I said the answer is in the affirmative.

    Scottish Lords-Lieutenant (Special Flag).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether lieutenants of counties in Scotland are subject to the
    252
    jurisdiction of the Secretary for Scotland; and, if not, why has the Secretary for Scotland memorialised them with regard to a special flag for Lords-Lieutenant?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of the Noble Lord's question is in the negative. The Secretary for Scotland did not memorialise the Lords-Lieutenant. On the 6th April last he transmitted to them a copy of a design which had been approved by the King, for a flag to be used by His Majesty's Lieutenants of Counties.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What was the letter sent from the Scottish Office on 26th April with regard to the subject?
    Mr. URE: I should require notice of that question.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked what is the reason for altering the Union Jack as it now exists in order to provide a special flag for Lords-Lieutenant in Scotland; whether any lieutenants have objected to fly the Union Jack; and whether the Union Jack is the recognised official flag at present?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The Lord Advocate has asked me to answer this question. In consequence of representations from the Association of Lieutenants of Counties His Majesty has been pleased to approve of a design for a distinctive flag to be used by His Majesty's Lieutenants of Counties throughout the United Kingdom. The Union Jack is the recognised flag to be used by British subjects who are not entitled to use a special flag.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is this the same flag that was suggested by the Secretary of State for War in 1907, rejected by the Lords-Lieutenant, and withdrawn during the last reign and who is responsible for suggesting it during this reign?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not had an opportunity of even seeing the present flags or comparing it with the flag which the Noble Lord alleges was proposed by the Secretary of State for War in the late reign. The flag, I understand, was a special concession and honour to the Lords-Lieutenant.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Lords-Lieutenant?
    Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lion rampant of Scotland is not good enough for these Lords-Lieutenant?

    Births and Deaths (Scotland).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked what was the estimated excess of births over deaths in Scotland in the year 1910; and what was the number of the emigrants from Scotland in that year?
    Mr. URE: The excess of registered births over deaths in Scotland in the year 1910 was 51,755. The number of British subjects who left ports in Scotland for countries out of Europe in the year 1910 was 55,344. The number of residents in Scotland who left to establish a permanent residence elsewhere is not ascertainable from the returns at present available. It may be added that the number of passengers for countries out of Europe from all ports of the United Kingdom in 1910 who were described as Scottish was 79,784, and that 21,400 passengers described as Scottish arrived from countries out of Europe. The excess of Scottish passengers outwards in 1910 was thus 58,384.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact therefore that the population of Scotland was either stationary or falling during the last decade?
    Mr. URE: The hon. Member will draw his own inference.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: What proportion of the emigrants went to countries which are enjoying high customs tariffs?
    Mr. URE: I cannot say.
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Registrar General for Scotland in future when making his estimates of the population to take into account these various factors of the population?
    Mr. URE: It would be improper to give directions to the Registrar. I have no doubt he will take notice of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask whether the agriculturists in largest numbers came from the north or south?
    Mr. URE: I have no information.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What proportion of these emigrants went to countries with a better land system?

    Scottish Magistrates (Glasgow Advisory Committee).
    Mr. WATTasked how the advisory committee in Glasgow to assist the lord lieutenant in choosing suitable men for the justiceship of the peace in that city came to be formed; did the Lord Chancellor take the initiative and communicate with any particular individual in Glasgow asking him for suitable names; if so, with whom; and, if not, in what manner did the Lord Chancellor get the local knowledge?
    Mr. URE: I am informed that if my hon. Friend desires the names of the advisory committee for Glasgow they will be supplied to him, but that it is impracticable for the Lord Chancellor to enter upon particulars such as those asked for in this question.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that out of seven members of this committee five belong to the Tory party, and does he know what a Glasgow Tory is?

    Government Loans (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Return relating to Government Loans in Ireland, of which notice stands on the Order Paper, will be granted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Particulars of separate loans cannot be given; there are 33,000 such loans on the books of the Board of Works alone, and, apart from the question of supplying particulars as to Land Purchase advances in addition it is clearly impracticable to publish a Return of all such loans. Particulars as to the several classes of loan made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are given in Appendix G of the annual report of those Commissioners, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

    Births and Deaths (United Kingdom).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Local Government Board what was the estimated excess of births over deaths in the United Kingdom in 1910; and what was the number of British emigrants from the United Kingdom in that year?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The excess of registered births over deaths in the United Kingdom during the

    255
    year 1910 amounted approximately to 492,000. According to a return published by the Board of Trade, the number of British subjects who left ports in the United Kingdom for countries out of Europe during the year referred to exceeded the number who arrived from such countries by about 234,000.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that in the month of April the excess was as many as 41,000, or nearly as much as the whole increase of births over deaths?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member will see in to-day's paper for himself the extraordinarily large increase of emigration there is in the first four months of this year as compared with 1910.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring this very serious question to the notice of the Cabinet?
    Mr. BURNS: The Cabinet are aware of the figures.

    Financial Relations Committee (Great Britain and Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he can state the names or the number of members of the committee investigating Ireland's financial position for the benefit of the Cabinet who agree, and the names or the number of members of that committee who disagree, with the majority of the Financial Relations Commission that the equitable ratio in which Great Britain and Ireland should be taxed is the proportion of their respective surplus incomes, after deducting a minimum of £12 per head of population in each country for subsistence; and if he can state the Treasury estimate of this proportion?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I know nothing of the opinions of the members of the committee, and I am not aware that the Treasury have ever made such an estimate as is referred to in the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Do the Government agree with the ratio mentioned in the question, and has the committee been furnished with Estimates based on that ratio?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, it has not.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state the estimated proportion of Ireland's taxable capacity to that of Great Britain, as
    256
    indicated by the present power of the respective countries to raise money on public credit; and whether it is estimated that restitution now of the £320,000,000 excessive taxes taken from Ireland in the past, with interest, would enable Ireland to dispense with any public loan until her financial condition had improved under self-government?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Since the union of the Exchequers it has been impossible to offer the separate security of the revenues either of Great Britain or of Ireland for a public loan, and there is, therefore, no material for such a comparison as is suggested in the first part of the question. I cannot, of course, admit the suggestion underlying the second part of the question, which raises matter for argument rather than for interrogation, nor am I in a position to make any estimate of the amount of the public loans (if any) which the Government of Ireland would think it necessary to raise in the event of self-government being established.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether any subsequent investigation had disturbed the findings of the Financial Relations Commission that, during the sixteen years which followed the Union, the annual revenue actually raised from Ireland was on the average rather more than thrice that raised during the sixteen years which immediately preceded the Union, and that, during the same period, while the total British National Debt had less than doubled itself, the Irish National Debt had almost quadrupled itself?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So far as I am aware, the precise point referred to in the question has not been made the subject of investigation since the Commission reported.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether, in estimating the taxable capacity of Great Britain and Ireland, any sum is deducted from the income of Ireland and added to that of Great Britain, representing the drain of rent, and now of purchase money, to absentee landlords, as agreed by the majority of the Financial Relations Commission; and, if so, what the sum is?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are no official estimates of the taxable capacity either of Great Britain or of Ireland.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether any of the statistics, returns, calculations, or other matter submitted to the Committee in-

    257
    vestigating Ireland's financial relations for the benefit of the Cabinet have been or will be prepared by any of those Treasury officials whose calculations broke down in the working of the Irish Land Act of 1903, and had to be abandoned by Parliament when attempting to remedy the financial defects of that Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As the Prime Minister stated on Monday, the Government has no information as to the names of the officials who were concerned in framing the financial provisions of the Irish Land Act of 1903.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is there any reason for concealment of these accounts of public money other than the reason common to all concealed accounts?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, no; there is nothing to conceal about them.

    Prince of Wales (Investiture).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked whether, if it is the intention that the investiture of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales should take place at Carnarvon Castle, the Parliamentary representatives of the Principality and Monmouthshire will be officially notified; and whether it will be suggested to the authorities that at the investiture the civil element shall not, as was the case at recent ceremonies of national interest, be subordinate to the military class?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and that the answer to the second part is that both the civil element and the military class will be adequately represented.

    Estimates Committee.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet arrived at a decision as to the establishment of a Committee on Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have promised to give an opportunity for a discussion of the matter.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a rough idea when he thinks this proposal of the Government will be ripe for consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of the proposal of the Government. There is a Motion down on the Taper in the name of a private Member,
    258
    and when that Motion comes on for discussion the Government will be ready to state their views.

    Corrupt Practices Act.
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked whether, in view of the evidence at the East Nottingham election petition, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of amending the Corrupt Practices Act so as to provide that if the expenditure on gifts and subscriptions within the constituencies of Members of Parliament or candidates exceeds a certain maximum sum, the excess above such maximum sum shall be reckoned as part of their election expenses?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say more at present than that the whole subject both of the law and procedure in regard to these matters is engaging the careful attention of the Government.
    Mr. PEEL: Will the Prime Minister submit this question to a poll of the electors?

    Vaccination (Conscientious Objectors).
    Mr. HUDSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will arrange that at the forthcoming Imperial Conference the question of the recognition of certificates of conscientious objection to vaccination under the Vaccination Acts, 1898 and 1907, for children emigrated to all parts of the Colonies shall be discussed; and whether the representatives to such Conference can be advised to recommend to their respective Parliaments that British adult emigrants might be admitted without the enforcement of vaccination, provided they were certified to be medically fit in other respects?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the large number of subjects which will engage the attention of the Conference I am afraid that it is not possible to add to the list.

    Declaration of London.
    Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he will state how many chambers of commerce have up to the present condemned the Declaration of London; and how many have pronounced in favour of it?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am not in a position to give the information desired. I may, however, say

    259
    that forty chambers have forwarded to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs resolutions criticising or objecting to various points in the Declaration.
    Captain FABER: Have any chambers sent resolutions in favour of the Declaration, and, if so, how many?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not able to tell the hon. Member. There are one or two.
    Captain FABER: Will that be represented to the Colonial Premiers at the Conference which is now sitting?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the facts are sufficiently notorious without making any representations.

    Flying Machines (Coronation Processions).
    Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he will state whether he has any intention of promoting legislation to prevent the use of flying machines over London during the Coronation processions?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONalso asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what, precautions to guard against the possible risks involved by the flying of aeroplanes over London during the time of the Coronation festivities?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A short Bill dealing with this obvious danger has been prepared; and I trust it may be passed by consent. General legislation on the subject will be necessary in the future.
    Mr. LEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that any such action is intended?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope it will not be necessary, but, as the hon. Member knows, some of these demonstrations are not free from danger to the spectators as well as to the performers.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the Bill deal with the Coronation period only?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think you had better wait until you see the Bill. My idea is a short interim Act pending the passage of more considered, detailed, and elaborate legislation on the whole subject of aerial navigation.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall see the Bill?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I trust it will be accepted by the general consent of the House.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When will it be introduced?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In a few days.

    Appointment of Magistrates.
    Mr. AGAR - ROBARTESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are only four Liberals on the Advisory Committee of thirteen members recently appointed in Devonshire; whether his attention has been called to the fact that out of twelve magistrates appointed last week only two are Liberals; and if he proposes to take any steps with reference to the Advisory Committee's maiden effort?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The information given to the Lord Chancellor is, I am informed, not in accordance with the suggestions contained in the question, but the names are available, so that my hon. Friend can form his own opinion. I have promised to give facilities for a discussion of the Report of the Commission, including their recommendation of the establishment of Advisory Committees.
    Mr. KING: May I ask why has the Lord Chancellor himself disregarded the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was to the effect that Advisory Committees should at the most consist of five members, and will the Prime Minister press upon the Lord Chancellor the advisability of observing the letter of the recommendations in this Report so that Advisory Committees themselves may be encouraged to adhere to the spirit of them?
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, in order to remove the appointment of justices of the peace from the political arena, it could be arranged that any recommendation by a Member of or candidate for Parliament would act as a disqualification; and whether he will recommend that no Member of Parliament be allowed to act on or help to select the Advisory Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether a sufficient case can be made out for such a severe measure of exclusion as the Noble Lord suggests.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if it is not the case that the appointments are alleged to be almost

    261
    always purely political, owing to a great deal of pressure from Members of Parliament? Would it not simplify things, and would it not be fairer when appointments are made if Members of Parliament were not permitted to have anything at all to do with it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion, of course, is worthy of consideration.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware that in this connection the Home Secretary has thought it advisable in the general interest publicly to deprecate the intervention of Members of Parliament in the making of appointments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, but that is quite a different point from whether Members of Parliament should be excluded as such from sitting on an Advisory Committee.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that nomination from this side is a disqualification?

    Home Rule (Ireland).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether under the Government scheme for the grant of Home Rule to Ireland, the Irish Parliament will have the power similar to the power possessed by the self-governing Colonies to enter into a preferential trading treaty with the United States of America to the detriment of British manufacturers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I informed the hon. Member on Thursday last, I do not feel it my duty to answer questions of this character.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: When will it be convenient to make a statement on this important question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: When the Bill is introduced.

    German Wages (Statistics).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in which Board of Trade publications the Report on the rise in German wages by the Schöneberg statistical office is incorporated; and if he will say why the contents of the Report were not included in the Fourth Abstract of Foreign Labour Statistics [Cd. 5415] issued this year?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): It was not considered necessary to include the Report referred to in the Fourth Abstract of Foreign Labour Statistics, and it has not been incorporated, as such, in any Board of Trade publications; but, as I have already explained to my hon. Friend, the official statistics which appear in this book, and also official statistics of later date, have been utilised, so far as considered useful and practicable, in Board of Trade publications.

    Shops Bill (Post Offices).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether the girls employed upon post office work in stationery, grocery, and other shops where post office business is carried on, and whose hours at present are from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., are to come within the scope of the Shops Bill?
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The asistants employed on post office work in sub-post offices carried on in connection with shops would come within the scope of the Shops Bill, and special provisions relating to such offices are embodied in Clause 20.

    Post Office (Second Class Engineers).
    Mr. HUDSONasked if university men appointed to the second class of engineers in the engineering department of the Post Office, so long as three and a half years ago, are still being trained by the department; and whether the total cost to date of training the university men now in the engineering department can be stated?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All the university men appointed, after competitive examination, to the second class of engineers in the Post Office are doing useful work of a kind proper to their class; and none of those appointed in 1907 are now being trained, except in so far as, like all the young Civil servants, they are continually widening their experience by carrying out fresh work under the supervision of their superior officers. It is not practicable to state the cost of training the university men on the engineering staff of the Post Office. Their ordinary period of training is six months.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the number of men, together with their average age, who, as the result of their having received nominations from the Universities, have been appointed during the past four years to the

    263
    higher positions in the engineering department of the Post Office; and the number of fully-qualified officers in the sub-engineers' class, together with their average length of service in the Post Office and average age, who are awaiting promotion to the rank to which the University nominees are usually appointed on entering the post office service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Twenty-seven vacancies on the second-class of engineers have been filled in the last four years under the scheme of competitive examination for University candidates. The average age of the officers is twenty-four years and eight months. Thirty-six sub-engineers who have passed a qualifying examination of a considerably lower standard than the competitive examination for University candidates are still awaiting promotion, but the majority of these only succeeded in passing in March last after two previous attempts. Their average length of service in the Post Office (including unestablished service) is seventeen years and seven months, and their average age thirty-six years and nine months. Under existing regulations only one-fourth of the vacancies are given to University candidates.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the Engineer-in-Chief's Staff Circular, No. 158, dated April, 1908, which was issued to members of the engineering department of the Post Office, stating that in the course of a few years it will probably be found necessary to restrict nominations (for second-class staff engineerships) to candidates who are not over thirty-five years of age; and whether, in view of the fact that University men alone, in consequence of their youth, will be able to fulfil the terms of the circular, as the average age of the ordinary members of the staff who are eligible for promotion to second-class staff engineerships already exceeds thirty-five years, he will consider the desirability of withdrawing the circular in question in order that the higher grades of the engineering department of the Post Office may be open to university and non-university men alike?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been directed to the circular in question, but its purport has apparently been misapprehended in one respect by the hon. Member. The suggested restriction applies to the age of nomination for the
    264
    qualifying examination for second-class staff engineerships, and not to the age of promotion of candidates who have qualified in that examination. If it should be decided hereafter to impose the restriction, suitable candidates, whether university or non-university men, will be nominated for examination before they are thirty-five, and if successful will be promoted when vacancies occur, whether they are under or over that age.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the Postmaster-General if it is his intention to pay the engineers recruited from outside the service on the minimum salary of the existing second-class engineers' scale; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of filling these positions by officers in the sub-engineers' class who are fully qualified and awaiting promotion to the second-class of engineers, replacing the sub-engineers, if necessary, by men from outside the service, so that the fully-qualified sub-engineers now awaiting promotion may receive, even temporarily, the advantage of the higher scale of pay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The additional men sought from outside sources in the circumstances which I explained to the hon. Member in answer to a question on 27th March last will be paid at the minimum of the second-class engineers' scale. Fully qualified sub-engineers are already being employed on the work of substituting second-class engineers as far as possible. The question whether any additional substantive appointments for second-class engineers are warranted is receiving consideration.

    Cheap Telephones.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the importance to agricultural co-operative societies, in order effectively to bulk their members' orders, of being in constant communication with them on their farms as well as with the merchants and producers of seeds, fertilisers, feeding-stuffs, and other raw materials of agricultural industry, he will permit these societies to use the telephone at the reduced annual charge of £3 at their village stores or depots?
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the extension of the new telephone facilities, especially that by which six farmers may subscribe together for telephone purposes at £3 each, to country shopkeepers, tradesmen, such as

    265
    builders and blacksmiths, and others, such as inn-keepers and carriage proprietors, whose businesses are closely connected with country life and industry?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There will be no objection to accepting as subscribers for farmers' telephones other persons connected with rural industries who live at considerable distances from a telephone exchange. In general, however, traders of various classes who live in the immediate vicinity of telephone exchanges would not find that it suited the conditions of their business to share a line with a number of other subscribers, and the ordinary exchange lines are better suited for their purposes. The same considerations apply to lines rented by co-operative societies.
    Captain FABER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could include country doctors in the new telephone facilities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If they thought it convenient, and if they were able to fulfil the requirements attached to these cheap telephones, as at present advised I see no objection to their being included.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that without the provision of a cheap telephone at these small agricultural co-operative stores the value of the telephones to the small holders will be but small?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, but, whether the co-operative society is a subscriber to the ordinary telephone system, or whether it has a telephone on the party line system, it will equally be in communication with all the other subscribers on the Telephone Exchange, whether they are ordinary subscribers or subscribers on the party line system.
    Mr. KING: May the detailed provisions of this telephone system be issued as soon as possible, so that they may be fairly and fully considered?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are now available, and if the hon. Member or his friends apply, they can be furnished with a copy.

    General Post Office (Wood Machine Department).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that about twenty-six men in the wood machine
    266
    department of the General Post Office, Mount Pleasant, received notice on Friday last that at the expiration of three weeks their services would no longer be required, he can state the number of years for which most of these men have been employed; whether they are being discharged on account of any complaint, or what are the grounds of discharge; what compensation they are receiving; and what are their prospects of obtaining other employment in the service of the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the fact that in consequence of a falling-off in the demand for woodwork in the Post Office it has been necessary to reduce the number of employés in the woodwork shops, and notice of discharge was given last, Friday to a number of men at the two Post Office factories. The reduction of force has been postponed from time to time on compassionate grounds, but it was clearly inevitable sooner or later, and it seemed to me that in the present favourable condition of the labour market, especially in the case of woodworkers, the opportune moment had arrived for taking the necessary step. There is no prospect of other employment in the Post Office, but I have made special efforts to find places for the men, and good situations have now been offered to all of them. I will send the hon. Member the full particulars for which he asks. Gratuities will be payable to all the men who have been employed for as much as seven years, calculated at the rate of a week's wages or £l, whichever is greater for each year of service.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that situations have now been offered to all men who have been discharged?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, not in the Post Office, but I have arranged with outside employers that good situations shall be offered to all.

    Post Office Service (Cost of Living Standard).
    Mr. WATTasked what is the particular matter which has been referred back by him to the Board of Trade; is it the question of confirming or altering or abolishing the unit of cost of living as it applies to the wages of Post Office servants; and does the reference extend to Scotland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point which is under the joint consideration of the Board of Trade and the Post Office is

    267
    the relation between the standard cost of living derived from the average of seventy-four English and Irish towns, and that derived from the average of eleven Scotch towns.
    Mr. WATT: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be absolute equality of treatment for the employés in Scotland.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question is as to how to arrive at equality of treatment.

    Post Office Instructions.
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the usefulness of instructions being issued to the public, by notices placed in post offices and otherwise, similar to those exhibited in German, Dutch, and other foreign post offices, directing the public in what form and manner letters and other postal matter may be addressed so that the convenience of the postal staff and the safety of and rapid transmission to its right destination of all postal matter may be best secured; and whether he will take steps to issue such directions without delay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no official information as to the notices in foreign post offices referred to in the question, but I will make inquiry.

    Unemployed Certificated Elementary Teachers.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Education approximately the number of teachers who left the training colleges in 1908 and 1909 and have not yet succeeded in obtaining permanent appointments?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The number of teachers who left the training colleges in 1908, and who have become qualified as certificated teachers is 4,405. Of these, 4,237 have been reported as having obtained permanent posts, thirty-four have been reported as having obtained temporary employment. The Board have no information as to how many of the remaining 134 are still seeking employment. The corresponding figures for 1909 are 4,822, 4,486, 116, and 220.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Education how many of the
    268
    584 students who left the training colleges in July, 1910, and were reported in January last as not having received appointments, belong to the London county district; and if he could ascertain and state approximately the number of trained teachers unemployed in each county area?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Out of the 584 students to whom the hon. Member refers, 223 were trained in colleges within the area of the London County Council, but I have no information which would enable me to state the number of trained teachers unemployed resident either in London or in any other county area.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will ascertain and state the number of non-judicial tenant purchasers on Captain Smyth's Coole estate, Westmeath, in whose cases the Estates Commissioners have found the prices to be excessive, and the percentages of the excess; what measures, if any, the Government propose to take to protect those people now called upon either to pay the excess disallowed by the Commissioners, or to revert to their former status of tenants and pay arrears of the old rents; whether the Commissioners can make any reduction in the prices based upon judicial rents on the same estate; and when they expect to be able to deal with the estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: In the case of six non-judicial tenants on this estate the Estate Commissioners were not prepared to sanction the full amount of the advances applied for in the purchase agreements. In five of these cases the vendor has agreed to accept the advances which the Commissioners were prepared to make, and the sixth case is under consideration. With one exception the agreements signed by the judicial tenants came within the zones, and the holdings are therefore deemed to be security for the advances applied for. In the remaining case the Commissioners, after inquiry, decided to sanction the advance applied for. All the holdings for which purchase agreements were lodged, except five, have now been vested.
    Mr. GINNELLasked on what date the Estates Commissioners first instructed their inspector to visit and report upon the Kilmore grass farm, Kavanagh estate, Westmeath; why this has not yet been done; whether the Commissioners are

    269
    aware that the tenant is now making the purchase and distribution of the farm more difficult by erecting on it costly buildings unsuitable for small holdings; whether, in view of this action and the continued emigration from the neighbourhood for want of the land, the transaction will be expedited; and when they propose to deal with this land?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The papers in this case were sent to an inspector in February last with instructions to inspect and report upon these lands as soon as his other engagements would permit, and he hopes to do so at an early date. The Estates Commissioners are not in a position to furnish the information asked for in the remainder of the question until the lands have been inspected.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can any Department of the Irish Government take no action to prevent the enhancement of the value of this property?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; they can take no further action than they have taken.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to understand that so congested is the business in the Land Commission Office in Dublin that it takes more than four months after an inspector is instructed to proceed to inspect the estate before he can find time to get there?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It does appear to be the fact from the answer I have given that in this case it has taken a little over three months before he has found time to do the work.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that the building of these unsuitable buildings will prevent the purchase and distribution of the land, will the right hon. Gentleman himself write to the tenant in this case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I cannot undertake to do that.

    Merchant Vessels (Conversion into Warships).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is to roe understood that the treaties relating to the conversion of merchant vessels into warships and the exemption of merchant vessels in an enemy's port from capture on the outbreak of war, numbered 11 and 10 in the Treaty Series of 1910, are now to be considered as binding on all the signatories?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to Articles 7 and 6 respectively of the two Conventions. Subject to the conditions laid down in those articles, the two Conventions are binding as between the States who have ratified them. The names of those States are given in the Protocols at the end of the two Treaty Series Papers referred to, and the names of additional States will be found in Treaty Series No. 6, 1911. Since the publication of the last-named Paper, the deposits of the Ratifications of Portugal and Guatemala of both the instruments have been announced.

  BILLS PRESENTED.

    TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: May I ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Bill to amend the Law relating to Trades Unions, if it is not a measure relating to the Osborne judgment? If so, is it not a Bill of sufficient importance to merit some explanation before it is presented to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are already, I believe, two Bills before the House dealing with this subject. I think it more convenient this Bill should be presented in the ordinary way. There will be ample opportunity for debating it on the Second Reading.
    Bill "to amend the Law with respect to the objects and powers of Trade Unions," presented by Mr. CHURCHILL; supported by Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Herbert Samuel, the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.

    CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
    Bill "to amend the Law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of fatal accidents on Railways," presented by Mr. HUDSON; to be read a second time upon Friday, 30th June, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I ask the indulgence of the House in Moving the

271
Second Reading of this Bill, on the ground that it raises very large problems of some difficulty and complexity. On the First Reading I was able, on behalf of the Government, to recognise the very friendly and generous spirit in which this Bill had been met, and I think we are entitled, on the Second Reading, to draw attention to the fact that, though the Bill has been before the country some little time, and information in regard to it has been circulated among Members, while no doubt in respect of many of the details there will be considerable controversy and discussion, with regard to the main principles of the Bill there is an apparent almost unanimous feeling. I think it is also satisfactory, I was almost going to say remarkable, in regard to the Bill, that, considering the number of interests affected by it it has been received in a generous and unselfish spirit and with a readiness to make sacrifice on the part of the various interests concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises that this does touch a considerable number of interests, and he is prepared, as he has already stated across the floor of the House, to consider such representations as may be made to him from various quarters in regard to the matters which are under consideration, and I am sure he will receive them, as he always does receive such representations, with an anxious desire to do justice to the interests involved and to meet the matters put before him.
The Bill, apparently, is a somewhat complex Bill; but, as a matter of fact, the principles involved are simple. The idea on which it is based is that under existing conditions the whole burden of sickness, invalidity, and unemployment over which the working man has no control, falls directly with crushing force on the individual whether he be provident or improvident, and I think the House is generally agreed that it is time that the employer and the State should enter into partnership with the working man in order as far as possible to mitigate the severity of the burden which falls upon him. The principle on which these two schemes are based is that the burden of insurance against sickness and unemployment should be shared by workmen, employers, and the State. The system must be contributory and compulsory, and it should not as far as can be avoided interfere with existing voluntary machinery. It should also aid as far as it can towards the diminution
272
and prevention of sickness and unemployment as well as towards their alleviation. It is important also that both sections of the Bill should bring into touch and into partnership the various interests concerned, so that they may have a direct interest in the efficient carrying out of this scheme. The question is whether a scheme of insurance against invalidity and unemployment is a feasible one. The principle of the insurance of late years has enormously increased. You can insure practically against anything. I believe there were insurances given against the effects of the Budget of my right hon. Friend a year or two ago. I believe you can now get an insurance against the House of Lords throwing out the Veto Bill, though what premium is charged at the present moment I have been unable to ascertain. The two parts of the scheme—the invalidity part and the unemployment part—are practically interdependent, though in some respects they are naturally worked differently. The scheme is a large one, and with the permission of the House I shall desire to confine myself largely to the consideration of the Second part of the Bill.
May I make this personal observation. I do not desire, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, especially in regard to Part II., to claim its parentage. The first idea was that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The details were carefully worked out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, assisted, as I am sure he will be the first to agree, by the very able staff which the country fortunately possesses at the Board of Trade, and I know that one of his principal regrets when he was leaving the Board of Trade was that he had to leave it before he had been able to bring this particular proposal to fruition. I took it over at the Board of Trade, and with the assistance of my advisers I hope I have done something to improve the Bill. It is now presented to the House, as we believe, as a workable and water-tight proposal. I can say for myself that, although I am only the foster-parent, I have a profound interest in this question, and a profound belief that the proposals we are making will do something towards the solution of the question.
The point is, will this scheme actually carry out the object we have in view? We believe it will. We believe, further, that it will not only prove a palliative, but, by the various provisions of the Bill,

273
especially in connection with our Labour Exchanges, which are, after all, the corollary of the Unemployed Bill, we shall be able to do something, by organising in various ways, towards the steadying of labour and the regularity of employment. Let me deal with some of the criticisms which have been directed against the Bill since it came before the country. There are two points of great importance: one is a criticism, the other is a suggestion. Both are of serious moment to the life of the Bill. The criticism is this: that the unemployment part of the Bill is a hazardous experiment. The suggestion is that it is premature, and that it ought to be divided from the other part of the Bill and taken at a later stage. All I can say is that it is not the view of the Government, and that we consider the two parts are interdependent, and that they are one and indivisible and ought to be carried simultaneously into effect. The criticism which is made is that this is a financial experiment, a financial leap in the dark, an attempt to insure unknown and unfathomable risks. I admit that it is an experiment in a sense, but I deny that it is a hazardous experiment, or that the proportion of the unknown has such a large share in the. proposal that we ought not to undertake it and undertake it at the earliest possible moment. I will endeavour to show the House as shortly as I can, that so far from being a hazardous experiment, it is a proposal which will not involve in any sense of the term, unlimited liability of any description on the three parties concerned, the workmen, the employer, and the State.
It was assumed on the First Reading, I think, that we had no substantial available data on which we could found our proposals, but the very able report of the very able actuary, Mr. Ackland, to whom the matter was referred, has, I think, dispelled that illusion, and shows that we have sufficient information and that the safeguards which we present in the Bill are sufficient to enable us to offer the proposal as an acceptable one to the House of Commons. May I point out this, that the postponement of the proposals would give us no further information than we have at the present time. Such data as we have, such bases for calculation as we have at the present moment will speedily increase, and we hope if the Bill is passed and these insurance proposals are introduced and applied to certain trades, before long we shall have better experience in order if necessary to extend the system still
274
further. I would point out, and I think it is an important point, that the data on which we are acting—the data of our actuary on which he proceeded—are based on the actual experience for many years past of the great trade unions including in insured trades something like 300,000 persons, and the data seem to me to be very sound, direct data founded entirely on the payment of unemployed benefits. Hon. Members who have read the report will feel that the actuary is very cautious in his estimates. He founded his report on a very conservative basis and on a very conservative estimate. Where he had no actual figures of the various branches of a trade, for instance, in some of the branches of the building trade, he doubled the estimated figure of unemployment, so as to be on the right side. He gave the doubtful points against the Fund, and he also omitted points in favour of the Fund. If we assume that the estimates as to liability are wrong and over-sanguine estimates, then I contend to the House that we are safe in the proposals that we have made, and that we have ample safeguards against any likelihood of the Fund becoming insolvent, or against any unlimited liability being thrown upon the parties connected with the matter.
The scheme is automatic. It adapts itself to contingencies. The benefits are strictly limited in duration and to a large extent proportionate to the contributions, and we start with a considerable estimated margin of over £200,000 a year, or 10 per cent. If, therefore, our estimate is not over-sanguine we shall be able to improve the benefits conferred by the scheme if we are allowed to start at once, as I hope we shall be, and we shall, under this Bill rapidly accumulate a large reserve, which will be of assistance when times of depression come, and if continuous good or medium times come, we shall be able to vary the benefits from time to time either in the amount or in the period. So that we have elasticity in that way, and we can call upon the Treasury in time of prolonged depression to come to the assistance of the Fund and to make advances to be subsequently repaid without burden on the public as better times come along. Finally we are able to vary the contribution within strict limits, because no one desires an unlimited liability contribution should be thrown upon either the employers or the workmen, and we are able within limits to alter and change the contribution. So that in all these respects,

275
in the matter of contribution, in the matter of benefits, in the matter of the surplus margin on estimate and the advances of the Treasury, we really have a triple line of defence against the existence of insolvency in the Fund, and at the same time that the actual liability of the trade is known the possible burden on the public is strictly limited. The House ought to remember this, and I think it is an important point that the State in this matter is not brought in to make up a deficiency. The State contribution is strictly limited in proportion to the contribution paid by the employers, on the one hand, and the workmen, on the other. Therefore, in regard to all these matters, there is no unlimited liability upon any party, and I say that this experiment may be a bold one, but it cercertainly is not a hazardous one. We have founded it upon very good information—upon good actuarial calculations—and the safeguards to which I have referred are of a character which I think will meet any possible criticism, directed against the supposed hazardous nature of the Fund.
4.0 P.M
Then the next suggestion is that the proposal is premature, and that we ought to delay or postpone it; but I hope very sincerely the House will not listen to such an appeal as that. This measure is long overdue, and I hope when the question is put the word "now" will stand part of the question. There is a very special reason why that should be so, and why we should get into working order at the earliest possible moment, because the principle of workmens' insurance applying to such a matter as this is of course based on average risks, average contributions and benefits, extending over a number of years. The benefits and contributions are not fixed on a single year, but in regard to an average of years. Good years produce a surplus, bad years may produce a deficit, and the good years having to pay for the bad years, it is, I think, very important indeed, and I think hon. Members will agree, for the sake of the future of the Fund, that we should start it if we possibly can in years of fairly good trade and in years when the percentage of unemployment is low, so that we can accumulate substantial reserves and be enabled, when depression comes, to meet it with greater equanimity and with greater solvency of the Fund. On the other hand, if we wait till a period of depression has
276
come—though I am glad to think that at the present the outlook is good, yet the outlook is always uncertain, some accident may occur, or something may happen to destroy the existing prosperity, and we might be in bad times—if we wait it would be a very serious matter from the point of view of such a Fund as this, if instead of being started in a good year, it was started in a year of depression and overweighted. And may I point out to the House that even if we pass this Bill this year, as I hope we may, it will not come into full fruition until the end of 1912. It is very important therefore that we should be forward in this matter, and that we should be provident, so that we should use the good time we have at present in order to meet the bad. I would recommend to the House the example of Joseph in Egypt, which, I think, is the first recorded instance of insurance against times of depression and an average of risks. He, after all, took his seven good years and put them against his seven lean years. I admit that the statistical information at his disposal was of an exceptional character—a character which, unfortunately, we cannot entirely aspire to at the present moment—but I think that is only an additional reason why, when we have a good opportunity of starting a matter of this sort, we should welcome it and receive it and put it on the Statute Book. May I enter this emphatic protest—we are all just as responsible as one another—against the method that this country always takes in regard to this great question of unemployment. We are always, when employment is good, tempted to ignore the question, but, when a period of depression comes, suddenly conscience is awakened and we rush into all sorts of ill-judged and ill-conceived schemes, which very often do more harm than good. I would appeal to the House in this matter for once to be provident, to anticipate the bad times which are coming, and to make due provision for them in times that are good. That is the scheme which we are proposing to the House, and I think anyone who opposes it, on the ground of delay, will be taking a great and serious responsibility upon himself.
Then there is a further argument, perhaps of a rather more specious character, which has been raised on the First Reading and since. It is that we should not carry out the compulsory part of this

277
scheme, but make a beginning with voluntary insurance alone. That also, I hope, will be strenuously resisted by the House, because without the compulsory part we cannot make a real effort—we cannot carry out a comprehensive system of National Insurance against unemployment. All the experience abroad goes to show that a purely voluntary scheme will not really be of an effective character. It naturally includes bad risks, and almost from the beginning it is bound to be more or less financially unsound. The only scheme—a scheme which has some supporters, and which no doubt in itself has had some success—is what is called the Ghent system. That scheme we have already partly adopted in our Bill as regards the voluntary part of it, but, as the sole contribution to the solution of this great question, it is totally and wholly ineffective. The Ghent system is this: It is a simple and direct contribution of recognised associations, which in this case means trade unions alone, and of a State contribution to such unemployment benefits as they give. We desire to encourage not only those who are at present able to insure for themselves, but we are even more desirous by compulsion to secure the provision of unemployed benefits for those who for any reason at present are unable or unwilling to insure themselves.
The position of the purely voluntary system is that, while it provides additional unemployed benefits for those who at present insure, it gives very little encouragement to the insurance of those who are not already insured. What will be the result if we adopt that system alone here? We have in our trade unions something like a million members who insure for substantial unemployed benefits. Thus if you had the Ghent system you would certainly not double that number, but you might possibly add half a million to it. The cost of that system would be something like £500,000 a year. That is half a million additional men would come under the system of insurance, and the State would contribute something like £500,000. Under our scheme, as we propose it, for a sum of something like £750,000 we not only insure 2,000,000 persons who are at present totally uninsured, but we assist and add to the insurance of those already under insurance schemes. Therefore, I think we may say that if we are to make this system of national unemployed insurance at all effective in this country we must add to our voluntary side a compulsory part of the scheme. I agree that
278
there is no precedent for a system of national compulsory insurance, but as far as I am concerned that is no reason for our not attempting it here. We have had a good lead from other countries in insurance against sickness, and I think it would be a good thing if this country were to give a lead to other countries in regard to National Insurance against unemployment.
If the scheme is based upon compulsion it must obviously be based on a trade basis, and I think everyone who has considered the subject recognises that in this matter you must have the foundation of a trade basis. On this part I know there has been a great deal of criticism. This Bill starts on the system of a limited number of employments, and we include in this proposal certain trades, the ship-building trade, engineering, building, the construction of vehicles, and we have for the moment excluded other trades and interests from the purview of the Bill. We have done that on two grounds. In the first place this is an experimental measure, and we want, before extending it further, some greater financial experience to enable us to decide whether and to what extent other trades ought to be brought into the scheme. I think there is this also to be said. Under this scheme we obtain ample power to extend it to other trades where it is thought advisable, but it does not necessarily follow that this scheme will be advantageous or will be desired by all the trades of the country. For instance, probably a trade like the railway industry, where employment is practically continuous, would not desire it. And it is possible, in the case of the mining industry and the textile industry, where they meet unemployment rather by short time than by discharges, that they might not desire it to be applied to them. They might consider that short time, and the encouragement we give to voluntary insurance would be a better method of meeting their difficulties. I am not prejudging these cases. They can all be considered after the Bill has passed. What I am asking is that, for the moment at all events, this portion of the Bill may be treated as an experiment, and I think in this matter it is probably better to do it slowly than to go too quickly.
Then, assuming that there are selected classes, the House may ask why particular classes are in fact chosen. The trades to which I have referred are the trades in which we found, on the whole, that the fluctuations of employment were

279
the greatest and, on the whole, they were the trades most sensitive to ups and downs of depression and good times. I find that in the trades concerning which we have information in the twenty years on which we have actually based our estimates, taking the trades as a whole, the unemployment percentage varies between 2 per cent. and 7.8 per cent., while in regard to these particular trades the figures vary between 2.7 per cent. and 18.4 per cent., which shows that in these trades the fluctuations are greater than in the rest of the industrial field. They are trades also in which I have already said the difficulty is met rather by discharges than by short time. They are trades worked on the time basis, in which there is no homework, and for other reasons we have selected them as the most suitable for our experimental proposal and the ones which clearly ought in the first instance to be brought under the purview of the Act. These trades themselves include no less, to start with, than a third of the whole industrial population and they include no less than 2,500,000 of workmen who will be brought under the Act at once. They are not by any means the better-paid trades. They consist largely of those who are in receipt of the lower rate of wages.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has just said these trades include one-third of the whole industrial population. What is his definition of industrial population? Is he including agriculture, for instance?
Mr. BUXTON: I was including all the adult males of the industrial population. Agriculture is excluded from this.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And all women? The scheme introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with 15,000,000 people. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that 2,500,000 is a third of the industrial population.
Mr. BUXTON: True, the industrial population is not a very good definition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first part of the Bill included classes which are not included in the second part. These are purely industrial workmen in the ordinary sense of the term—men in the engineering trade, the shipbuilding trade, the building trade, and so on—they are about a third of the adult male workmen in industrial occupations, excluding
280
agriculture, and excluding the clerical classes, which are largely included in the other portions of the Bill. What I was saying was that we are starting, I think, on a large and comprehensive basis. We are able, if cause is shown, after inquiry and after consideration, to extend easily the provisions of the Bill to other classes of the industrial population. But I will deprecate for the time being any pressure for the immediate inclusion of other classes on the sole ground that in this matter it is, I think, advisable that we should obtain the information, both financial and administrative, which we can obtain before long from the inclusion of these classes before we attempt to extend it to all the other classes as well. The next criticism which I think we ought to meet is one which I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) himself did not make on the First Reading of the Bill. That is, objection was taken to a State contribution in aid of a limited scheme. It is said that we are asking the population of the nation as a whole to pay towards the advantage of a particular section or a particular class. That I really found, to a certain extent, is not a correct statement of the case. It may be that if this scheme is successful, it will practically be extended to all the industrial population; but I must say that, so far as I am concerned, I dissent altogether from such a proposition as that. If such an objection were taken and accepted that the State ought not to contribute to a limited scheme affecting a limited class, then I admit that is perfectly fatal to the proposals we are making to the House. The scheme is obviously confined to certain classes of the population, and it would certainly be fatal to any scheme of insurance to say that it must not be applied to limited classes. That has never deterred us from attempting any social reform or any social legislation which, in the first instance, applied to a limited class. I contend, on the other hand, that we are entitled—and we are doing it every day—to utilise the resources of the community for the purpose of instituting such reforms, even although of a limited character, and applying them only to limited classes. I think we can say that, although in a sense this contribution is to a limited class and a limited number, it is really a contribution benefiting all trades and all classes of the community.
All trades are interested in and dependent on the stability of one another, and unemployment in one trade seriously

281
affects the state of employment in other trades, so that anything that will tend to equalise employment in one trade will certainly be of advantage to other trades, and to the nation at large. Of this I am quite sure, you cannot have a compulsory system of this sort unless you gild the pill and give State assistance, for otherwise that would mean that you are merely compelling the more regular workmen to pay for the less regular workmen. I think that when you enforce this on all classes of employers and workmen it is only right and fair that the State should bear its share of the burden. I do not think it is unfair to the employer to ask him to contribute something to mitigate the evil which is forced on others on account of the fluctuations incidental to the industry in which he is interested. He, after all, depends on the existence of the whole body of workmen in his trade, and he should be prepared to contribute to the general expenses of the trade, and the burden that falls on the trade. How far the employer in future may be able to transfer his burden to other shoulders remains to be seen. I believe it will be a profitable investment, and I am quite sure it will be a humane investment. He will save by preventing the deterioration of the morale and the physique of his employés, and he will benefit by the better organisation, increased efficiency, good conduct, and regularity of his workmen. Hon Members have seen in the reports from Germany, issued by my right lion. Friend, that there, at all events, employers have recognised that the system of insurance already applied has been of advantage to them. We talk of competition, but even adding this charge for insurance the British employer in future will pay a smaller charge than German employers for similar things. I am bound to say, in justice to the employers, that, so far as I am concerned as to Part I of the Bill, and so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned as to Part of the Bill, there has been no protest received on the part of the employers against bearing their share.
Then we come to the question of the workman's burden. As regards the provident man who is already making provision for unemployment, this scheme will not only not impose any new burdens on him, but it will positively and actually be a real relief to him. At present he has to bear the cost of insurance entirely from his own resources. In future, as regards the provident man, he will receive a contribu-
282
tion from the State and a contribution from the employer, and his burden, therefore, will be less than it is at present. That he can realise in one of two ways. He can reduce his contribution as a whole for the same benefits, or, if he prefers, for the same contribution he can get improved benefits. So far as regards the workman who has been unable or unwilling to obtain unemployed benefits, he will in future be able to do so, and for his enforced contribution he will not only receive back his own contribution but that of the employer and that of the State as well. Translated into pounds, shillings, and pence, for every shilling he contributes he will receive back the 1s. with 1s. 8d. added from the other contributions. At all events, his contribution will be a good investment for him.
That brings me to another point. Allegations have been made in many quarters that the scheme of the Bill as a whole is going to throw great additional burdens on workmen, employers, and the State. That I deny altogether. Insurance against sickness and unemployment will involve no new burden. The burden exists at present, but in future it will be better distributed and more easily and equitably borne, and more people will be benefited by this system of insurance. Take the case of unemployment. At present the burden appears in the national ledger as pauperising Poor Law expenditure, as systems of State or municipal doles, and as sudden emergency works which very often are a waste of money. So far as the provident workman is concerned, it is met by the contribution to the trade union, and where he is improvident it is met by the neighbourly assistance he receives, and which is so freely and ungrudgingly given among the working classes, and by the costly realisation of his belongings, costly credit, and costly arrears. In connection with these operations, the man is subjected both mentally and physically to the suffering which unemployment brings in its train. I think it will stand to reason that it must be infinitely better to have permanent machinery to anticipate the "rainy day," and to distribute the money more equitably over various interests and more uniformly over the period. I think one can safely assert that the burden, far from being greater, would really be less than before.
There is one other objection to the scheme upon which the House will allow me to say a word. We are told that we ought to differentiate—this is an important point—our contributions and benefits

283
according to the risks of a trade as a whole, and that we ought to distinguish more between trade and trade, and even distinguish between various sections of a trade. I do not think that will receive the support of my hon. Friends below the Gangway. Trade unionism has always preached the solidarity of labour, and that, so far as it goes, the regular man and the irregular man should be put together. We are providing in this Bill for certain differentiation, and as our experience extends we may be able to provide that still further, but I think, at all events, in the first instance, it is very important that we should, as far as possible, take what is called the flat rate and apply it to engineering and shipbuilding and to the other trades in the building construction group, and see how it will work out, and with what justice, to the various interests concerned. "We ought to remember that in this matter the State contribution is largely intended to cover the extra risk in certain trades, and so far as the individual member of those insured trades is concerned he gets the benefits from the employer's contribution and also from the State contribution.
I wish to refer to another point upon which I think there has been on the part of my hon. Friends below the Gangway considerable apprehension, and that is in regard to the effect this Bill may have upon trade unions—whether the provisions are drafted sufficiently wide to enable a trade union to become and to remain an approved society without necessitating any effective alteration in its practice, or in its ordinary functions as a trade union. I can well understand the anxiety that all trade union men have if they feel that the real effect of this Bill is going to be to undermine or to destroy trade unions. These great organisations, built up during many years in the past, and whose position has become so strong, might very well feel that any proposal whereby their general position was in any sense weakened or undermined would be indefensible, and that no such Bill ought to be put on the Statute Book. I am one of those—I have always said so publicly—who believe, and I believe it is the opinion of the House now, that it is not only in the interest of labour itself, but in the interest of employers as well, that these trade unions should be strong, representative, and independent, and I can assure my hon.
284
Friends and the House generally that nothing is further from the object and desire of the framers of the Bill than that when it becomes an Act it should be used as a disruptive force against any trade union. I am convinced that a good deal of the misapprehension has been based on some misunderstanding of the intention and the effect of the provisions of the Bill. The intention and the effect of the provisions, as regards Part I., is that a trade union should be recognised as an approved society. If the representatives of trade unions can show to my right hon. Friend or myself that any provision in the Bill would make it impossible or difficult to come into the scheme, I need hardly say that attention will be given to these matters with the view to a modification of the Bill, and the avoiding of such a difficulty as that. One of the objections taken to the scheme is with reference to the deposit of security, and the separating of the Funds. It may be thought, or it may be held, that that is detrimental to the interests of trade unions. May I point out that the deposit Clauses are drawn in an elastic form, and that the only security required on behalf of a recognised association is in order to guard the Insurance Fund against any defalcation on the part of the officers of the association in respect of the Funds which are committed to their care. That is an obvious and necessary precaution. But it does not necessarily follow that security in the sense of deposit would have to be given in every such a case as that. But with regard to the other question of the separation of the Funds, my hon. Friends are aware that the accumulating Funds are to be held by the Insurance Commissioners Department, to be repaid to recognised associations either by way of payments on account or by way of refund for expenditure already incurred. As to payments which are made by way of refund, it is quite obvious that there is no question of necessity for the separation of funds at all, and if it might appear to the trades unions, in view of their peculiar position, more agreeable to them in that form, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is quite willing to meet them in every respect in making these payments as far as they can be made by way of refund, rather than by payments in advance. That, of course, would incidentally meet the difficulty of deposits. As regards the question of triennial valuations, I do not think that the trades unions are really touched by it at all. This ap-

285
plies to friendly societies as well. There is no question of valuation of the whole assets and liabilities of the trades unions or recognised associations.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask for information on one point? I want to have it quite plainly whether or not it will be possible for trades unions to use those funds for other purposes than those of unemployment—that is, for strikes—and how can that be avoided if security is not given?
Mr. BUXTON: I was about to come to that in one minute. For the moment I am speaking of Part I. of the Bill, in which that matter does not, arise in the same way or so acutely as in Part II. What I was saying is this: As regards valuation, there is no question of valuing the general assets or liabilities of trade unions or recognised associations. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that this valuation is absolutely and entirely confined to that portion of the Fund which is accumulating in the hands of the Insurance Commissioners, and which is separated altogether from the ordinary fund of the trade unions. Therefore as regards that point, and the other points to which I have referred, if my hon. Friends are under the misapprehension that these proposals would in any way interfere with the organisation, administration, or liabilities of trade unions, I hope I have done something to relieve their apprehensions, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend would be very glad to receive representations in regard to any Amendment which may be required. Then turning, if I may, to Part II. of the Bill and to the question of the position of the trade unions, as I have already stated in regard to Part I., there is no intention to interfere between the trades unions and individual members. They can fix their own contributions and their own benefits as they do now and they will be entirely free to accept or refuse members of their own. All we do is, if trade unions desire it, and only if they desire it, in regard to their own members, to utilise their machinery for the payment of benefits, and this, it will be observed, only by way of refund for money which has already been expended. There is no interference, therefore, of any sort in that part of the scheme in their administration, organisation, or autonomy.
On the other hand, this brings me to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law), that is the
286
questions of the position of trade unions in Part I. and Part II. of the scheme. I have endeavoured to show, as far as we are concerned, that their autonomy is in no sense interfered with, but we have, on the other hand, to consider the position of employers in this respect. They are going to contribute and the State is contributing for these purposes of sick benefit and unemployed benefit, and it is quite clear from what my hon. Friend says that they are afraid lest the funds so contributed may be used for fighting purposes by trade unions. They are afraid that the kid will be stewed in. its mother's milk, and that these funds would go to strengthen and assist the ordinary general funds of the union. I think I have already made it clear to the House that that cannot in any sense be so at all. In the first place—I am speaking now of unemployment: it does not arise with regard to sickness—no benefit will be paid with respect to unemployment to trade unions in case of a strike or lockout. That part of the unemployment question for the moment will not arise, and in both cases, as I have already said, we do not propose to pay, any money to trade unions, except for refunding money which they have already expended on legitimate and proper unemployed benefits, apart from any question of strike or lock-out. Therefore, so far as I can see, no question of the contributions of the employers or of the State being used to assist trade unions in their fights can possibly arise. I am quite sure that my hon. Friends below the Gangway will be the first to say that this is the proper and fair position in regard to this matter.
I have endeavoured to deal with the chief criticism, most of which has been directed against Part II., and some of which has been directed against Part I. of the Bill. There is just one other point which I may refer to incidentally. I have seen the scheme criticised with reference to its being too bureaucratic. We are, after all, going to deal with it through the Labour Exchanges, and the voluntary associations through the combination, and we hope cooperation, by means of joint committees of representative employers and workmen. If it can be shown in any way that those panels of referees can be made more representative than those proposed by this Bill we shall very much welcome any suggestions that can be made; but I can assure the House that our sole desire is to put the system as far as we can on a representative basis. I apologise to the House for having

287
kept it so long, but I thought it necessary to endeavour to meet various points which have been made in the course of criticisms outside the House, and I hope that by what I may have said now I may have anticipated also some criticisms which otherwise might have been made. This is our proposal, and this is our contribution to social reform. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, and certainly I, would be the last to claim that in any sense this is a final solution of the problem of sickness or of unemployment, but I think that it has this great merit, that while it is a considerable step forward in the direction which we all desire to follow, it is not only no obstacle, but I think it is an avenue towards the extension of other various systems, also in the same direction. We have founded it, as we believe, on a business basis and on sound actuarial calculations, and we offer it to the House as a great and beneficent step forward, which, if the House accepts it, will do much to achieve that which we all desire, the improvement of the social condition of the working classes.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: After the speech which has been delivered by the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Buxton), I regret more than ever that the Government did not adhere to what was generally regarded as their original intention of dealing with the kindred problems that are dealt with by this Bill in two separate Bills. This Bill is in reality two separate and distinct measures. Each part of it deals with a different question, and I am bound to say that the Government throughout, as far as we have gone, have treated this Bill as if it were in reality two. The First Reading of the Bill was moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who dealt almost exclusively with Part I. The Second Reading of the Bill has been moved by the President of the Board of Trade, who has dealt almost exclusively with Part II. The position of these two right hon. Gentlemen reminds me of the old instrument for indicating the likelihood of a change in the weather which many of us knew in the days of our boyhood. An old gentleman used to come out on some occasions and an old lady used to come out on others. I am not going to assign to each of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite the functions of the two individuals to whom I have referred. The President of the Board of Trade has made an exceedingly interesting speech dealing with an
288
exceedingly interesting subject, but I would like to deal with one aspect of the problem, a new side of the question, which has not hitherto aroused so much general interest, or, at any rate, has not excited so large a measure of criticism as might have been expected; and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me guilty of any attempt at discourtesy if I do not follow him throughout his arguments with reference to Part II., but turn at once to the consideration of Part I. and some of the questions which have been exciting public attention.
I think that while the President of the Board of Trade did make reference to Part I. he might have spared a word for the Paper issued yesterday containing the actuarial calculations on which the figures of Part I. are based, and he might have said something, at any rate, about the creation of a debt amounting to something like £63,000,000 which this scheme will start. We seem in these days to be so accustomed to dealing with millions of money that the addition to the debt of the country, even though it might be extinguished within the next fifteen or twenty years, of £60,000,000 at one stroke of the pen, seems to pass without exciting the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. I can well believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have had some tremors of doubt as to the reception on the part of the public which would be accorded to a Bill which, while it deals with an object with which everybody sympathises, is founded upon a basis of compulsion, because our people, after all, do not like compulsion. They do not like it especially while it is applied to themselves. I confess, speaking for myself, I still believe that in the main a voluntary system is the best, provided that a voluntary system will give you the result at which you aim; I should be glad, speaking personally, if I could see a prospect of success for creating a system of National Insurance against ill-health founded upon a voluntary basis. I regret to say I cannot do so.
The experience of every foreign country goes to prove the contrary. You may expunge from this Bill every element of compulsion which it contains, you may place it upon a purely voluntary basis, and yet you may fail of your object. For this reason, while your scheme may be national in conception, I think if it were placed on a voluntary basis it would be only local and parochial in its administration and operation. If you are going to create a national system, if you are going to em-

289
ploy the national funds, if you are going to place both upon the employers and employed alike the heavy burdens which this Bill does place upon them, you are only justified in doing that if you can show to the House and the country that the scheme is going to be national in its application as well as in its conception. It is remarkable that in the last few years there seems to have been a general consensus of opinion throughout the older countries of the civilised world, at any rate, that the health of the individual is no longer and can no longer be treated as a matter of purely individual concern. If that be so, and if it be admitted that the best method of treating this difficult question is by a policy of insurance, then I am forced to abandon my natural predilection in favour of a voluntary system, and to accept the compulsory basis upon which the Bill is founded. We have tried the voluntary system for many years, and we have tried it as far as it has gone with splendid success. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those great voluntary institutions which have done so much to encourage thrift on the part of our people. But we must take care, in anything that is done in connection with this Bill, that we do not injure them. Though the work of those institutions has been great, yet there are vast numbers of people who have no provision against bad times or a rainy day.
It would appear that there would be no great or rapid increase of the numbers who make of their own volition and initiative provision for themselves, and, as there are great numbers who are still without any provision of this kind, then I say we are forced to accept the necessity of taking such steps as may be required for bringing within the scope of National Insurance the great body of people who are now standing outside. A national scheme necessarily involves a contribution from the State, and imposes that duty, as well, upon those who are to benefit by the result of this scheme. It may be that the employer is in many respects directly responsible for, as well as deeply interested in, the health of his workmen, and on that account, if on no other, he may be asked to make a contribution towards the cost of the plan. In brief, that is the scheme of the Government. Although the President of the Board of Trade offered some argument in justification of the precise proportion which each class is to contribute under Part II., we have had nothing from the Government so
290
far in justification of the precise proportion of contributions which it is proposed to levy in respect of Part I. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who is to speak, will take an early opportunity of telling us on what basis is calculated the precise proportions which are demanded from the different contributors—the contributions which are to be taken from the employer and the workmen are specified in precise terms; they are to be so many pence a week each. But the contribution of the State is not prescribed so clearly nor laid down so definitely. So far as I can see, the master and the man will pay to cover the risks which may or may not be incurred, but the State will only pay part of the benefit—that is to say, part of the money that will have to be paid after the risk has been incurred. I do not think that this imposes any sort of equality of burden, nor do I think that there is any element of equality of risk about the proposal.
May I refer to another point in connection with the proportion of contributions? The Bill provides that if the wages of an employé are below a certain sliding scale laid down in the Schedule, then the burden shall be shifted from the shoulders of the man to the shoulders of the employer. That is, if a man receives very low wages, he cannot be expected to bear the weight of this burden. But I am afraid that the employer who is forced to pay the low wages will find it difficult to bear the burden in the workman's place. Take for instance the case of a farmer who is farming in a part of the country where wages are low. The expenditure in those neighbourhoods bears some relation to the figure at which the wages stand. Everything is in proportion—the rent the farmer pays for his farm, and the rent the labourer pays for his cottage, and other matters—to the wages paid. The rents may be low, and the financial conditions generally may be low, because of the difficult character of the soil to be cultivated. It may be, in addition, that the farm is situated in a remote part, and that the market for its products is difficult of access. The industry, therefore, cannot bear higher charges. That is the point I want to make. The mere fact that the wages are low does not necessarily mean that the employer is prosperous; it does not necessarily mean that he is doing any better than he would do if he had a farm in another part of the country, and was paying double the amount of wages.

291
Everything is in proportion where wages are low, and I do not think we should be able to find any justification, under conditions of that kind, for throwing an enormously increased burden such as the Bill proposes upon the shoulders of the employer. The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Buxton) said that there had been no representations received from the employers with reference to the provisions of the Bill. I think the employers are willing and anxious to do all that can fairly be demanded of them. Perhaps one reason why no representations have been received from them is that they have not yet fully grasped the weight of the burden which is to be placed on their shoulders. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that computing the wages, or in ascertaining what wages men actually receive, there must he taken into consideration various allowances that are made in addition to the weekly payment.
You must also take into consideration the rent of the workman's cottage. It may be a cottage which, if it were let as a purely economic transaction, might let for a higher sum than that which is paid for it by the workman, and in that way you may be able to show that a man who actually receives in cash 14s. a week, out of which he has to pay 1s. a week rent, really ought to be treated as a man receiving 18s., or even 20s. a week wages. By doing that you might relieve the employer of a part of the burden which he has to bear; but then you are throwing a heavy weight on the shoulders of the man, who cannot really afford it. Difficulty will he found in persuading the labourer with 14s. a week that it is fair to make him pay as much as the man who has got 50s. a week, though you may be able to show him that such a demand is justified, and that the benefits which he gets under the Bill are of a character to make it worth his while to accept the burden. I come to another question which really lies at the root of the whole of the proposals contained in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill—the question of the doctors. Everybody admits the great debt of gratitude that the country owes to the medical profession for the signal services they have rendered either by way of charity or out of pure philanthropy to the people amongst whom they work. The whole of the great fabric which the Government proposes to erect depends upon the loyal and whole-hearted co-operation of the medical profession. So far as I can
292
gauge the opinion of the medical profession at the present time, and it seems to be expressed with extraordinary unanimity, it is that the provisions of the Bill as they stand will not do. I am not going into this question in detail; all the points have been referred to in the public Press, and I know that the details have been brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope, from the various sentences that have fallen front the right hon. Gentlemen, either by interview or by letter, that he will meet the objections which the medical profession take.
May I emphasise one or two points to which I have not seen any reference made, and make a suggestion which may at any rate obviate some of the difficulties? The Bill proposes to use the great friendly societies in this matter of insurance. It leaves each individual friendly society to make its own terms with the doctors who look after its members. To that proposal the doctors are wholly opposed. There is nothing in the Bill, as far as I understand, that either declares specifically or lays it down that the payment to the doctors should be made either by a flat rate or a capitation fee. That is the suggestion which was certainly conveyed in the speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Bill, but I hope, at any rate, alterations may be made if that is the intention of the plan. In giving the friendly societies the payment of doctors the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes use of the present practice; but the present practice does not work well; I do not believe it 1s wholly satisfactory to the friendly societies; I am quite certain it is not satisfactory to the medical profession. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind that the Bill is going to extend so far beyond the present numbers who are dealt with—in other words, it is going to bring into your net such an enormous increase of membership of friendly societies, that I do not think it is fair to ask the doctors to go on tinder the same conditions as at present either as to employment or as to pay.
5.0 P.M.
I think a change could be made in the appointment of the doctors which would go far to ease the working of the Bill. I think that the Bill itself contains the machinery by which the appointment might be made satisfactory both to the friendly societies and to the doctors themselves. In the Bill you call into being a new health authority, the local health committee. Those committees are composed of repre-

293
sentatives of the friendly societies, of the deposit contributors, of the existing local health authorities, and of the Government by the Insurance Commissioners. You have here, therefore, a body upon which is represented every class of person interested in the management and carrying out of the scheme which we are now building up. That is the authority which is going to appoint the doctors in respect of deposit contributors, and why not allow them to have the appointment of all the doctors in the scheme? If you do that, and if you at the same time give them the assistance of an advisory committee composed of medical men practising in the area over which the local health committee will have jurisdiction, then I say that you will have gone a great way and taken a long step to remove some of the very natural objections which the doctors have. I think you will not incur in doing so the dislike or the enmity of the friendly societies themselves. After all, the friendly societies have got direct representation upon those local health committees. I believe that the friendly societies have found the appointment of doctors an occasion of constant friction, a matter that is irksome to them, and a matter from which they would gladly be relieved. I hope that the suggestion that I make will be weighed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may be able to ascertain further information as to the view which the friendly societies adopt towards it.
There is then the question of payment. If you were to hand over the appointment of all the doctors to the local health committee, assisted by a medical committee, I see no reason why you should not be able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with the doctors as to the manner in which the payment is to be made. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows pretty clearly in his own mind what the medical benefit is going to cost. He calculates by laying down a flat rate to have so much paid by the contributors, and he calculates how many contributors there are to be, and he can ascertain pretty clearly how much it is going to cost. As long as the sum which he sets apart for medical benefit is not exceeded I do not think it would really matter to him whether the actual payment is going to be by way of a flat rate, or whether it is distributed throughout the areas by the local health committee, acting in conjunction with the doctors themselves. What you want to secure is such a system of pay-
294
ment as that it will be satisfactory to those who receive it, and such a system of payment that will not be wasteful to the public who provide the money, and such a system as will give you satisfactory results, not only from the point of view of the State, not only from the point of view of the doctor, but as well from the point of view of the patient.
The patient will very naturally take very considerable objection to any system which will impose upon him the obligation of being examined and treated by a doctor with whose appointment he has nothing on earth to do. Our people in this country do not like State officials interfering with them any more than they can help, and there would be, I am afraid, an inevitable tendency on the part of a great many people if those people were visited by a doctor whom they did not, invite, whom they may not like, and a doctor in whom they may have no confidence. I am afraid there would be a great disposition to treat him as a State official. I do not want to press the matter unduly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I hope I have said enough to show the view that we take of this question, and that he will turn it over in his mind, or rather, give us the result of what he has been turning over in his mind within the last few days. There is one thing certain to my mind in connection with the creation of this new local health committee, and that is that it will lead in the near future, and it must lead in the near future, to a complete revision at any rate of the medical side of our present Poor Law institutions. I think there is no doubt about that whatever. I think it must lead to it because you must place under one control all those institutions for the care and cure of the sick, which, after your Bill once starts, will be under different administrations. You will have hospitals under one set of administrators, you will have sanatoria under another, and you will have the workhouse infirmaries under a third. That is a system that cannot last, as it would lead to over-lapping, wade of time and money and energy. It is a system that cannot endure. Therefore I say that the creation of local health committees must force this House and Parliament generally to undertake a complete revision of our Poor Law at a very early date.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the local health committee should decide what remuneration should be paid to the doctors?
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: No, that is not a thing I would even suggest at the present moment. I think all that we can reasonably ask at the present time is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider the matter, and to see if he could be able to show to those who appoint the doctors and the medical profession that there would be so much money to be distributed for the payment of the medical profession, and then see what arrangement the local health committee and the medical profession and, if necessary, the insurance commissioners could arrive at. We have no basis, and the difficulty of the doctors really is that they have not sufficient experience upon which to go. The flat rate payment of the friendly societies does not carry us far enough. We are really setting out upon a new task without sufficient experience of the matter, and it is only after some years of experience that we shall be able to say really what remuneration to the doctors is fair. I referred a few moments ago to the work clone by our friendly societies and the necessity for providing that their position is not adversely affected. I should like to say a few words about the position of friendly societies under the Bill generally. The number of friendly societies in point of membership or in point of their constitution that can become approved societies under this Bill when it first becomes law is extremely small. There would be a vast number of friendly societies that must re-constitute themselves, and a very large number that can only hope to share in the approval of the insurance commissioners by amalgamating with other societies which are larger than themselves. Perhaps they will have to recast the scale of benefits that they now pay. I am afraid that some of the smaller benefit societies that have done a great deal of good work will find it very difficult to carry on their work under the provisions of the present plan.
I do not quite see why societies which are solvent should be wiped out merely because they do not come up to the very high level of membership—namely, 10,000, the number which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down. We are told that the existing funds of the friendly societies will not be brought into the scheme, and that the funds which are now in the possession of the friendly societies at the beginning of this scheme will remain in their possession unaffected by anything this Bill contains. That will give to the rich societies, to the societies, if there are any, which have a superabundance of
296
funds, the chance of securing all the best risks in the future after the Bill becomes law. The funds of which they are in possession already will enable them to give benefits in addition to the statutory benefits of so tempting a character as to enable them to get all the best risks. They will be able to give death benefits, as well as other benefits, on very easy and satisfactory terms, which will, I think, lead to some competition with the industrial societies now doing that class of work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the position of the industrial societies will not be affected by anything that the Bill contains. That, I think, is true, but I think that the operation of the Bill will affect the industrial societies and their agents. I think it must do so. I think I cannot do better than read a few sentences from a letter which I have had from one of my Constituents, in which he expresses very clearly the fears of those who are engaged in the work of those industrial societies. The grounds on which he bases his fears are these:—
"(1) The public, being compelled to insure against sickness with an affiliated order, will be brought into direct contact with the affiliated orders. (2) As the public must insure against sickness through an affiliated order, and as these orders insure against death also, it is practically certain that the public will transact their death assurances with these orders (most people preferring to do all their insurance business with one office). (3) The affiliated orders, in consequence of the forced increase in membership, and the subsidy they will receive from the State, will increase their funds, and consequently be able to give exceptional benefits, thus giving better attractions to the public to insure against death with them rather than with other offices. (4) The affiliated orders being backed by the State will appeal to the public on the grounds of high status and absolute security. (5) The public, being compelled to pay so much per neck for sickness insurance, will have less to spare to assure against death, thus the opportunities of the industrial offices for securing clients will be diminished."
I have read this to the House because it shows the kind of doubt that is working in the minds of those who are engaged in carrying on this kind of work. It will not do for us to shut our eyes to the fact that these people are going to be affected by the operation of the Bill, although they may not be injured by the terms of the Bill as they stand.
Following on what the President of the Board of Trade said in reference to the position of trade unions under Part I., I want to ask the Government whether they are willing to apply the same elasticity in regard to the deposit to another class of society which has done a great deal of good work during past years. I refer to dividing societies. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in reference to trade unions, said that the only object of

297
the deposit required from friendly societies under the Bill was to secure everybody concerned against bad management, that the provision was elastic, and that it would be stretched in this direction or in that. If we are going to make it elastic for trade unions, we should also, I take it, make it elastic for the dividing societies. I have here some observations made with reference to their position by the National Federation of Dividing Societies, which has a membership of 365,000. It is there pointed out that while they have no reserve funds which would enable them to make the deposit required under the Bill, they are quite prepared, in order that there shall be no doubt as to the safety of their administration, to take out guarantee bonds from ordinary societies that do that kind of work. I hope the position of these societies will be protected. I will not detain the House by speaking of the great work that these dividing societies have done, and the satisfaction with which their members view their management, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that they are not harshly treated under the Bill.
One word in reference to the position of the new class of contributors which the Government are creating—the deposit contributors. Most of these deposit contributors, I take it, will be brought into the scheme on the ground of ill-health. After the Bill comes into operation everybody will be given the chance of joining a friendly society, and as friendly societies will pay far better terms than contributors will get under the Post Office, it is only natural to assume that everybody who can will be brought within the friendly societies. Therefore the deposit contributors will consist almost entirely of people whom the friendly societies will not take. The contribution levied on these people is precisely the same as that paid by the most healthy member of a friendly society. How do the benefits compare? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will not do to give the same benefits to the deposit contributor as to the friendly society man, because if you did you would establish a system which might compete unfairly with the friendly societies. I do not want to see unfair competition with the friendly societies, but I do want to see that the deposit contributor gets fair value for the money which he pays. Is the amount, of the benefit that he is to get commensurate with the demand made upon him? His
298
benefit is strictly limited by the number of payments that he himself makes to the fund. He cannot draw out more than the proportion of the Fund represented by the number of contributions that he has made. His proportion is swollen by the State con tribution, but the amount is strictly limited by the number of payments that he himself has made.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In addition to that he gets the bonus, which will gradually accrue from the contributors who have not drawn their proportion.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I am speaking of the beginning of the scheme. No doubt in course of years that would be a very valuable asset and a fruitful source of increase for subsequent members, but at the beginning you are demanding from these people insurance premiums and paying only deposit rates. I do not think that you are, as a matter of fact, giving the first of these deposit contributors quite sufficient consideration. With regard to the Insurance Commissioners, you are creating a new body, to whom you are giving enormous powers. As far as I recollect, there are something like thirty different sets of regulations and provisions that they will have to frame when they come to exercise their powers under the Bill. There is one instance in which they may actually vary the provisions of the, measure after it has become an Act. I do, not think that is desirable. If the necessity for making an alteration in the Act arises, Parliament ought to be consulted and the alterations made by Parliament itself. I do not think it is right or proper that any Government Department should have the power to alter any provision that Parliament has made.
I am greatly obliged to the House for their forbearance. The vast scope and complexity of the measure must be my excuse for detaining them so long. But seeing that it has taken two Cabinet Ministers nearly four hours to explain the scheme to us, I am sure the House will forgive me for the time I have taken. I regret that the Government have not been able to allow a longer period to elapse between the introduction of the Bill and the Second Reading. We have been almost overwhelmed with a flood of memoranda. Probably no Bill was ever accompanied by so much explanatory matter. We are very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having supplied it, but a great deal of the information contained in those

299
memoranda we have not had time thoroughly to assimilate. The Bill bristles with difficulties that we have got to face, and difficulties which I hope we shall solve. We are willing to help the Government to the full extent of our power. But let it be clearly understood that if our proposals for alteration and improvement, which will be moved in good faith, cannot be accepted, if Amendments which we may feel compelled to move cannot be adopted, we must not run the risk of malicious interpretation of our action hereafter. We are willing to do our best to help the Government to carry out their object, with which we sympathise. We recognise, and the Government must recognise, that it will probably be necessary to make very considerable alterations and amendments in Committee. If we are to approach the question with free hands and free minds—and it is no use attempting the task if we cannot approach it in that way—we must preserve ourselves from the possibility of charges of bad faith at a later stage. So far as I can judge, this Bill is not popular. I do not agree with the President of the Board of Trade that it is a popular measure; but I think that it may very possibly be unpopular because it is not yet fully understood. If we were to set our minds to the task we could make considerable party capital out of the feeling which exists in the country at the present time. I can assure the House that we are not going to do it. The mere fact that a Bill is unpopular in its early stages is no valid reason or excuse why we should not go on and pass it into law if we are convinced that it will do a great deal of good to the general community. It is because we believe that the object which this Bill sets out to secure will confer lasting benefit upon the community as a whole that we are going to pass the Second Reading, I hope without dissent.
Mr. CLANCY: I desire to speak on the Second Reading of this great Bill on behalf of the party with which I have the honour to act. This is a Debate on the general principle, and I do not imagine that anyone will go to the length of dividing the House against the Second Reading. A generation ago a measure such as this, if any Ministry had had the hardihood to introduce it, would have been scouted not only as impossible of acceptance, but as almost improper in its conception. A different idea of the duties of the State towards the individual existed then.
300
All the old theories have now been buried. With the advent of democracy to power new views regarding the duty of the State towards its individual members have come into being and find expression in this House. This Insurance Bill is the latest of a series of efforts made in the last generation to cope with the evils and miseries which have been produced by generations of class legislation in the interests of the rich—miseries and evils that have affected practically only the poor and the labouring classes. Something like this measure we were bound to see. Speaking on behalf of the party to which I belong, as well as on my own behalf, I ant extremely glad that it has come now, and not later.
Without wishing to interfere in the domestic affairs of Great Britain, to interfere with the operation of British thought upon this subject, I may say, on behalf of those for whom I speak that they will endeavour in their actions on this Bill to help the democracy of England to make this Bill assume a shape which they think it ought to in the interests of their constituents. I am perfectly certain if this Bill passes that a great step will have been taken towards social reform of a higher kind. How far this measure suits Ireland is a different question. With the question of how it suits Great Britain I do not propose to interfere. I leave that to others. Great, Britain is represented by a respectable party in this House; they do not require assistance. On the other hand, may I say that I think that the Irish representatives have a peculiar claim to be heard on the question of how far this Bill suits Ireland, and what are the modifications that ought to be made in it. I confess on this point I do not feel at this moment competent to express any satisfactory answer to the question I have put. I confess I did not find it easy to read the Bill and master it, or to master the memoranda that accompanied it.
When I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took, I think, two years to prepare this Bill, and took two and a-half hours to explain its outlines only, and that we uninstructed Irish Members have only had two weeks, without expert help, to master its details, I think we are not to be blamed when we say that we have not had time yet to come to a definite conclusion upon its provisions. We have, however, done our best in that direction. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) on the First Reading of this Bill, invited an expression of public

301
opinion in Ireland upon its provisions. He especially called upon the county councils and the rating authorities in the rural districts to express their views upon the measure which so deeply concerned them and their constituents. Some of the public bodies have expressed their views, and we have been very glad to get them. Some of these views, many of them, contain matter of importance which it will be proper for us to give full consideration to before deciding upon any particular line in regard to the Bill. We are, in fact, inquiring and gathering information. This will enable us yet to come to definite conclusions on a multitude of points which inevitably arise for consideration in the discussion of a measure of this kind. In this direction I may observe that we have not derived much help from the discussion which has already taken place in this House and in the British Press on that aspect of the measure which relates to England and Scotland.
This Bill has plainly and naturally been drafted and framed mainly with a view to the social conditions which prevail in England and Scotland. That means that the Bill is primarily cognisant of and applicable to, industrial conditions. But Ireland, although it has several large centres of industry—I am glad to say that Irish industries have not been altogether extinguished by British legislation—is mainly an agricultural country. Therefore Irish representatives are plainly bound to see, so far as they can, that the exact proportions under this Bill as regards Ireland are appropriate to its peculiar needs and interests. The Chancellor of t he Exchequer himself, by his Bill, practically draws attention to this very fact, for in the centre of exemptions from compulsory insurance against sickness and disablement, there is an express exemption for employers and employed where no wages are paid, and where the employer is an occupier of an agricultural holding valued at not more than £20. I cannot help thinking that in making this exemption the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in view in particular the case of Ireland. For holdings which are valued at £20 and under, and on which the persons employed are the occupier's own family, constitute about three-fourths of the agricultural holdings in Ireland. This condition of things, I think, does not prevail in any part of England; nor, I think, any part of Scotland.
Nor is this the only matter in the Bill itself, as anyone may see by referring to Clause 59, which deals with Ireland; which
302
says that Ireland cannot, he treated in the same way in this matter as England, and, accordingly, Irish representatives must necessarily take time to consider the Bill and to see how far separate treatment is necessary for Ireland. I do not propose on the present occasion to enter into any details. I do not see much advantage, I confess, in discussing this or that particular detail when what we have to consider in discussing a measure on Second Reading is the principle of the thing itself. I would like, however, to ask one or two questions. The first, is whether as regards the first or second parts of the Bill any separate statistics have been prepared for Ireland, or whether any separate actuarial calculations have been made as regards Ireland? Such separate actuarial calculations may be of great importance in arriving at the conclusions upon the various points of the Bill as it affects Ireland. I would like also to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the justice—and this is really a point of vital importance as regards Ireland—of making or prescribing the same rates of contribution from employers and employed over the whole of the United Kingdom. This matter seems to me to lie at the root of a good deal of this Bill so far as Ireland is concerned. The health conditions of the United Kingdom, as a whole, constitute the basis on which these contributions or rates of contributions have been fixed.
The health conditions, however, are not uniform. They are not the same throughout Great Britain and Ireland. If Ireland be taken as a whole, it will be found that the rate of sickness there is less than in Great Britain. The simple reason is that whereas the overwhelming majority of the people of Great Britain live in towns and urban centres, a similar overwhelming majority, if not a larger majority, of the population of Ireland lives in the rural districts. I suggest to the Government that that is a matter to be inquired into. If it be so, the consequence will be there will always be proportionately smaller demands from Ireland upon the Insurance Fund in respect of sickness and disablement than from Great Britain. So that if the rates of contribution be sufficient to provide fixed benefits for Great Britain they would be more than sufficient to provide similar benefits in Ireland. In other words, smaller contributions, from Ireland, from both employers and employed, would suffice to produce the same benefits as in

303
Great Britain. I would like to know whether this point, a matter of prime importance, has been considered by the Government, and I would like to know their view upon it? I would like in a sentence to refer to one point of detail. We have in Ireland at present many medical services for the poor, which are among the few bright spots on the social horizon. I do not think there can be found anywhere a more devoted, zealous, and deserving body of public officers than the doctors in our Poor Law service. I desire to say that we deem it to be our duty to secure, if we can, that the changes which this Bill, if passed, will bring about in the administration of medical relief in Ireland to the poor and working classes, shall not prejudice directly or indirectly the medical officers or dispensary doctors in Ireland. Subject to the modifications which a thorough examination of the provisions of this Bill may show to be absolutely necessary from the point of view of Ireland, we on these Benches will heartily spport the application of the Bill not only to Great Britain, but to Ireland.
Speaking as one of those few Irish representatives who happens to represent a constituency which, although mainly agricultural, contains one of the largest centres of industry in Ireland, I venture to say, on my own behalf, I welcome the provisions of insurance against unemployment with equal cordiality to that with which I look upon the provisions against sickness and disablement. The conditions of life of the poorer classes in the large centres of population in Ireland are, in many instances, simply shocking. Something must be done to alter things in that respect. It is said that the expense that would be entailed by the working of this measure upon industry would be ruinous. Personally I do not believe anything of the kind, even if there were no compensating advantages, but the compensating consequences to my mind are absolutely certain. The provision against sickness and disablement in this measure appears to me to be a real step in advance towards the abolition of the workhouse, and a corresponding decrease in rates as well, and a general uplifting of the social life of the masses of the people, which in its turn, in my opinion, will also lead to beneficial consequences to the whole community. I recognise that we ought not to be deterred from the task of trying to accomplish that most desirable end by any but the most overwhelming consideration.
Mr. BARNES: I rise on behalf of the Labour party to offer a few words of observation upon this Bill, and, in doing so, I am not ashamed to say that I am at a disadvantage in not knowing fully the whole provisions of the Bill. I am not ashamed to say that, because it is, after all, a very large and complicated Bill, and has taken, I suppose, nearly two years to prepare, during which period the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the opportunity of consulting the experts at the Treasury and expert officials outside and of obtaining all sorts of expert advice, and then after two years it is submitted to us a fortnight ago, and it is too much to expect the average man like myself to understand fully all that has been soaked into the minds of these experts during those years of consultation. While I rise without professing to fully understand the significance of the relationship of all the Clauses of this Bill one with the other I am not afraid to say that I welcome the Bill on my own part and on behalf of those with whom I am associated. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. H. W. Forster) a little while ago said that in his judgment the Bill asked too much. I do not know whether that is so or not. At all events, he promised his support, and I suppose he speaks for the party with which he is associated as well. At all events, this Bill has met outside with no warm opposition, but a quiet acquiescence on the part of those who are affected by it, and will be called upon to administer it.
I think we may take the introduction of this Bill as marking a distinct step forward on the part of the community and as a recognition of its duties towards the poorest and weakest amongst us. For that reason I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks that he was in favour of the blessed word "compulsion," and further, I welcome his statement about trade unions and friendly societies. I am a member of a trade union and a friendly society, and I appreciate the fact that from all quarters the work of these voluntary organisations is now pretty generally appreciated. They have done a great deal in cheering homes that otherwise would be without cheer; in helping people to help themselves, and in aiding and helping the State, because after all, if they had not dipped their hands into their own pockets the State would have had to help them. But while that is so with the highest and better-paid body of workmen, I am glad it is also now

305
recognised that voluntary effort among the very poorest is practically out of the question, and it is, I take it, a justification, or at least one of the justifications, for this Bill that voluntary organisation for this purpose among the very poor is out of the question.
I associate myself with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks in regard to Post Office Deposit contributors when he pleaded they are being dealt with less favourably than should be. I think the hon. Gentleman did not fully state the case. He said these depositors were persons not eligible for trade unions or friendly societies—I am not sure whether he mentioned trade unions, but at all events he mentioned friendly societies—and he said quite correctly that these persons would be paid only what they paid in, whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted they would get the benefit in the lives that drop out. Well, it is a poor consolation to the widow of the person who has dropped out. These Post Office contributors are not only not eligible to join friendly societies and trade unions, but they consist very largely of casual labourers and men who cannot join any organisation. Of course it will be said that the machinery of this Bill does something to encourage them to join voluntary organisations, or friendly societies or trade unions. But there are so many poor people that I am afraid that you will not be able to do that, and therefore I think the two classes I have mentioned might be more favourably dealt with under the Bill.
The next point I wish to allude to is in regard to separation. If there is to be separation—and I am not saying that there ought to be any separation, but it has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, and I rather think also by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks—I hope it will not be the unemployment portion of the scheme that will be dropped. I think it would be most unfortunate to drop either part, but if either part is to be dropped I hope it will not be that dealing with unemployment, because after all that is a small part of the scheme, and the one which would get through with the least trouble. More than that, it is a question that ought to be settled when trade is good and when there is money to finance the scheme. I am afraid if it is shelved now and the other parts proceeded with we probably would hear no more about it, or it might be brought forward when trade was bad and
306
the demands upon the Funds so heavy that it might be stillborn. Therefore, I hope that that part will not be thrown over. With regard to the general scheme, I commenced by saying I do not profess to fully understand the whole scheme. We have had many meetings to consider the matter, and we propose to have many more, because we want to thoroughly understand it, and I do not think it is any disgrace to say that we cannot fully understand in a fortnight a scheme of this magnitude which is produced after two years of consultation by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his experts. But in so far as we have yet made up our minds upon the scheme we support it, although our support is tinged with some misgiving as to its working and its probable effect upon the efficiency of trade unionism, and, therefore we support the Second Reading with the distinct understanding that our future action will be very largely determined by what takes place between the Second and Third Reading.
There are some parts of the scheme which we all endorse, and which we are very glad have been brought forward. I refer particularly to the parts of the scheme dealing with maternity, consumption, and medical aid. It is one of the most pathetic things in connection with modern life that women have to bear, not only burdens incidental to sex, but also the heaviest part of life's industrial burden as well. Their wages are lower and their hours of work longer and their conditions more onerous than men, simply because they are more dependent; and, although the Bill does not do all we should like it to do to relieve their industrial burden, yet, if carried into effect, it will provide at the most critical period of their lives a little of that skilled attendance and of the necessaries of life which they cannot otherwise procure, and, therefore, we have nothing but admiration for that part of the Bill. With regard to consumption, we are glad to know that this country has at last began to follow the example of Germany in dealing with the ravages of this fell disease. We are glad to know that responsible Government, acting in accordance with the wishes of the community, are at last beginning to recognise that consumption carries off every year more than the number who fall by the battle murders and sudden death of a war, and that, to a very large extent, consumption is preventable, and is very largely caused by poverty. We are glad, therefore, to know that something is to be done through scientific re-

307
search and otherwise, not only for the cure of this disease, but for its prevention. We are glad to know that this House has come to recognise in this Bill that human life is, after all, a valuable asset.
6.0 P.M.
We are glad to know that in the future, if this Bill becomes law, a person in receipt of medical aid will have the same right of access to the doctor as the owner of property to the services of the fire brigade. I notice in the papers that there is a controversy going on about the doctors, and I am not going to express an opinion as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's provision is ample or not; but on the general question of the payment of doctors, I hope they will be treated generously. We want the best medical advice we can get, not only for the poorest of the people covered by this scheme, but for the whole of the people. If you have doctors poorly paid, or if they are so paid that they have to do the work in a perfunctory manner, only the poorest people will go to them, and there will be a social stigma attaching to those who do go. I hope this matter will be settled by so arranging the provision dealing with the doctors that everybody will avail themselves of the medical aid provided.
The provision for the scheme being worked through voluntary societies is somewhat different to the German scheme. I know we are differently placed to Germany. When Germany introduced her scheme there were practically no voluntary agencies there, and we are fortunate in having those agencies in this country. Therefore I think it right and proper that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should avail himself of the existence of those voluntary agencies. I am glad he has done so, because I believe the administration of the scheme will be less costly in consequence, and he will avoid the need of setting up great bureaucratic departments, with all they involve in cost and irritation. I come now to the more debatable part of the scheme so far as we are concerned. The valuation of the society is not very clear in the Act. It is not clear whether it is the intention of the Government that a valuation of all the property of the approved societies should take place, or whether it relates to only a part of the property with which we are dealing under this Bill. I gather that the latter is the proper interpretation. To that we have no objection, and therefore we may reckon that point as settled. Now I come
308
to the premiums and the compulsory deductions. The premiums are theoretically unsound, and I think the State ought to bear those burdens. But we are willing to face facts. We recognise that workmen are to administer funds drawn partly from outside sources and we do not push theoretical considerations too far. As for deductions, workmen have hitherto been very chary about accepting deductions from wages, and rightly so. Up to the present those deductions have been associated in their mind with something far different to that which is provided for under this Bill. As a rule deductions have been associated with truck or with the grandmotherly, or shall I say grandfatherly, schemes of employers who very often organise superannuation funds and schemes connected with shop clubs, not altogether for the benefit of the workmen, but incidentally having the effect, if not the intention, of splitting the workmen up into sections all over the country, and it is very largely because of that that the workmen have been so bitter against any deductions from their wages. That does not apply, except in so far as the Government recognises shop clubs in Clause 19. If I read it correctly, it encourages the formation of those shop clubs, but so far as we are concerned, we shall have to very carefully consider Clause 19 as it goes through Committee, because we do not want the formation of shop clubs encouraged and multiplied, because the direct effect of this would be to discourage and weaken trades unions organisation, and it would enable employers in a few years' time to throw the burden which now goes on to their shoulders on to the shoulders of the workmen.
There are one or two other things which may have the effect of operating against trades unions organisation. Take, for example, Clause 18. I know that an explanation has been given to the effect that this Clause does not mean what it says. Unfortunately, as we have so often observed in Acts of Parliament, when we pass a measure we try to put into it what we mean, and the judges pay precious little attention to what our intentions were, and they interpret what they find in print. Clause 18 expressly sets out that a society shall not become an approved society unless it satisfies the following condition:—
"It must be precluded by its constitution from distributing any of its funds otherwise than by way of benefits (whether benefits under this Act or not) amongst its members;"

309
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the word "benefits" means only provident benefits. If that is so that might partly meet our objection, but I want to put it that the trade unions of this country have often given money away and lent money to fellow trade unions and borrowed money for all sorts of objects, and I am very glad, indeed, that they have been able to do so. I know many years ago that the engineers' society, with which I have been connected, gave £1,000 to assist the cause which Mr. Plimsoll advocated, and we also gave £1,000 to Joseph Arch when he was engaged organising the agricultural labourers of this country. Within the last few years the engineers' society has given money, not only to people in this country, but to people in Germany and Denmark, to assist workmen struggling to be free. We want to use our money absolutely as we like, and, therefore, we cannot assent to Clause 18, which would prevent us continuing to do in the future with our money what we have done in the past.
With regard to Clause 20, I should like to put several things together here. Having made no preparation, I am afraid I may be somewhat obscure on these points. Let me remind the House that the trade unionists of this country have always held that there should be no separation of their funds, and we are not going to have any separation of funds imposed upon us now by law. Some of us separate our funds and many of us advocate that course, but I do not want the House to think for one moment that we want to be compelled to do it. We hold that we ourselves should determine how we are going to use our funds. I want to lay down another principle. The first principle of trade union organisation is the industrial betterment and the economic advantage of their members, and therefore we claim that, although we pay sick benefit and many other benefits, our first consideration is that we should be in a position, if we think proper, to spend at any particular time every halfpenny in our coffers in industrial benefits. We have often done that. I went through a great dispute in 1897 and 1898, which cost the society with which I am connected over £750,000, and on that occasion we spent not only the whole of the money that might fairly be allotted to trade union purposes, but we spent all our sick money as well. To a person who does not understand the trade union movement this might seem a very improper thing to do, but if you go back in history you
310
will find that trade unions have frequently done that, and never once can it be said against a trade union that it has not always paid its sick pay and superannuation pay and all the promises made to its members. It has more than fulfilled those promises, because the benefits have been increased from time to time since trade unions started. We claim a right to continue that course.
Hon. Members will be wondering how it is that that is cut into by this Bill. It has to do with the scale of benefits, which I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is too low. I take the case of the society with which I am more particularly connected, the society of engineers. I have compared the scale of benefits given by my society with the scale provided under the Bill. Under this measure you propose as sick benefit 10s. per week for thirteen weeks and 5s. per week after that. The engineers' society pay 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks and 5s. per week after the expiration of that period. Therefore our scale is more liberal than your scale. You propose to deduct 4d. compulsorily from a man's wages. I assume that that 4d. is going to cut into the contribution to the union, because the man is not likely to be able to pay 4d. over and above his present contribution. I take the engineers' contribution to his union to be 2s. per week—that may be a little over or under what he actually pays, but it is somewhere about the mark. I take it that 1s. 8d. of the 2s. contributed by the workman remains with the union, and instead of getting 2s. as before, the union will, under this measure, get 1s. 8d. I am told that that does not matter, because the union is going to get back all it has paid out, and, therefore, it is not going to lose anything. We are told that instead of losing anything the trade unionist is going to gain something, because he is going to get a lot more than 4d. in the way of benefits, such as maternity benefits, medical aid, and the rest of it. That, however, is not the point. My point is this: I want the House to be alive to the fact that by your scale you are giving two-pence and you are taking four-pence. You may not believe that, but I want to show you the figures. I have here some leaves torn from this year's report of the Engineers' Society. I tore them out today, and they give the experience of that society from its beginning. It is a rather large experience, extending as far back as the year 1851. The sick benefit on the more liberal scale I have mentioned costs

311
the members of that society, in round figures, 2¾d. per week, so you see we pay on a scale which costs us 2¾d. I assume your scale to be 2d., and we are stopped 4d. for it. Therefore, at the end of three or six months we are out to the extent of the difference between the 4d. and the value of your scale, and to that extent you have cut into the principle I have mentioned of the trade unions having the right to use their own funds in their own way.
I cannot say I fully understand Clause 20 now, but, so far as I understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton), who was on the point when I came into the House this afternoon, it is only under certain circumstances that the societies are to be required to find a sum of money as a guarantee. I understand they are required to find a guarantee if they want advances made to them, or something of that sort. Supposing they require advances to be made to them, they have to find a sum of money equal to one-half of the contributions of the whole of the members covered in this scheme. That is the Bill. Let us look at an extreme case. We will say the Engineers' Society are covering 50,000 of their members. The contributions under the Bill amount to 28s. 4d. per year, so that every man will have to be covered by this guarantee to the extent of 14s. 2d. Fifty thousand times 14s. 2d. amounts in round figures to about £30,000 or £40,000. The society, therefore, is going to be deprived of the use of that money for all time, and for a considerable period of time—three or four months—of the other amount I have mentioned. We cannot assent to that taking place, and in that respect there must be considerable modifications in the Bill. I have illustrated the point by taking a union that may be said to be at the top. Let me illustrate it by a union that may be said to be at the bottom. I think the thing is much stronger then. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. William Thorne) is the secretary of a society with many thousand members. You require the unskilled labourer to pay 4d., and I want to know what is left and where there is any margin for the unskilled labourer in receipt of 16s. or 17s. per week if you deduct 4d. from his income. You say a society can become an approved society, even although a trade union, for the purposes of this scheme, but if 4d. is deducted from that man's money what is left for him to
312
pay into his trade union to defend his economic interest. It seems to me there is very little left. I am reminded that it is not 4d., but 6½d. that you are going to deduct, and we say that, after deducting 6½d. for the purposes of this scheme, there is going to be very little left. Therefore, we are very much in favour of a liberal gradation. You have recognised that no man in receipt of a wage under 15s. per week is to be charged the full amount. I should say that a man with a wage under 15s. per week should not be charged at all, but, whatever may be the ultimate decision, we do say, and I press this point strongly, that the Bill must be amended and altered in such a way as to relieve these men with wages at the bottom of the scale from full payment, and perhaps from any payment for the purposes of the Act.
I am rather glad the unemployed part of the scheme can afford to pay higher benefits in proportion to the contributions than the sick part. The difficulties I have mentioned therefore do not on the whole arise there. There are just two Clauses, however, to which I should like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the unemployed part of the scheme, and they are Clauses 62 and 64. There is considerable danger to the trade union position, and I want to see the trade union position maintained. It is made a condition in Clause 62 that a workman
"shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment" … "at a rate of wage lower than the rate which he habitually earns when in employment."
We think that does not go far enough. Take the man of progressive wages up to twenty-three or twenty-four years of age. The Government themselves, as a matter of fact, employ men up to twenty-five years of age before they come to what may be called the standard rate of wages appropriate to their trade or calling. If this man refuses an offer of work at wages not higher—put it like that—than what he had while in the progressive period, it seems to me the literal interpretation of this Clause would prevent him getting the benefit. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government, but, if it is, then that particular part of the scheme must be rectified before we can assent to the Bill, and I hope it will be rectified. Then a man is not to get his benefit if he refuses a job at wages lower than the

313
current rate in the district in which the job is offered. Here, again, we say—and I think we are strengthened in the statement by all that has taken place in regard to the controversy about the determination of current rates under the Fair-Wages Clause—that a man should not be refused his benefit if he refuses to work at current rates? What are the current rates? It would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer to find out what are the current rates in any particular district. I have put questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. McKenna) about current rates of wages in London. I do not know what he means, and whether he knows what I mean or not I cannot say.
We stand for a perfectly easily understandable principle when we say we are banded together to maintain a standard rate of wages. We say that as workmen we are just as much entitled to a standard rate of wages as Cabinet Ministers, or anybody who find their way on that Front Bench, and we are not going to assent to any Bill or anything which will endanger the maintenance of that standard rate of wages. We say this Bill literally interpreted, would prevent a man getting his benefit under the Act if he refused to work at the current rate, which might be less than the standard rate. Therefore, I hope the Government will give their mind to that matter. Clause 64 says:—
"All claims for unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act, and all questions whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled in the case of any workman claiming such benefit…. shall be determined by one of the officers appointed under this Part of this Act for determining such claims for benefit."
We object to that. We think the proper agency for distributing the unemployment benefit is the trade union. We have had a lot of experience of it. I think it may be claimed without any egotism that we know how to do it. At all events, we have done it for nearly 100 years, and we are the only people who have done it. The State has not done it, and nobody else so far as we know. The trade unions have been distributing unemployment benefit for nearly 100 years, and we ask that we should continue to be the agency for the distribution of unemployment benefit. We do not want to interfere with the Government with regard to the administration of the other part of the scheme, but in respect of our own members we ask the Government to entrust us with the pay-
314
ment of that benefit. There is a good claim for that even from the point of view of time, because after all, if a man is out of work, he wants his money promptly. He has no time to run about looking for the Insurance Officer, possibly making long claims on paper, and answering no end of questions.
The trade unions have a simple form, understood by all the members, for the administration of these benefits. At given times they attend at certain places and sign their names, and we think that ought to be sufficient for the purposes of this scheme. If you do otherwise, you will have a man first of all running to the Insurance Officer to fill up forms and to get 7s., that part of the benefit he is going to get under your scheme, and then going to the trade union to get his other 3s. It will involve two journeys, two signatures, and filling up various forms, and it will cause endless confusion, endless irritation, and needless expense to the individual. These are some of the points which obviously need attention from our point of view. I do not put them forward in any factious spirit. We are very glad the Bill has been introduced. We think it marks a great step forward, because it brings many millions of workmen into direct contact with the State, and is therefore going to be of immense educational value. We believe people have been too much inclined to look upon the Stale simply as a big policeman, and this Bill will enable a great many of them to realise that the State, after all, is what they like to make it. We welcome the Bill from that point of view. We hope it may get over all the hurdles of opposition and criticism to which it may be subjected, and that, as amended and altered in the form I have suggested, it will ultimately pass and become law.
Dr. J. ESMONDE: I think everyone in this House will agree no Bill has ever come before this Assembly that has met with fairer treatment. Every Member of this House is most anxious to do all he can to make the Bill a success, and at the same time not to do any injustice to any vested interest which this Bill may affect. The question of the friendly societies is one which they themselves will be able to deal with. But there are a number of other societies, such as slate clubs, which have done a great deal of good work in the past, and which, to my mind, have been very much more useful in suppressing malingering than such recognised societies as the

315
Oddfellows and the Foresters. In the ordinary slate club the member pays in 6d. or 7d. per week, and, at the end of the year, there is a division of what is over, after keeping back a certain balance sufficient to prevent them getting into difficulties in the next year. I think if the ordinary friendly societies adopted a similar practice, they would find it easier to deal with the question of malingering. Most of these societies divide up at Christmas, and they run the sickness fund on something like 7s. or 8s. a year. I throw that out as a suggestion; of course, the right hon. Gentleman must he guided by the actuaries who advise him in this matter.
Of course, the great blot in this matter is the entire leaving out of married women. I refer principally to those who have young children. It is not right to say that a married woman does not work for her living at home. She has her household duties to perform, and I think some effort should be made to bring her into this scheme. The only reason I have heard against this is that you cannot prevent malingering. But I do not think there is likely to be any malingering in the case where a woman has to provide for a family; she cannot possibly declare on the funds having regard to the demands of her Young children. It would be greatly to the advantage of the State to have married women with a young family looked after in a satisfactory way.
As regards the question of Ireland, I do not propose to offer many remarks, because the hon. Member for County Dublin has put the case very clearly. I think we shall all agree that this Act can be made very useful, and when it comes into Committee every effort will be made to put it in practicable form. The people in Ireland are absolutely in a different position. The Bill suggested by the hon. Member for Dublin must receive many Amendments.
I arrive at a point on which I wish to offer a few remarks, because it is a point on which I have had some practical experience. I may say, at the commencement, that there is no member of the medical profession throughout the length and breadth of this country who will not do his best to make this Act a success, provided that the result will not be to interfere with his wife and family, and with those who are relying on him for support. This Bill is perhaps one of the largest Bills that has ever been brought into this House. The right hon. Gentleman took two and a-half years, and employed any number of actuaries to assist him in getting evidence from all classes and condi
316
tions of the people, and he came to this final result that three-fourths of this Bill could safely be put before the public. Then came the question of medical relief. The right hon. Gentleman was told it was absolutely impossible to put any definite principle on insurance in the form of a medical benefit. What has he done? He has asked the medical profession to underwrite an insurance which he, with all his millions at his back, would not undertake. The medical profession do not want anything unreasonable, but they want at least to have some say in the premium which the right hon. Gentleman is going to demand from them. It is not fair or right that he should demand that the medical profession should underwrite this scheme without at the same time allowing them to fix the premium which shall be paid. If that were possible the principle might he extended, and we should all be able to insure our lives in a most satisfactory manner to ourselves.
With the starting of friendly societies we had the origin of what is known as the "club practice." I should like to explain to the House how that practice arose. Many years ago, it was possible for a medical man to employ unqualified assistants. He would give them 30s. a week, and provide them with top hats and frock coats. But all that is completely altered now. Still, that was the start of the system known as the club practice. No longer is it possible when an antiseptic dressing is required for a medical man to put simply a rag around the finger of the patient. Much more is now demanded. I take it if the Government want this Bill to be a success, if they want to insure its proper working, that they will have to bring about a very different state of affairs; the best dressings and the best drugs will have to be used, and every facility will have to be given to the medical man.
There are three classes of medical men. I am not claiming that the medical man is immaculate. But I venture to say that this class of men are not the class of men we should attempt to bring into this Act. On the other hand, you have the consultant and the specialist, the man who has got a kind of practice, almost between the general practice and the consultant's practice. The people you want to bring in are the bonâ fide family doctor, the respectable steady man who will put all his interest into the working of this Bill. There is an impression abroad that everything is satisfactory to the profession in regard to this

317
Bill. But I have received over a hundred letters during the last few days, and I can assure the House that the feeling of the profession has been aroused in this matter as it has never been aroused before. We have no trade union in our profession, and it is because I am anxious not to see any trade union started in the profession that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance which will be satisfactory that the amount of money to be offered for the work required to be done will be sufficient. After all, the medical man is not, merely a medical man. He is the friend of the house. He is brought into the house under sad conditions, and he receives confidences which are necessarily respected by upright, straightforward men. If you bring a trade union society into our profession, you will find a very different state of affairs would arise. It would not be for the benefit either of the profession or of their friendly relations with the public.
There are three points which I think it is right, at this stage, should be mentioned. The first is that you will not have the friendly societies as an intermediary between you and the working classes of this country. I do not believe that 5 per cent. of the whole of the medical profession would agree that it can be worked on this basis. The next is that they view with great alarm the £160 limit. They consider that £160 is altogether in excess of the amount which they ought to be fixed per annum. The vast majority of the medical men who are attending in suburban districts would lose a very considerable amount of their income if this limit were insisted upon. We think it ought to be reduced. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give the medical profession, who are unanimous on this point, some assurance. The third point is that the profession think there ought to be a free choice of medical men. I believe that is a point upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very determined. He does not think it ought to exist, but what will be the position of affairs if it does not? The club doctors of the present day would receive all the benefits of this Act, and those medical men who have not clubs at the present moment would see their patients whom they have treated for years, and their families perhaps, go over to other doctors. Even though they continue to treat the family, the man himself would go to another doctor, and I do not think that would be fair or reasonable. I do not think, moreover, it will work well,
318
because I think it is very much better that a man should be treated by his family doctor, who attends both him and his wife and children, even if he does become a member of a scheme under this Act. In those instances in which doctors have passed cases of malingering, or have been guilty of some other misconduct, I think it would be very easy to bring such men before the Local Medical Association, who would be only too glad and anxious to see that no discreditable action on the part of medical men should take place under this Act.
Coming to the question of the Capitation Grant, the feeling about that among medical men in this country is that they ought not to be asked to accept Capitation Grant because they are asked to go completely outside their work. They are medical men, and if they are going to succeed in doing good to their patients and in curing diseases should not have too much put upon them, but the Government, under this Bill, are transforming them into brokers as well as doctors. I recognise, as one who has done a great deal of work for benefit societies, and, indeed, we all recognise, that if the members of the medical profession do not come forward for a certain number of years and give the necessary medical benefits there will be no prospect of this Act effectively coming into force. Therefore, I do not think that the medical profession ought to be asked to do this work, which should be done efficiently, unless they are properly paid. The sum of 4s. 6d. has been mentioned, and the amount of 6s. has also been brought forward as payment for medicine and drugs, and upon this point I think it would be well if an amount were mentioned, and for this reason. To-morrow the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply to the various criticisms on his Bill. There is a strong feeling in the profession on this subject, and they are looking forward most anxiously for some reassurance from him. Some people may think one figure is right and other people may think another figure is the proper one. I have very carefully considered the matter, having had long experience in all conditions in London and in the country, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a most difficult thing for anyone to fix the exact amount. What have we to fall back upon, therefore, except the Government opposite, and not only the Government of the day, but the Government before that. They have the Post Office officials. I was

319
a doctor under the Post Office, and I received for each healthy individual—a good life, a man who had been examined and who lived the healthiest life of anyone in the country in the open air—I was paid a fee of 8s 6d. per member, and that included visiting and medicines and consultation at home.
I say that is reasonable. I do not say the medical profession will accept that, but I only express my own opinion, and I do so for this reason, that I do not believe that the last three or four Governments have been throwing money away in paying 8s. 6d. a head, and I do not think the Post Office Department, either, are anxious to throw money away. Some of us who live in country districts cannot get our letters for three days, and there is no attempt to alter that state of things, and therefore I do not think the Post Office is inclined to go to unnecessary expense. If it is fair for one Department of the Government to pay 8s. 6d. for healthy lives in London, I do not think that another Department can put the figures below that amount. People have got an idea that every healthy man will go into an insurance company, but I do not think that. I think you will have many a healthy man going into the Post Office scheme, and under these circumstances I think the State should only have to pay the doctor as a friendly society would pay for men who were in good health. Beyond that you have a very serious element to deal with where the people are chronically ill. You have cases which require daily or constant medical or surgical advice, and those cases must he treated on a separate basis. But I do feel that if the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow were to say that he is prepared to offer the same terms under this Act generally that his colleagues offer for the Post Office, that the medical profession as a whole would make an honest attempt for some years to see whether they could not do something towards making this Act a success.
I do not think it is an unjust proposition to put forward. The profession is not a lucrative one, and there are less men going into it every year, while the country is increasing in population. Moreover, we are populating other portions of the world, where it would be advisable for us o have British doctors, and not to allow foreigners to come in. If you are going, therefore, to lower the standard of the profession you will not have men of equal character coming into it to those who have
320
come into it in the past, and I think it will be to the advantage of the State to lift up the profession rather than to set it back. We are only too anxious in the profession to do everything that lies in our power, and to take a fair share in paying the taxes of this country, but I think we have a right to appeal to every Member in this House that we who have clone much in sacrificing our time to forward charitable ends and in attending people who never pay us—I think we are entitled to at least the consideration which would be given to every other profession when it is attacked by the State. I think, however, we are safe in the hands of the House of Commons, and I do not think this body, representing the great masses of the country, would be prepared to do an unjust act to a profession which has done its duty to the best of its powers.
Mr. ASTOR: In the few remarks I propose to make I intend to deal with that part of the Bill which touches the treatment of consumption. My excuse for doing so is that this in itself is a sufficiently large and important matter to be separately considered, and that it requires a great deal of elucidation. If properly interpreted and if properly managed, as I hope they will be, I think the proposals of this Bill in regard to consumption will do more good than any other single proposal in the Bill. I will not touch at any length upon the justification for bringing forward these proposals in the Bill. They are two-fold. First of all there is the humanitarian, and then the economic necessity for dealing with this question. We have to consider the charge which it is proposed to make, the expenditure which is proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and compare it with the cost to the community of the disease of consumption at the present day. It is difficult to arrive directly and indirectly at the exact cost of consumption, but I am sure I should underestimate it if I put it at £5,000,000, and I should still probably be underestimating the direct and indirect cost if I put it at £10,000,000. Therefore, without labouring the point, it becomes evident that it is much cheaper, and it is economically sounder, to spend money in order to do away with this disease than to go on as we are now, supporting nearly half a million of people who are suffering from it. The objects of the Bill, as I understand them, are twofold. It provides not merely for the curing of the disease, not only for the treament of

321
those who have it, but also for the prevention of the disease. No general ever won a campaign by merely attending to the wounded and by merely giving ambulance treatment to those who were disabled. He has to prevent the enemy from attacking and overcoming the rest of his army, and, in dealing with this particular scourge, if we are to stamp out consumption we must not only alleviate the sufferings and cure the people who are afflicted with it, we must also make provision for preventing its spread to others —to the rising and unborn generations. We, as legislators, wherever we sit in this House, or whatever party we belong to, are convinced that it is our duty to make it year by year more unlikely that fresh people should succumb to this disease.
I want to deal with the two chief criticisms which have been directed outside this House against the proposals of the Government. First there is the criticism in regard to bricks and mortar. We are asked what is the good of spending so large a sum upon bricks and mortar? This criticism, to be valid, presupposes two things. First of all, that you are going to be extravagant in erecting your sanatoria. Secondly, that when you have erected them it will never be possible at some future time, to use them for other purposes. If it were proposed to erect the sanatoria at a cost of £1,000 a bed I should oppose the proposal, but it is perfectly possible to erect sanatorium buildings at £100 a bed. As to the other part of the criticism it is obvious that, although you are building these sanatoria for the purpose of stamping out the disease, if you are lucky enough to do so, it will be possible to use these buildings for other purposes, such as convalescent homes. Our duty surely seems to be not to say that we should not spend this money, but that we should watch those who have the spending of it in order that they do not waste it. The second criticism that is directed against the proposal is based upon the fallacy that sanatorium treatment has failed in the past, and the critics say why spend £1,500,000 on treatment of that character. But sanatorium treatment has not failed, and it is not proposed to spend the whole of the money on erecting fresh sanatoria. The Bill does not say that we must spend the whole of the money for that purpose. If it did I should oppose it. Sanatoria are only a part of the proposals for dealing with this disease. The Bill says that we
322
shall make provision for the erecting of sanatoria and other institutions for dealing with consumption. Therefore the point that I want to put before the House is that the proposals contained in this measure are sound because they are sufficiently wide in their scope, and there is sufficient latitude to deal with the whole aspect of this question.
7.0 P.M.
Why is it that sanatorium treatment has been criticised? First of all, it seems to me that too much has been expected of it. It was imagined that you could send any sort of consumptive to a sanatorium and have him cured. It was thought that fresh air and what was known as sanatorium treatment would almost cure the dying and bring about miracles. As a matter of fact some of the cures brought about in sanatoria have been almost miraculous. The second point is that the sanatorium treatment is particularly effective if the patients are sent there in the early stages of the disease, but the difficulty has been in the past that in many cases the general medical practitioner has not had the training or aptitude to recognise the consumptive in the early stages. I have come across innumerable instances of consumptives who have been sent to a sanatorium recommended as early cases by the general medical practitioner, going there full of hope. When they got there the specialists in charge of the institution had to tell them they were not early but advanced cases. Disappointment naturally resulted to the individual, but because of this external mistake it is not fair to criticise sanatorium treatment in itself.
Another reason why there has been criticism is that it has often been difficult to get men belonging to the working classes to stay sufficiently long in a sanatorium. If a man is a good father and a good husband, and knows that on his weekly earnings his family depend, unless you make provision for the maintenance of the family it is very difficult for that man to remain on in the sanatorium week by week when he feels all right, and a large number of persons in the past have left before the cure was completed. They have gone because they felt they must work to support their families. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear this in mind. I believe provision is now made to give a benefit of 10s. a week for three months. I hope he will realise that if an extra month were added in the large majority of cases a real cure would be accomplished. It

323
would be money well spent. It would only after all be a matter of another £2, and you would probably prevent that person coming on your fund in one or two years' time for a disablement pension. It would often be not only humanitarian but it would be economical to give additional treatment for more than three months in order to get a real cure. Another reason for the criticism that has been directed against sanatorium treatment is that to apply to consumption the expression "cure" is practically a misnomer. We should rather say that the disease has been arrested. You get small-pox and go to a fever hospital, and when you come out you know that you are cured and are practically immune as far as that disease is concerned, but it is not so with consumption. I regret to say one occasionally has evidence of a man leaving a sanatorium and celebrating his return home by a glorious orgy. Little by little he forgets the lessons on hygiene which were taught him there. He goes back to the old conditions, to the old ways, and as a result a few months or a few years afterwards relapses and breaks down. But because the general public has not understood the difference between the cure and the arresting of consumption as a disease there is no reason why this criticism which has been directed against sanatoria should be listened to.
So much for criticism. Now for the value of sanatorium treatment. Let me turn, first of all, to Germany. There a large number of sanatoria have been erected, but not by special provision as is contained in this Bill. The sanatoria have been erected in Germany by those who are responsible for the management, the accumulation, and the investment of the accumulated funds. They realised that a large number of the cases that came to them for sick benefit, for disablement pensions, for death benefit, were attributable to consumption. They looked into the matter, and they found that it was a good business proposition to spend money out of the accumulated funds on sanatoria and to give sanatorium treatment, and that they as trustees were justified in making this expenditure. I think this is a most valuable evidence that the proposal contained in this measure for the erection of sanatoria is a good and a sound one. The second point is the educational value of sanatorium treatment. You have some cases
324
which can be practically cured. You have others who may be given years, perhaps not of full efficiency but years of comfort, if they have been taught how to live. After all, sanatorium treatment does not, as many people imagine, merely mean sitting in a draught and drinking cream for a certain number of weeks. You go to a sanatorium to learn the principles of hygiene, of fresh air, of sobriety, of good food, and cleanliness, and it is much easier to learn these in a sanatorium than it would be at home. In a special institution, under constant medical supervision, where a certain amount of discipline is enforced, you learn these lessons as you never could learn them at home, and there is the great advantage that a man leaves with the disease arrested. A new arrival sees the effect of carrying out the orders given by the doctor in charge, and is likely to carry them out.
The next benefit of sanatorium treatment is an indirect benefit. A man goes there and is taught not only how to increase, to lengthen and to prolong his own life. He is taught how to become noninfectious as regards the rest of the community. He goes out and he brings into his own home the principles of hygiene and sanitary living which he learnt in the sanatorium, and thereby he makes it more unlikely that his family, living as it is necessary for them to live under these improved hygienic and sanitary conditions, will contract the disease at some future time. In fact, if I may put it so, the patient who has been to a sanatorium and has been discharged becomes a centre of hygienic education and a centre of prevention instead of, as he was before, a centre of infection. He becomes a centre of health instead of a centre of disease. There is a very large percentage, I believe it is put by authorities at over 70 per cent., of the persons discharged from sanatoria who become a source of strength instead of a source of danger to the community. It will be necessary to spend a great deal of money in providing additional beds. A great difficulty in the past in getting a working man to go and be examined has been the lack of accommodation. He had probably seen a friend of his who suffered from consumption. He had seen him go to a doctor, be examined, and be condemned. He had seen him wait week after week, month after month, hoping to get accommodation in a sanatorium, but unable to get a bed. He had seen the disease

325
get a grip of that man, and had therefore said to himself, "what is the good of my going to get examined when there is no chance of my getting into a sanatorium?" If you compel by Act of Parliament a man to insure against a particular disease, you are in honour bound, if he contracts that disease, to give him adequate treatment.
I said just now that a sanatorium was not the only link in the chain, not the only part of the weapon which was required to combat this disease. Roughly, you can divide this chain into four links. Naturally, there is a great deal of overlapping. First of all, there is the education, that is prevention. Secondly there is the diagnosis, and let me impress upon the House that you cannot depend for detecting this disease in every case upon the general medical practitioner. You cannot depend on the out-patient department of the hospital. You must have a special consumption dispensary, with a specialist, and you must give him a good salary. You must get the best man, because upon getting the early cases will depend to a large extent the successful treatment and the successful spending of this money which you propose to give. The value of the dispensary is twofold. You not only get the patient himself, but you know at once in what house to go in order to get a likely case of infection. You examine the family, and thereby you are able to detect a large number of incipient cases. Even if you have not actually got tubercle, you can keep them under observation. That is why it is so necessary to provide in towns this particular link, the tuberculosis dispensary where suspected cases can be examined. The third link is that connected with treatment. You have to give treatment to the curable. You have to give treatment to the educational cases; people who have lost part of their lungs and cannot have there restored, but to whom you can promise a prolongation of life. Then there is the treatment of the advanced pauper consumptive, and I come to the most important question of isolation and segregation. I could quote figures showing that in certain towns where there had been outdoor relief, where the poor consumptives had been treated in their homes, the mortality had not adequately diminished; it had, in fact, in some cases even gone up, whereas in other towns, where there had been indoor relief, and the poor consumptive had been treated in a special institution and had been isolated, the mortality from this disease had largely decreased.
326
Therefore you have to make provision under this Bill for treating these three classes of persons. The fourth link is connected with the after-care. When you spend money on a man you do not want that money to be wasted. You want to keep a tactful, benevolent eye upon him to see that he carries out the instructions which he learned in the sanatorium and see that he does not come back to you with a relapse in a few months or years afterwards—to see that he does not come upon your pension fund to draw a disablement pension for a long number of years.
Now as to what I may call the weak points—shall I call them weak points?—perhaps it is unjustifiable, because it will depend a great deal upon the interpretation and the elucidation of the Clauses contained in this Bill. First of all I want to put before the House the question of the educational campaign of your local health committees. Is it going to be absolutely decentralised? Are you going to allow every local health committee in every county and in every county borough to carry on its own educational campaign in its own way? If you do you will have one county advocating sanatorium treatment, another adjacent to it advocating tuberculin treatment, and probably a third looking upon this disease as being purely or largely hereditary. I do not say that it should be absolutely centralised, because then you would not have opportunities for experiment, but it seems to me that if you are going to get full value from these committees in the educational campaign, the country ought to be divided in large comprehensive groups, and that you should have in a general way similar treatment, similar education, and similar opportunities for treatment in these groups. The next point I will put before the House is the question of the sanatorium doctor. Are you making provision to give him an adequate salary? It must be realised that you want quite an exceptional man to make your sanatorium a success. He must be not only an expert in this particular disease, he must be not only a specialist, but he must be able to manage and control some 200 men collected in a building under his charge, and therefore it is necessary to give a really adequate salary to attract the best men with the necessary qualities.
The next point I would put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, what is the position in the future of the voluntary associations which have been connected with the disease in the past? Are you

327
going to safeguard these associations, some of them connected with sanatoria, some with providing dispensaries, some purely educational, and others with giving assistance to poor consumptives? What is going to be their position? Are you going to give as much help to those who have helped themselves as to those who have not? I think you ought to give due and adequate recognition to those bodies of philanthropic people who have worked so hard, and who have prepared the ground in such a way that it is now possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose the expenditure of a large sum of money, and to have his proposal welcomed as being wise, instead of being opposed as being extravagant. I do not know whether a Government Department is expected to have a feeling of gratitude, but I think, in any case, they should realise that it is to their interest, if they are going to do the best work under the Bill, to have the hearty support and co-operation of the big associations in all this work. As representing in a minor degree some of the voluntary bodies which have been dealing with this question in the past, I would say that just as we welcome State aid as additional to our work, I hope those responsible for this State aid will look upon it also as additional to, and not in substitution for, the work which has been already done. I have one advantage perhaps not possessed by every hon. Member in this House—I have studied this question, not only from outside, but also from inside a sanatorium. It is because I have felt the benefits to be derived from this treatment that I heartily support this part of the Bill.
Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I desire to join in the congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reception the scheme has met with throughout the country. It is undoubtedly a great scheme. In my judgment it is the greatest scheme of social reform that has been introduced during my political experience, and I would suggest that this is not going to inflict an increased burden on the community as a whole. It is a burden that is now borne by somebody, that is to say, it is borne by those who suffer. It is borne now by those who are least able to bear it, and what the scheme does is to spread this burden over the community as a whole. I suggest that sickness and unemployment are especially suitable for insurance. What you want, in connection with any insurance matter, is that it should be
328
something to which a very large proportion of those insured are liable, it should be something that is uncertain, it should be something that is serious to those on whom it falls, it should be something that can be averaged, and the burden should be one that is quite manageable. The ideal condition would be that everyone should insure himself. We know, as a matter of fact, that many cannot and that some will not, but it is in the interest of the community that all those who are not in a position to protect themselves should be insured. It is the interest of the employer that those who work for him should be fit and well. It is also extremely desirable that we should have this medical help available speedily. That is a thing in which delay is very costly, and nowhere is it more true that a stitch in time may save nine.
Personally I think it is reasonable that all should bear this burden, and in my remarks I shall confine myself to insurance against sickness and invalidity. I notice the hon. Gentleman opposite—the tone of whose speech we all desire to acknowledge—stated that this would create a debt of £63,000,000. It is a debt which is practically a paper debt. We are not going to borrow £63,000,000, and it is a debt which is to be balanced and wiped out by compulsory contributions, and if the contributions cease then the liability would cease. It is merely a paper debt to enable a valuation of friendly societies to be made on sound principles. I was interested in the hon. Member's remarks as to the contribution of the employer where wages are low, and particularly in the case of the agricultural labourer and the farmer. I submit, as a matter of political economy, that in the long run that would come out of rent. If you put a burden on the farming industry and render it less remunerative, the land will bear the loss. But if this scheme results in an improvement in the efficiency of the agricultural labourer, then there would be no possibility of loss. The difficulty of the man who has a low wage paying the same contribution as the man who has a high wage and getting the same benefit is a real difficulty. It is a little inconsistent to complain that the employers pay more. Somebody would have to pay more if the workmen paid less. As to the county committee, I notice the hon. Member was not quite clear whether that committee should fix the fee of the doctor. Unless the payment is fixed under the Bill those who fix the fee must be those who pay the money.

329
The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) referred to the amount of the benefits. Are these benefits sufficient and can trade unions and friendly societies do better than the Bill is going to do? If you take the Bill as a whole, the amount of the contributions—namely, 9d.—is undoubtedly high for the benefits under the Bill; but the man's payment is 4d. It is therefore worth his while to pay 4d. If the benefits are not good for 9d. they are good for 4d. There are reasons why at first the benefits are not so good. There will be a large number of less satisfactory people brought into the scheme. At present the friendly societies get the pick, but you are going to bring in others. In order to have State management of the funds there will be a lower rate of interest than the friendly societies get. Then the doctors will be better paid. The payment of the doctors by friendly societies has not been quite creditable to the friendly societies. Under this scheme there is to be non-payment of contributions during sickness or unemployment. That is not the rule in most friendly societies, though it is in some. That is a very important matter. If you are relieved of payment, of course that trenches on the funds from which payment is made. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division suggested that the Society of Engineers could do very much better. He said they could do it for 2d. If they can do it for 2d., they will be able to give very much better benefits for 9d. to their members. Everyone will wish to be an engineer. If they can do it for 2d. and they get 9d., they will have a surplus for incresed benefits.
It may be asked why not leave this work to the friendly societies? Well, the friendly societies cannot get all the people in. At the present time it is estimated by Mr. Watson, who is the highest authority in this country on friendly societies' actuarial work, that there are in permanent benefit friendly societies of the United Kingdom about 4,500,000 people. This scheme is going to deal with about 14,000,000. Then the benefit and friendly societies are not making headway. They are not increasing. They are rather losing ground in. the matter of numbers. There is no indication that, apart from this scheme, they are going to grapple with the 14,000,000, and therefore you must have compulsion to bring the people in. If you are to have compulsion there must be control of the funds, and supervision by the Government, in
330
order to ensure solvency. Our friendly society friends may not like it altogether, but it is absolutely essential. The experience of friendly society work and of benefit society work is that untrained persons cannot understand the necessity for accumulating sufficient and adequate funds for future responsibilities. They seem to think that as long as income exceeds the outgoings it is all right, whereas very often it is all wrong. The result is that a large proportion of the branches of the friendly societies are unsound and actuarially insolvent. Even in that great organisation the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows, it is shown that a large number of the branches show a deficiency at last valuation amounting to £850,000. A number of others show a surplus, but those who show a surplus are not legally liable to those which have no surplus. The Foresters show a much bigger deficiency, the Shepherds show a deficiency, the Rechabites show a deficiency, the Hearts of Oak show a deficiency which is increasing and is becoming important. The Rational Society has a deficiency of nearly £750,000. That is a very serious position. Actuarially the experience in this matter shows by the returns for the five years ending 1908 that 2,340 of these benefit societies had a total deficiency of £5,200,000.
Then we know that a large proportion of the railway benefit societies are actuarially deficient and unsound, although they get a special rate of interest from the companies. It is understood that the railway companies stand behind the benefit societies. My impression is that some shareholders will have rather a lively awakening on that point. I cannot speak too highly of the actuarial memorandum which has been submitted to us. It is a most able document by actuaries whose judgment may be taken as being as sound as anything that can be found in. this country. I venture to say that the financial proposals in the Bill are of vital importance. It is extremely important that the auditors and valuers should be appointed by the Government.
It is also very valuable that each branch of a society should value separately. Of course there you come to the difficulty of the insolvency. It is a very good provision that if a society shows a surplus, half that surplus is to go to make up deficiencies in branches of the same society where they have deficiencies. That gives every branch in that society a strong interest in keeping down deficiencies in

331
every other branch, and if the branch with the deficiency still has a deficiency after it has got the assistance of half the surplus from the others, then the benefits are to be reduced, or the contributions are to be increased. That brings you down to the bedrock of the whole Bill, which is that the individual members will suffer in their benefits unless the management is good and the claims are kept down. Without that provision there is no limit to the extent to which sick payment might go up. It gives every member of every society a keen interest in keeping shirkers and shams off the benefit list. Good management will secure for all increased benefit. Lax management will secure for all diminished benefits. That is the best safeguard you could possibly have. After what I have said, I think it is perfectly clear that you could not introduce compulsion and entrust the working of this arrangement to friendly societies without stringent supervision. But I differ from the hon. Member from Ireland in this respect, that I think the insurance must be done through the friendly societies. It will have to be done either through the existing friendly societies, or what would be practically government friendly societies, and you must use the experience which those great organisations have built up.
It is essential that the schemes should be worked by the people who are themselves interested in their success. Otherwise you would never get the supervision and checking done as well as they are done. All persons connected with friendly and benefit societies know that malingering and slackness are the great danger and the great difficulty They will tend to increase under this scheme for the very reason that you are going to bring in another class of the population, many of a less successful class, and a great many of a less satisfactory character, and altogether a less satisfactory element. It would be more difficult to deal with them, and therefore there would be more risk of shirking and malingering. This sickness claim is the ever present difficulty of friendly societies. The sickness claims are continually growing, although the health of the population is improving, as shown by a diminished death rate. Yet in spite of this diminished death rate, which means improved health, there is an increase in the sick claims of the friendly societies. The problem is how to grapple with it. We
332
must have close, interested, and personal supervision, and in the next place benefits must not be too large. It is a curious thing that sickness goes up as the benefits go up. Here is a case. In North Yorkshire in a large society in a mining and manufacturing district where the sickness is above the average because of accidents, there are three grades of sickness benefit in that society. Where 10s. a week is paid the sickness claims are 126 per cent. of the expectations; where 15s. a week is paid the sickness claims are 184 per cent.; and where 20s. a week is paid they are 203 per cent. of the expectations. I may give another instance. In a large county society in the South of England, in an agricultural district, where the benefits are 6s. and less per week under full benefit the sickness claims are 75 per cent. of the expected. When you get to half-pay, which would be 3s. or less per week they are only 36 per cent. of the expected. In the same society with the class of benefit of from 9s. to 10s., the full pay sickness experienced has gone up to 85 per cent. and the half-pay to 158 per cent. Where the benefits are from 14s. to 15s., you get the full experience of sickness on the full pay and 150 per cent. on the half-pay, and where the benefits are 18s. and over the experience on full pay is 134 per cent. and on half-pay 196 per cent. It is practically the same experience as we had before.
Another very important point is the size of the branches. The provision in the Bill about having the organisation where there are 1,000 members suggests that the number of members should be reduced, as you will then get a much more close supervision. Where you have small branches every man knows the other; in big branches they do not. Here is an experience that Mr. Watson took out over a large number of cases. In branches where the members were eighty or less, 41 per cent. of the branches had an excess of sickness above the average, while in the same organisation in the branches with 500 members or more, 82 per cent. of them had an excess of sickness. When the branches get big you cannot have the effective supervision which you have when the branches are smaller. The next point is that the benefits must not be too large. I have given some figures as to that. There is a provision in the Bill that the sickness benefit is not to exceed two-thirds of the wage, and that the other benefits that a man may be getting in combination with the sickness benefit must not altogether come to more than a man's wage. I think it

333
would be better if a lower proportion were fixed. If a man can get as much when he is ill as when he is well, that is, in combination with the other benefits, the claims are high.
Mr. BOOTH: Many of them have it now.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is a disadvantage, and societies are suffering from it. I have shown how the claims go up with the payments. You have got to deal with human nature as it is. There is one provision in connection with this which I venture to suggest is a mistake. That is the provision that there may not be any execution or distress for rent or rates while the man is suffering from sickness. Upon that I would say this: There is a great deal to he said for relieving a man of payment of rent when he is sick, but if the community feels that a man who is receiving sick benefit ought not to pay rent then the community ought to pay the rent; it has no business to put it upon the owner. If the community feels that a man's rent ought not to be paid when he is getting sick benefit the community ought not to be generous at somebody else's expense. The next point is that that is a distinct increase in the benefit, and if a man is getting these large benefits and he need not pay his rent for six months and a-half, the temptation to him to remain on the fund is increased thereby. I would suggest that a month would be sufficient. That would mean that six weeks altogether would be allowed to the sick man. One more fact. There is a society Which every seven years adds to the death benefit which will fall to members' families any surplus that there is, if that man has had no sickness claim during the seven years, and if he has had a sickness claim it is deducted from what is added to his death benefit at the end of that time. That society has got a sick list claim of one-third the average expectation. In that case that mere fact brings the claims down to one-third, and I have shown you how the other state of affairs sends them up. It is a most important point to remember, especially when you bring this large number of people in.
An extremely valuable provision, I think, is the one which says that where compensation for accident or disease is obtained it is to be deducted from the sick benefit. I think that is both just and expedient, and will do a great deal to equalise the sick claim in employments. A very large amount of the difference in the
334
proportion of sick claims in various employments arises first from accidents, and, secondly, from diseases for which compensation can be obtained. I will illustrate this by some figures. Taking ordinary societies, which comprise the large proportion, perhaps four-fifths, of those benefit societies, taking the occupations of persons of the ordinary average employment as the normal, and taking the sickness claim at 100, the sickness claim among persons working in iron and steelworks, chemical works, and quarries is 140 per cent., or 40 per cent. more. With miners it is 180 per cent., or 80 per cent. more, and nearly the whole of those extra sickness claims arise from accidents and disease for which compensation is payable. It is the same with the railway societies. The sick claims are above the average expected, but that excess is entirely due to accidents, and ordinary claims, apart from accidents, in the railway societies are rather below the average. The addition is purely owing to accident, and it is a well-known fact that friendly societies cannot be successful in mining, quarrying, and iron-work distress, unless accidents are excluded from benefits. Germany separates accidents from sickness. Another interesting thing is that accidents are most numerous among the youngest men. The older men are more cautious. There is a suggestion here that excessive sickness should be charged on localities and on owners. In principle I do not think there is any objection to that, but I do suggest that it is impracticable and will cause endless litigation, and I think it would be better to leave it out. The next important point, which is not dealt with in the Bill definitely, is this: Should men be allowed to earn something while they are receiving sickness payments? It makes a wonderful difference. If you allow a man on sick benefit to earn a little up goes the sickness claim. There is one society—a well-known and well-managed society—which does that under certain limited conditions. The effect is to send up the sickness claim in that society by over 50 per cent. The moment you allow a man to earn anything in addition he tends to stop longer on the fund. I gather, I am not quite sure whether I am correct in my interpretation, that the Bill makes no provision for it, but leaves the regulation of this point to the ordinary rules and conditions of the various societies.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask my hon. Friend to repeat that point?
Sir T. WHITTAKER: My point is that to allow a person to work while receiving sick benefit would increase the amount of sickness, and that the member should not be allowed to work during the time he is receiving sick benefit. I think the condition provided under the Bill is that it is left to each friendly society to work according to its own rules. But what about those who come under the Post Office scheme? There ought to be some provision made in their case, and I would suggest that they should not be allowed to work while receiving benefit. Another important point in connection with friendly societies is this: I said that they were not increasing so rapidly as formerly and that they are not making much headway. The result is that the number of older members in these societies is increasing, and the amount of sickness among the older members is from four to six times as much as amongst the young members. Consequently the position of these societies becomes more precarious as the proportion of older members increases. One of the strongest societies, the Hearts of Oak, has now three times as many members over seventy years of age as it had ten years ago. It only shows the tendency of the membership, and that is a very important point. There is an impression abroad that the present generation of contributors are to pay in order to take in the older persons, and when you are commencing a scheme you have to take them in at all ages—you have to begin. I would suggest that is scarcely an accurate way of putting it, and that it is the Government contribution which pays. The Government contribution pays for having in those who are above the average age, and what it means is that when that debt, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, has been wiped out in something like sixteen years, the whole of that contribution will be so much available for extra benefit.
With reference to the doctors, I think it is very important indeed that they should receive adequate remuneration. You will not get much out of them if they are discontented. The friendly societies have paid them inadequately. I am a little impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, who pleaded so eloquently for a standard wage, but he did not plead for the doctors. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] He did not, and it is a fact that sometimes working men are the hardest employers of others that you
336
can have. There is no doubt about it. There are reasons for it, but it is a fact, and really the treatment of medical men by friendly societies has not been quite what I think we should like to see.
Mr. LANSBURY: When a man is poor he cannot be generous.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: I do want this opportunity to be taken to put the remuneration of the doctors on a satisfactory footing. If you pay too little you will get the blacklegs, the failures, and the undesirables of the medical profession. That which is low in price is seldom really cheap, and I think the doctors ought to have better terms. The profession as a whole resent very strongly indeed the treatment to which they have been subjected in the past by friendly societies, and unless their position is to be very considerably improved there will be difficulty in working this scheme. I do not know whether it would be the best method, but I am not sure whether there should not be a minimum payment fixed. I do not agree with the suggestion that you can pay by fees. I think there must be a capitation grant. When you have got the capitation grant, the annual payment is made to the doctor, who receives it, whether the member is ill or not. It is to the doctor's interests, if the member be ill, to get him well and out of his hands. Therefore, the doctor would have a distinct interest in checking malingering. But if he be paid so much an attendance—even doctors are human beings—then his direct personal interest in getting the member off his hands would not be so great as I think it should be. A strong desire has been expressed that members should be allowed to select their doctors. There is much to be said for that in many ways, but I also see difficulties. As I understand the scheme, the doctor is to be paid so much a year per head, whether the man is sick or well. A man will not select his doctor when he is well, and if he selected him when he is ill he might select a doctor who had not had fees from him during the five years that he was well.
The matter is not quite so easy as may be thought. I think something might be done by requiring the approval of the Insurance Commissioners or the County Commissioners as to the appointment or dismissal. It is very important that the

337
doctor who is to be in attendance should be independent. If the doctor is to be selected by the members, then there will be a temptation to him to be somewhat lenient in order that he might become more popular and be selected. We want to ensure the independence of the doctor, and we must remember that not only the member but the employer and the State are all interested in this scheme, and they require the protection of the doctor. I think our friends, the doctors, are more alarmed than is necessary. I think they are exaggerating the effect of the Bill on private, practice. Roughly speaking, we have about forty-five millions of people in these islands. Fourteen millions of them are going to be insured. That leaves thirty-one millions for private practice still. Some of the doctors have been writing to the papers as though you were putting in the whole family. But you leave out the women and the children in the main, although I am not sure that they do not require the most doctoring. However, there are thirty-one millions still left for private practice. Another important point is that of the fourteen millions who are going to be brought into this scheme, in the case of a very large proportion of them the doctor gets nothing out of them now. Some of them he attends and he does not get paid; and you must remember that under this Bill the doctor will get his money.
I have carefully taken out some calculations which show that of the persons who will be insured between sixteen and sixty-five years of age, according to the expected experience, there will be on the average one-and-a-half weeks' of sickness per year per person. Of course the young people are less, and the older people are more, but the average of sickness will be one-and-a-half weeks per year per person. The suggestion is 6s. per year for doctor and medicine, and that will be 4s. a week for the sickness duty. All these people will not have to be attended; some of them will go to the surgery. The doctors are afraid that an immense number of their private patients will leave them. I do not think the number will be so large. I do not think the inducement is very great for a person, above the average of poor people, to join. In the first place, a man would have to pay over 30s. a year on the chance of wanting a doctor. I do not think he would do it. The weakest place in the scheme, a very difficult one
338
to get over, is the Post Office contributor. Practically, he is not going to be insured. Insurance depends on averages and other considerations in regard to benefit; but the Post Office contributor is merely to get the amount of benefit that attaches to him on his own payment, the Government payment, and the employer's payment. Therefore he will get no average benefit; his benefit will depend on the amount of his deposit, and not on insurance. That means that some of the most unfortunate, some of the weakest some of those who need the help most will get the least, and the general result in that instance will not be good. It is quite true that there will be an addition in accumulations and in the matter of bonuses. But as a rule you will have the least satisfactory of the cases, the rejected and the refused from the benefit societies, in the Post Office contributors, and, therefore, the results as a whole are not going to be good. It means that those who need the help most will get the help least.
I do not know whether it can be managed, but it would be much more satisfactory if they could be averaged with the others. One point more about future pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very interesting suggestion that when we get through the sixteen years the money that will be available would possibly provide pensions at sixty-five years of age. My point is that at the present time about 50 per cent. of the men over seventy years of age are getting pensions. This scheme would have it in about 70 per cent. of the male population over seventy years of age. That means that 20 per cent. of the people who are paying these contributions will not be eligible for the pensions, because they have some other income. I think their contributions ought not to be taken to provide pensions for the others. Five-sevenths of them, will get the pensions, but there will be two-sevenths who will pay contributions, but, having other income, will not come into pension. I do not think their payments ought to be used to provide the pensions of others. In conclusion I would urge the House to be careful not to overload this Bill with cost, not to extend it too much in every direction. It will cost more than we expect. It is an admirable memorandum which has been furnished by the Government actuaries, but all these projects cost more than is expected. We have had experience of the Old Age Pensions Act, and

339
this scheme will cost more. It is very important that we should have it on a sound financial footing to begin with. Let us err on the safe side, because provision is made in the Bill that as the money accumulates the larger will be the benefits that can be paid. Hon. Members opposite say that the Bill is not very popular. There is some truth in that. For all that, it is a splendid scheme. It is never popular to tax people, and this is levying a contribution on a great number of people. Some of those who are getting benefit from it will not welcome it, I am sure, when they are called upon to pay, and many will grumble. But I cannot help feeling that the institution of a scheme like this—I am referring now both to sickness and unemployment—will be such a boon to the community that this Session in the future will be looked back upon as a red-letter Session in the history of our Parliament.
8.0 P.M.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I do think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been received. There has been a great deal of criticism, but none of it has been in an unfriendly spirit. The machinery by which the objects of the Bill are to be promoted is intricate and complicated. I cannot help offering one word of criticism. I think it is very unfortunate that the Second Reading was taken so early. The matter is one of such interest and importance that I think the Debate would have been of an even more satisfactory character than it has been if the country had been given time to master the main features of this measure, and to arrive at a, mature judgment upon it. I believe that time would have been saved in the end, and that the taking of the Second Reading at this very early stage may afford another illustration of the truth of the adage "the more haste the less speed.' That consideration applies very markedly to one aspect of this measure with which I desire to deal, and that is in relation to the medical profession. The interests of the medical profession and of the country in this matter are identical. I have the honour to represent a University constituency, very many of the graduates in which are medical men. They do not approach this matter from any purely selfish point of view. They recognise that their interests and those of the country are identical. But I say with some confidence that great care
340
must be taken that a measure of this kind, intended to promote the public interest, is not unfair to the medical profession. It is only by the cordial co-operation of the medical profession that this measure in one of its most important aspects can be effectively worked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said the other day when he was approached by some interviewer that this was not a medical endowment Bill. I daresay the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have been misreported. I hope he was, because I think that no profession ever less deserved something like a taunt of that kind than the medical profession. The expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was used, was, I think, an unfortunate one, because there is no profession in the country which gives more gratuitous labour for the benefit of the community than the medical profession.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said so in introducing this Bill, and stated that there was no profession that gave its services more gratuitously. I recognised that at the very first time. I may just add that the remark which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted was a reply to something that was said to me in the form of a question. A suggestion was put to me by the interviewer, and I do not think it is fair to take the sentence separated from the other.
Sir R. FINLAY: I absolutely accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and am very glad to have heard what he has now said. I think, though, that care must be taken that the measure does not operate as a medical disendowment Bill.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
Sir R. FINLAY: If it did it would be calamitous in its effects, not merely upon the profession, but upon intended beneficiaries in the country. If it lowered the status of the profession by lowering the remuneration to a point which would not attract good men into it, that would be a most calamitous thing. It would not merely affect the run of the general practitioners throughout the country, but it would affect the whole profession, because the highest branches of the profession in its highest walks are recruited from those who start in life as general practitioners. If any measure, however well intended, were passed which prejudicially affected the status and remuneration of the ordi-

341
nary medical practitioner, it might have in the future a very serious and calamitous effect upon the profession as a whole, and would have results in every branch of the profession which everyone would deplore. It is not a case of the doctors against the people. In this matter the doctors and the people ought to go hand in hand, and I believe that both parties to this Bill—those whom it is intended to benefit and the doctors, who are to play so important a part in administering it, are desirous that it should be worked in that spirit. I listened with very great pleasure to what was said by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), when he pointed out that it was only by adequately remunerating the doctors that the people of this country could get the work which would achieve the best results.
There are certain points on which I desire to say that from the point of view of the medical profession reservations must be made in any support which is given to this Bill. The first point is this. I think it is most important that the patients who have to benefit under this Bill should have the choice of their doctors. A very great deal depends on the relation of doctor and patient, and in the personal confidence which the patient has in the doctor. A very great deal depends on the influence which the doctor has upon the will of the patient, and influence of that kind is, I venture to think, more valuable even than those expensive drugs about which we heard so much in the Debate on the First Reading. It is not an ideal state of things that all those who benefit under this Bill should be compelled to go to one State doctor for the district. Such a system I believe would be demoralising for the profession and disastrous for the patient. Freedom of choice of the doctor, freedom to choose any doctor who is qualified and of good character in the district I believe ought to be an essential feature in any measure of this kind. The second point is this. The remuneration that has been mentioned, 6s., to include drugs which would work out as 4s. or 4s. 6d. for the doctor, is absolutely inadequate.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is 4s. now.
Sir R. FINLAY: That is far too low.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree.
Sir R. FINLAY: You are going to extend that system which does not work
342
satisfactorily, and you are going to put it at a figure which would not give satisfaction to the profession, and which I believe would end in the deterioration of the profession. Various suggestions have been made. It has been suggested that the doctor should be remunerated according to the work done. It has been suggested that there should be a contract price, and that the contract price should be at a much higher point than has hitherto been suggested. A good deal might be said with regard to both those proposals. My own impression is that something in the end like local option and the choice of one or other system, according to the necessities of the district, might be a desirable thing. I hope that that matter will receive the earnest attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a third point in which the Bill may very prejudicially affect the interests of the medical profession. It brings under its compulsory operation all workers having incomes up to £160 per year. That was selected as being the point at which Income Tax commences. There is no necessary connection between the incidence of the Income Tax and the compulsory operation of this Bill. I would put this very strongly for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where a man is getting more than £2 a week is it desirable that there should be the compulsory application of a measure of this kind? Workmen with more than £2 a week form a large portion of the clientèle of the general practitioner in town and country. They choose their doctor, they are ready to pay the fees that are asked, and the relation subsisting between doctor and patient is one of mutual regard, and it achieves satisfactory results. I would most earnestly ask that it should be considered whether this compulsory portion of the scheme should be carried so high as to those who receive up to £160 per year, with the result that you would be cutting off from every medical practitioner a considerable amount of income, and in some districts a very large proportion of the income which he derives from his general practice.
The fourth point to which I should be very glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his consideration is this: What is the effect of this Bill as regards domestic servants? In a very large number of houses the master of the house pro vides, as a matter of course, medical attendance for the servants when they

343
are ill. Will you be benefiting the servants by introducing this compulsory system, with all the botheration of a 3d. or 4d. stamp every Saturday? Will a system of gratuitous medical attendance, which the master provides, survive the introduction of such a system? I do put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unless some provision is made for excepting domestic servants in cases where the employer makes provision for medical attendance the results of this measure may be not to benefit one section intended to be benefited, but the effect may be of the very opposite description. The fifth point is this. It is well known that the relations between the friendly societies and the doctors have not given satisfaction on either side. I do not think it is desired on the part of the societies to retain the control of the relations which exist between them and the doctor, and certainly it is most repugnant to the doctors that this matter should be left in the hands of the friendly societies, and not only left in their hands, but vastly extended. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a matter for the most serious consideration whether such matters should not be transferred to the health committees, instead of being left to the friendly societies in the vastly extended operation which their duties will assume under the Bill. A suggestion worth considering which has been ventilated is that there should be advisory committees selected from the medical men of the district.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish to understand quite clearly. Is it the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member that the whole of the doctoring under this scheme should be taken out of the hands of the friendly societies and transferred to the local health committees?
Sir R. FINLAY: That the control of the relations with the doctors should be in the hands of the health committees and not in those of the friendly societies, because the arrangement has not worked well in the past, and it would cause great friction in the future. I have mentioned five of the most important points—there are others, but I desire to be brief—which affect the medical profession, and through the medical profession the public. The whole subject of this Bill in its bearing on the medical profession requires the most thorough consideration. If we are to arrive at a settlement which shall be beneficial and
344
durable—and no settlement can be beneficial unless it is durable—the measure must not be rushed through. There must be time for its full and complete consideration, not only in the House, but in the country. The measure is one which must be based upon sound lines, capable of bearing the test of experience. The medical profession is entitled to justice, and justice to the medical profession will turn out to be justice to the beneficiaries under the scheme. No system based on injustice to a great profession can possibly work for the public benefit, when, as regards one of its most important parts, it is to be worked through that profession. You must have a system which will promote the self-respect both of the doctor and of the patient. The ideal is not a State doctor working by contract, but rather the relation which subsists between a doctor called in by a patient who has confidence in him.
I would suggest, for the perusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, two lay sermons, as they were called, delivered many years ago by the late Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, who was well spoken of in "The Times" when one of his early works appeared—I think it was "Rab and his Friends." It was said: "Of all the John Browns commend us to Dr. John Brown, physician, humorist, and man of letters." There are two lay sermons delivered to workmen by Dr. John Brown on the subject of their relations with their medical attendant, their duties to the doctor, and the duties of the doctor to them, which I submit form very profitable reading for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are helping him in this matter. Let us have time for full consideration. May I remind the Treasury Bench of what was said by Lord Bacon about undue haste. Using a medical simile, he says:—
"Deceptive despatch is one of the moat dangerous things in business that can be. It is like what the physician calls pre-digestion, or hasty digestion, which is sure to fill the body full of crudities and secret seeds of disease."
If we hurry through a measure of this kind we may be sure that there will be in it a plentiful crop of crudities and seeds of disease which will bear unpleasant fruit afterwards. Lord Bacon went on to say that he knew a very wise man with whom it was a by-word when he saw anybody hastening to a conclusion to say. "Steady a little; you will make an end the sooner." I think that ought to be written up in letters of gold, and I most respectfully commend the advice to the special consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with this measure.
Mr. DAVID DAVIES: Like the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor), I regard the provisions dealing with tuberculosis and the establishment of sanatoria as the most important in the Bill. The House must realise the immense gravity of the problem of tuberculosis. Remembering that this country spends directly or indirectly something like £7,000,000 a year in fighting this disease, we cannot over-estimate the importance of the provisions of the Bill dealing with the matter. This view has been forcibly impressed upon public opinion throughout the country as the result of the special campaign carried on in England by the National Society for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, especially by the Committee presided over by Lord Derby, and in Ireland by the movement initiated by Lady Aberdeen, which has done so much to fight tuberculosis in that country. In Scotland also there has been an awakening, and in Wales a fund has been started for this purpose. I submit, therefore, that public opinion is ripe for the proposals embodied in the Bill, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having inserted these provisions. I hope the House will consider very carefully the position of these voluntary societies which have paved the way for this Bill and have accomplished so much useful work. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in connection with this measure he should do nothing to hinder the progress of these organisations or to cool the ardour of those who are interested in this great work.
I am quite prepared to admit, and most people will admit, that voluntary institutions cannot tackle this great problem alone. The State must come to their assistance, and it ought to come to their assistance in such a way as to stimulate them to other endeavours, and to carry those endeavours to success. Therefore we welcome the proposals contained in the Bill, and we welcome them because we conceive that the underlying principle upon which the whole Bill is based is that the State should contribute by subsidies, and should utilise the voluntary associations of this country for promoting the whole question of health and insurance. The principle in this Bill is applied to friendly societies. I do not see why it ought not also to apply to health associations and kindred associations which deal with the whole question of public health. The Poor Law Commission, both Majority and Minority Reports, recommend that the State
346
and voluntary associations should work hand in hand in securing this end.
There is another principle that I should like to see definitely established in the Bill. That is that these subsidies or grants from the State should be in some sort of proportion to the funds which are raised locally, and in different parts of the country, to carry on the erection and maintenance of sanatoria. In the memoranda prepared by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer we find that 1s. 3d. per head is given towards sanatoria, and it is further proposed to pay a capital sum of £1,500,000 into a special fund to be used in making Grants for building sanatoria on condition that funds are also raised locally; also to make an additional grant of 1d. per member to the Sanatoria Fund. That is the principle we find laid down in the memoranda to the Bill. But when we come to the Bill itself, Clause 47, it is very vague and indefinite as to how this grant of public money is to be apportioned. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be strengthened in this respect, and that we shall find this principle clearly enunciated.
I hope, also, that this principle will be applied to the circumstances at present existing in Wales. There is already there a national or State memorial started in memory of the late King Edward. That country, when looking for something on which all could unite in perpetuating the memory of the late King, agreed that the only possible object was a crusade for stamping out this great scourge of consumption. It was agreed by the majority of people that this great object should be dealt with from the national point of view, especially in view of the interest which the late King had taken in fighting this disease. To a certain extent it is true that the progress of this fund has been somewhat arrested in consequence of this Bill, but if this principle which I have already alluded to, the principle of the allocation of public money proportionately to the amounts raised locally, was definitely and fully stated in the Bill, I think it would increase the confidence of the country and stimulate still more private subscriptions towards funds of this character. In Clause 47 I think you will find that powers are given to group counties together for the purposes of administering sanatoria benefits under this Bill. I hope that there will be an extension of that principle so far as Wales is concerned.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Plymouth, in a most interesting speech,

347
pleaded that there should be a certain amount of central control in the administration of these grants. I think, so far as Wales is concerned, the Welsh National Fund, which has already been subscribed, should take the place of local contributions alluded to in Clause 47. I think there is a very great deal to be said in favour of the proposal for a central body or association to administer the Fund for sanatoria benefits. In the first place we ask that associations of this character should be national. At the present time the Welsh nation are beginning to realise that their position, so far as consumption and tuberculosis is concerned, is a national disgrace. Also, I think the associations should be national because, as I have already said, we have a fund in existence which will take the place of the local contributions. Therefore I think Wales should be treated as a unit for the purposes of administration. There are other reasons which ought to appeal to this House. In the first place, if you group all the counties together and make a central body or association you will avoid overlapping to a considerable extent. You will have more efficiency. You will pay your doctors better salaries. There will be greater economy. Extravagant buildings will not be put up. I think also a campaign could be conducted with a view to the needs of the country as a whole. A campaign conducted on these lines would be much more efficient and do much more good than separate efforts in the different counties.
One of the objects, as I understand it, of local health committees is that they should form public opinion and criticise the administration and general doings of the sanitary authorities—in fact, that they should keep the sanitary authorities up to the scratch. I think that this object; will be much more likely to be achieved if these local committees are federated together into a central organisation, for that central organisation will be able to bring much more pressure to bear upon local sanitary authorities than simply the local health committees in each county. We want to consider more closely how an association of this kind should be constituted. I think the House will agree that it should be a body representing the various interests involved. You should have representatives on such a body of the county councils, the local health committees, of approved societies under the Bill, of the medical profession, and of subscribers to
348
the memorial fund. We have already precedents in Wales for an association of this kind. There is the national museum, the national library, the national colleges, etc. As to its relation to the State, I think it ought to bear the same relation as the other approved societies under this Bill. There should be no difficulty on that score.
I have given an outline, as briefly as possible, of what a great many people—and I think I speak for a large number of people in Wales—consider to be the best means of carrying out the provisions in this Bill as regards sanatoria and sanatoria benefits. And when the Committee stage is reached I shall press upon my right hon. Friend Amendments dealing with the whole position in Wales, and I shall respectfully urge him to give these Amendments his very careful consideration. I have only one word more to add, and that is with regard to the scope of sanatoria and to sanatoria benefit as defined in the Bill. We have had, as the hon. Member for Plymouth pointed out, some criticism during the last few weeks as to the wisdom of spending so much money upon sanatoria. There has been some kindly criticism from the Leader of the Opposition and there has been some criticism in a leading article in "The Times," but I think those who do criticise have not quite realised the scope of the sanatoria and the benefits which my right hon. Friend has in his mind. I do not pretend to know everything that is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but so far as the definition in the Bill is concerned it includes provision for education, exhibitions, for dispensaries and for diagnosing early cases—in fact, all the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth.
I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he replies in this Debate, to tell us the whole scope and definition of sanatoria in this Bill. Then as to value of sanatoria, there is amongst medical men a very wide divergence of opinion on the point, but so far as an ordinary layman can understand the pros and cons, I think sanatoria must play an important part in any comprehensive scheme for dealing with this question of tuberculosis. We cannot find any specific remedy for this disease, and it is impossible to separate tuberculosis from the whole question of the general health of the community. The State or any other body must practise in two ways, first by strengthening the resisting powers of the nation, and

349
that you can only do by better housing, better food supplies, improved sanitation and the application of the simple laws of health; and, in the second place, by cutting off the source of infection. I hope the Local Government Board will make up its mind to deal with the milk supply; the other source of infection is that carried by human beings, and it seems to me the value of sanatoria treatment is that people go there and are educated and taught how to prevent the spread of this disease when they eventually return to their homes.
I was talking the other day to the head of a very large sanatorium, and he gave instances of people who, when they left the sanatorium, actually going the length of stealing the sputum flasks which they were unable to purchase, so that they might take them home and prevent themselves from spreading infection amongst their relatives and their friends. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be sure in his own mind that in erecting these sanatoria he is not taking a backward step, but is following the example of Germany in erecting schools of health, which will go a long way to prevent the spread of the disease. Of course, we are told there are people who come back from these places and return to their homes, and are no better for the treatment they have undergone and absolutely disregard the instructions and the lessons they learned, and have no sense of responsibility in the matter of preventing the spread of infection. It seems to me the only way in which the Government or the State can deal with this sort of people is to absolutely detain them and lock them up in colonies where it would be impossible for them to spread the disease. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Bill should be an elastic measure, and that efforts should be made to meet the different needs in various parts of the country, and more especially that we should have these benefits of sanatoria administered in Wales by a central body and not by local health committees. I can assure him that if these things are incorporated in the Bill it will commend itself to the majority of the people in Wales and also promote the efficiency of the measure.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made various criticisms and suggested alterations in the Bill, but I think he gave it his general blessing. I do not think the
350
Chancellor of the Exchequer can complain of the temper in which his proposals have been received by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Those of my hon. Friends who have been giving a good deal of study to this problem during the last few months are as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman himself to keep this question outside the field of party warfare and to co-operate with all sections in doing their best to make it a useful social reform. It is in this spirit that any criticism with which I should venture to trouble the House shall be made. The Bill, in my humble opinion, is a sincere attempt to diminish the great mass of human ills. There is not a man who in his heart does not look upon that attempt with sympathy, but at the same time I feel it is the duty of every Member of the House jealously to keep watch to see that in alleviating suffering in one direction, the Government are not inflicting undeserved hardship and injustice in another; that in relieving distress they will not be discouraging and in many cases practically extinguishing these great organised bodies for the promotion of thrift which have done so much in this country to stimulate a spirit of self help in the last few decades.
For the first time in the history of friendly societies the Government are proposing to introduce direct State control and direct State interference of the most uncompromising kind in every branch of friendly society business. This may possibly be inevitable. The advantages may be a good deal greater than the disadvantages, but let there be no secret about it and no attempt to slur it over or hush it up. Do not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer pretend that the friendly societies are going to manage their own affairs in their own way in the future because they are not going to do anything of the kind. To all intents and purposes their independence and their autonomy will be a thing of the past. They will become merely distributing agencies for a Government Department. They will become a subordinate machine, and practically without any existence outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Indeed, there is very little doubt that voluntary work in connection with their administration and accounts will gradually languish and eventually disappear altogether. I will take only one point. Friendly societies and their branches are to be compelled in future to submit schemes to a Government official for the disposal of their accumulated voluntary funds, and if the scheme is

351
approved of other schemes entailing further expense will have to be handed in. The Manchester Unity alone has 4,000 branches in the United Kingdom, and the actuarial cost for the submission of such schemes would work out at a moderate estimate at about £2 a branch. That is to say, that this one provision alone would cost the Manchester Unity over £8,000, or about 2d. per adult subscribing member.
If this has got to be done, and if these friendly societies are to be forced in future to submit these schemes, surely it is only fair that the Government should pay the actuarial expenses, and not throw this State-created burden upon the societies' funds. If it is to be done, let it at any rate be done in a businesslike manner. There is no provision whatsoever in the Bill before the House as to the conditions upon which the Registrar of Friendly Societies is going to confirm the schemes submitted to him. This surely is a very serious omission indeed. The confirmation of these schemes by the Registrar-General will inevitably operate as the Government guarantees. Unless a provision is included in the Bill that confirmed schemes should be financially sound many existing societies, and many new societies which will be established in the future. will hasten to offer extravagant and very often impossible benefits in order to attract the millions who will be compelled to insure. Financial disappointment will be the inevitable result, and the cry will immediately be, "We placed faith in the society on the authority of the Government official, and the State is responsible for the loss we have incurred." In addition to the submission of schemes every society wishing to become an approved society is to be compelled in the future to give security against possible malversation of its officers of a value not less than half the aggregate contribution in respect of its insured members. If the society happens to have branches, security will have to be given under the Bill in respect of every one of those branches. How are the Government going to make sure that half the aggregate value has been given in security unless they appoint a Government accountant to go through the books and satisfy himself that a correct financial calculation has been made?
It is perfectly clear, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is not really the case in the Bill, that even the
352
voluntary funds of friendly societies will be subject to the most stringent Government examination and the most complete Government control. If security is necessary surely it will be sufficient, as was suggested by an hon. Member on this side of the House this afternoon, if guarantee bonds were given by all those persons whose duties will require them to handle the funds. If not the Hearts of Oak Society will have to deposit about £300,000, and the Manchester Unity about £600,000. Moreover, these sums are to be found by the society and not by the branches. But the affiliated orders have no central funds worth speaking of. The Manchester Unity, although it will have to deposit £600,000 if the whole of its funds have to contribute, and even over £300,000 if it only relates to the voluntary section. The Manchester Unity has only £32,000 in its central fund. Practically the whole capital of these affiliated orders is in the hands of the branches, and how the Manchester Unity or the Foresters for instance will be able to find this enormous deposit it is quite impossible to conceive. If the branches are asked for deposits, a branch with 300 members, might have to deposit nearly £150. The habit of well-managed branches is to keep their funds invested close up very largely on mortgage security. It would be a very unseemly thing indeed for a friendly society to deposit its mortgage deeds as a security with the Insurance Commissioners, and for the Insurance Commissioners then to come down and impound the house of a member for the society's debt.
It seems to me this part of the Bill is quite unworkable as it stands. Even domestic differences between a society and its branches and between one branch and another will be caught in the meshes of the Government net. Clause 21 says that the rules for determining such disputes are to be made by the society and by the Insurance Commissioners, but later on Clause 50 proceeds to cancel this privilege; and, although the rules may have been approved, it gives the Government officials absolute power to settle these disputes in the last instance. Surely it is particularly hard that a society in order to become approved should be obliged to have 10,000 insured members. A large number of financially unsound societies will be able to enter the scheme, and a still larger number of admirable local societies which are independent and unconnected with any affiliation or association will be left out in the

353
cold. The mere fact that one set of clubs happen to be linked up to an order does not necessarily mean that they are superior to those which are wholly independent. In some parts of the country, as hon. Members know, the affiliated orders are scarcely represented at all. The population there practically depend upon independent societies which have been established in connection with churches or chapels or schools, or particular trades and occupations. Many of their members are agricultural members, and among the poorest of the population and totally unable to afford two insurances. What would be the effect upon these people under the Bill? The effect of compelling them to join an approved society will not only be to drive them perhaps into some small local branch of an unsound order, with its headquarters at a great distance, but it may force them to relinquish the valuable rights they have acquired in their old society in respect of deferred pensions. The Stoke and Melford Union Association, for example, has 1,900 members and a surplus of nearly £5,000. They will he shut out of the scheme. So will the Royal Berkshire Friendly Society, with over 700 members and £4,000 surplus, and the Dunmow Friendly Society, with 1,000 members and a surplus of £3,700, will be in the same position.
I have here in an envelope the names of many other such societies with a very large membership and big surpluses. They will all be shut out. On the contrary, a society like the Rational Association Friendly Society, with 94,000 members and a deficiency of over half-a-million, will be let into the scheme. So will the Ashton Unity of the Loyal Order of Ancient Shepherds, with a deficiency of a quarter-of-a million, and the United Patriots' National Benefit Society, with a deficiency of £150,000. All those will be let in merely because they happen to have the requisite number of members, while the others will be left out. These are not the only hardships under the Bill. Members of a friendly society cannot afford as a rule to pay a double contribution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to an inquiry, I think, made in the Press the other clay, stated that they will not have to pay twice over. That may be perfectly true, but in many cases, if they do not pay twice over, they will have to forfeit their sick pay for nearly six months. A man may have voluntarily contributed to a society for five years, and be entitled to 10s. per week sick benefit directly he
354
falls ill, but on the Government scheme coming into force, if he cannot afford to pay a double contribution, he will cease to be assured for sick pay in the voluntary section, because he will pay his sickness contribution into the compulsory section instead, and he will not be entitled to sick pay under the compulsory section until six months after he begins to contribute. If he falls sick one month after he begins to pay his compulsory contribution, the voluntary section may possibly give him a few weeks' protection, but nothing more, and for the greater part of those five months he would be out of benefit, because he will have dropped out of the voluntary insurance for lack of means, and he cannot claim on the other, although forced to contribute. Again, it will be the poorest people who will be the hardest hit. They will suffer all round.
The Bill provides, if on valuation any branch of a society happens to have a surplus, that surplus shall be applied to first making good any deficiency of other branches, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) was rather pleased with that provision, but the lowest wage class are the agricultural labourers, with the lowest sickness rate, whilst the heaviest sickness rate will be found among the well-paid artisans, such as the tin-plate workers of South Wales, the artisans employed in railway workshops, and the workers in the light metal trades in the Birmingham district. The result, therefore, will be a ceaseless flow of surplus from money contributed by the lowest wage class to subsidise the funds of the better paid classes. No doubt the Government intend to counteract the effect of mere fluctuations on the theory that a branch will sometimes be a contributor and sometimes a recipient of a surplus; but in practice one set of branches will constantly be passing over funds to another set of branches, and the branches persistently mulcted in this manner will inevitably be those composed in a large measure of the poorest men. Whether the working classes of this country will welcome the provisions of the Bill when they have succeeded in penetrating into their mysteries is a matter largely for conjecture. Possibly they may deem the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but, on the other hand, they may think, quite apart from Government interference, that there are so many defects and omissions in the Bill that, until the thing has been re-shaped in many particulars, and until the whole question

355
has been considered at length and in detail, the central principle will have no fair chance when put on its trial.
9.0P.M.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not treated the House quite fairly as to the finances of the Bill. The actuarial report was only issued yesterday, one day before the Second Reading, and anyone who has glanced at it will have realized at once that so short a period of time is quite inadequate for a proper understanding of all that it contains. One thing, however, is very nearly certain. The right hon. Gentleman has greatly under-estimated the cost of his scheme. The actuarial basis of his sickness calculations has been largely founded upon the extensive investigation into the sickness experience of the Manchester Unity by Mr. Watson, the eminent actuary of that society. This is admitted in the Report of the two Government actuaries, and the admission largely vitiates the financial estimates, which confessedly are built up on the sickness experience obtained under a totally different system. Under the Bill the Insurance Commissioners are to make regulations as to the manner in which contributions are to be paid and calculated in the future. In the ordinary friendly society payment of contributions necessitates attendance at the place of meetings and affords means by which officers keep in touch with their members and by which they obtain their knowledge of them and their circumstances, which is regarded as an indispensable condition to effective supervision. This system is now to be largely swept away. Under the proposals of the Government some millions of people will join the friendly societies, and, after their enrolment, they will pay their contributions to their employers by means of stamps and deductions from their wages, and they will be completely lost sight of by the societies concerned until they present their claims for sick pay. It is perfectly clear that under those circumstances supervision will be utterly ineffectual. Malingering, as an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House acknowledged this afternoon, will be certain to increase, and before many years are over there will be such a Bill to pay as will stagger any Chancellor of the Exchequer who has got to deal with it. The Government, as in the case of the Old Age Pension Scheme, will be out of their reckoning by millions. The Government actuaries have omitted suffi-
356
ciently to qualify their calculations, which they have based upon the Manchester Unity tables, by the very important consideration that friendly society supervision will inevitably be weakened in the future under the new condition, and their financial conclusions cannot be otherwise than unreliable and therefore misleading. That only shows how carefully the whole scheme will have to be considered if people are not to be deceived by false hopes and rash promises, and how gravely unwise and unfair it would be to the community at large to try and rush the Bill through on any pretext whatsoever.
May I deal with the medical side of the question in a very few words. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to do for the doctors, the healers of the sick, under his scheme? Nothing is more certain than that unless he can get the medical profession to co-operate wholeheartedly with him the whole of his National Insurance scheme will fall to the ground. It is in the interests of the insured and of the Fund that prompt, efficient, and willing services should be rendered to every sick person on the list, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can persuade the doctors that they are going to work for a living wage, the scheme will break down tragically and completely, and will deserve to break down. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to set aside four and a half millions sterling for medical benefit, exclusive of the maternity and sanatorium benefit. But what does he intend the four and a half millions to cover? Is it to cover drugs and dressings and instruments and various appliances for patients who may have to undergo operations? Is it to cover fees for special consultations between doctors in difficult cases, or is the patient himself to pay extra for the second medical practitioner who may have to be called in? Is the four and a half millions to cover operations at home, and the whole of the expense of institution treatment outside of the sanatoria for tuberculosis, or is the insured person to pay extra out of his own pocket? If the four and a half millions is to pay for all these things, and if this is the right hon. Gentleman's policy—and there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to show at the present moment what his policy really is—has he calculated what net sum approximately will be left for ordinary medical attendance? If he has not left enough, after these considerable deductions have been made, to give a living wage to the medical profession, where is the supplementary sum coming

357
from? Is the Government going to pay the deficit, or will the friendly societies or the patients have to stand the racket. There is nothing in the Bill to show what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind. I feel that the House has a right to insist on some definite assurance that the amount set aside for medical benefits will be sufficient to give remuneration to the medical profession on a fair scale. Surely it will come very ill indeed from a House which is just about cheerfully to vote itself £400 a year per head to bargain with doctors for their service to the country at less than a living wage. Surely, too, there ought to be a wage limit in respect of the medical benefit. Under the Bill insured persons, however large their income, will be able in the future to obtain cheap medical treatment, thereby inflicting great financial loss on the medical profession. It is true that persons whose income is under £160 per year, are to be forced into the scheme. Up to the present they may have been perfectly well able to pay for ordinary medical attendance, but not, perhaps, for special medical treatment, and although the Government are now going to give them cheaply what up till now they have been able to afford ordinarily, they are not going to get special institutional treatment outside the sanatoria for tuberculosis. One very satisfactory feature in the Bill, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, is that it is so vague and so indefinite that the right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly be able to say in the future that the Bill does not contain what he hoped he would be able to put into it. Certainly there is ample room for improvement. The scheme on the whole is grand in conception. Like all great ideas, it springs from the heart; but that need not blind us to its defects, nor should it deter us from doing everything in our power to try and make it a practical measure of social reform.
Dr. ADDISON: I will not endeavour to follow the hon. Member who has laid before us a very useful criticism on the financial aspect of this great measure. I propose to confine myself to two parts of the Bill. It affects manifestly, above the ordinary members of the community, two great organisations, the friendly societies and the medical profession. It contains within it additional incentives to thrift and healthy living, which, I am sure, we shall endeavour heartily to promote. It provides an additional inducement for the people to join friendly societies, in view of
358
their having greater security for receiving the benefits under this Act, and certain additional benefits which may be available for them. With regard to the medical profession, one has to recognise that it stands, in some respects, in a very different position from any other party affected by this Bill. This measure affects their daily labour, whereas most of those who otherwise come under this Bill are more or less in the character of beneficiaries. The medical practitioners see that it concerns their livelihood. I feel certain myself, from having been in very close touch with their chief organisations, that the medical profession are thoroughly desirous of co-operating in this measure in a hearty manner. I am confident that they would not desire for one moment that those who speak on their behalf in this Debate should put forward any ignoble considerations, or should pretend that class interests should supersede the general public interest.
At the same time I feel certain that no party in this House will desire for one moment to treat the profession which really has to do most of the work under this scheme in any unfair spirit. We recognise that after all the real success of this scheme depends on the hearty cooperation of the men who are called upon to attend those who are sick. The treatment of sickness is not a wholesale affair; it is an individual matter in each case, and, unless you continue the hearty and cordial relationship between the doctor and his patients, you cannot hope to make this scheme a success. I think it would be of no use to blind ourselves to this fact, that the relations of the medical profession with the friendly societies have not been altogether of the best. I am not for a moment seeking to inquire into that, or to impart blame to either side. I daresay there may be a certain amount of blame on both sides, but there are some features of what is known as the club practice, which, I am sure, we ought to do our best to eliminate. It is perfectly evident that the success of this scheme depends on keeping the people well. The interests of the societies and the reputation of the profession point to the fact that under what is known as the club practice it becomes necessary for a medical man to see his patients at the rate of one in every three minutes, if he is to make any revenue at all. It is not necessary to go into details or to point out that successful diagnosis or proper treatment is, under these circumstances, absolutely

359
impossible, and, if the operation of this Bill were to intensify or stereotype that practice in any shape or form, we should be rendering a very great disservice to the people.
More than that, it is, I think, obvious that in so doing we should be unable to induce the best men in the medical profession to participate in this work. It is desirable we should make it possible for the best men to feel some self-respecting enthusiasm which may induce them to take part in the work, otherwise an inferior type of men might be put upon it, and possibly the general standard of the profession might be damaged. I am certain myself that if the friendly societies were consulted it might be possible to come to some proper arrangement whereby both the interests of the friendly societies and of the medical profession would be adequately protected. I think, under this scheme, their interests are not safeguarded. After all, the real success of the Bill depends on the development of preventive measures. In old days the bottle of physic might have been appreciated, it is not so now, and we want here to build up a structure which will provide us with the means of establishing a national system for the prevention of disease.
One of the points on which the medical profession feels most strongly is the choice of a doctor. It is better to make it clear that the circumstances anticipated by the friendly societies under this scheme would be entirely different from anything which has occurred up to the present. Millions of people will ultimately join these societies. We know that now, in many parts of the country, members of the societies, under the present system, do not go to the club doctor, but pay somebody else whom they prefer to attend them. It is evident that no Act of Parliament can force a person to have a medical man whom he does not want, and it would not be desirable that we should aim at any such thing. Conversely it will be very difficult for any Act of Parliament to compel a doctor to attend anybody whom he does not want to attend, because, after all, successful individual treatment depends to a great extent upon a hearty sympathy between the two parties. Let me give a case which is not hypothetical. I have in my hand letters from men exactly on this line. A large number of practitioners build up their practices perhaps not having any club practice at all, but the men who I
360
think I may fairly say are doing the best work among the working classes of the people whose incomes are from £2 to £3 a week are the men who attend their patients and get moderate fees and are paid very regularly. It is quite evident that when these patients go into a scheme they will desire to bring their particular doctor with them, they will still want him to attend them, and, as a matter of fact, it would be very undesirable that it should be otherwise, because if it were otherwise the patients would have a grievance, and the doctor would be left high and dry without his patients who are drawn into this scheme, and he would be distinctly impoverished. I think, however, the fear in this respect has been decidedly exaggerated, because one must remember that the greater portion of the attendance is with respect to the children and the wives who would not come into this scheme at present.
Then, again, it is quite evident that not only must there be this choice of doctor within a considerable range, but there must be some considerable machinery devised which would overcome the very proper objection of friendly societies with regard to the choice of the doctor who is lenient in regard to this matter of malingering. The friendly societies very naturally insist, from their point of view, on being able to allot a particular doctor to their members, and they say that if people are allowed to choose anybody, they would be, very likely to choose somebody who would be lenient. That is true as far as it goes, but if we examine the actual conditions we know that there are friendly societies who take men on their books and who receive certificates from men who are not friendly society doctors. I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these difficulties can be met more or less under the Bill by a modification on these lines. There will be a great body of new entries into the societies in any particular district. A large number of people will become members of the societies who are not now members, and who pay for their medical attendance themselves. I think it should be open to the reputable practitioners in every district to be enrolled upon a panel, and within that panel those who join a society in that particular district should be entitled to choose their medical man, and they should be able within that panel to continue their medical attendance, provided the doctor is content to attend them on the terms proposed.
Lord BALCARRES: Who will select the panel?
Dr. ADDISON: My suggestion is that in any specified district all the medical men in that district, unless you can bring some serious charge against them, should claim the right to be enrolled upon the panel, and that from that panel the patients should be able to select their medical attendant. I think we might join with that, the protective privilege that a man who was not enrolled upon the panel might have some machinery devised for ascertaining why he was not enrolled upon it. Here we come to a natural, practical and effective check upon malingering. You must bring the two parties together. It is in the interests of the society to prevent malingering, and it should also be in the interests of the doctors. In Leipsic they have a system which is fairly successful, and it is on these lines. The members of the society naturally report to their officials or complain if certain parties are on the sick list too long. That is the check of the members. If members of the society seek to get on the fund by attending any medical man who is unduly lenient and it is found by the society that a particular doctor always has a larger number of people sick on his list than anybody else, it is quite possible that that particular man is attracting to himself patients from any other man enrolled on the panel and is operating to their discredit. In Leipsic they have arranged the system of a medical jury within the panel which sits and decides upon these cases and has power to have a man's name removed from the panel. In that way you have the united co-operation of the friendly society and of the practitioners both united in putting down malingering, and I believe that system has worked very successfully up to the present.
Then I think that the arrangements which are made must as far as possible be made on some fairly well defined general principles, and the medical profession naturally desire that the arrangement made with any local committee or any private society shall be approved of by somebody capable of expressing a proper opinion—namely, the advisory committee and also the local health committee. But I pass away from that point to discuss for a very few minutes the points connected with the income limit. This is a very serious question which wants to be very properly thrashed out at an early stage in these proceedings. Many
362
medical men attend a large number of people with incomes varying from 30s. to £4 a week, and they say, quite rightly, if persons with incomes of £3 or £4 a week who have hitherto paid my fees come into this scheme, whatever the rate may be, it means that the scale of pay must necessarily be higher than the average. For this reason it is obvious and is well known that in general medical practice the better-to-do patient pays to some extent for the worst-to-do patient, and a large number of patients do not pay at all, and it is well known, and I think it entirely equitable, if the whole position is looked at that the better-paid patient should pay higher fees than the poor one. The practitioner, therefore, says if you force my patients who pay me good fees into this general average, roughly it means that those people who provide me with my income will be taken away, and therefore the average I have to charge to the poorer people will have to be higher. That is to say, the greater the income, the higher would have to be the capitation fee.
Various suggestions have been put forward which I am sure the Government will consider sympathetically, in regard to meeting this representation. In the first place, you might say, and I think it would be a fairly good suggestion, that a sliding scale should be established for the higher incomes. I know myself, for example, a man who has £2,000 a year who goes to a club doctor to whom he pays 4s. 6d. per annum. It is all very well, but it is manifest that it is not to the public interest. Some people say, and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks, that a great many people with better incomes would not become voluntary contributors. I am not quite so sure. Of course, if the service was inefficient they certainly would not, but if the service is a good one, as we all want to make it, I think it quite rightly would. I am sure a large number of people with £100 to £250 or £300 a year will certainly join this scheme of voluntary insurance, and I should certainly hope myself that the working of the scheme will be so good and so efficient that people will want to join it. Otherwise it will be greatly a wasted effort.
Another suggestion which I am sure is worthy of consideration is that there should be an income limit fixed. That is to say, that above a certain income people should not be allowed to join. I think myself the proposal for a sliding scale is the

363
better one, but still it is manifest that if people with greater incomes become voluntary contributors the average scale of pay must necessarily be raised the higher the income. Of course, an objection which will be put to me is that, after all, everyone who pays into this as a taxpayer has a right to its benefits, and I should be the last to dispute that. But we all contribute in our various degrees to old age pensions, though we are not open to receive them if our income is more than a certain number of shillings a week, so we cannot very well attach too much importance to that consideration. I have here an analysis of the income of a large practitioner in this district, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inspect it or have it examined by an actuary. I believe it will be obvious that unless something is done with regard to an income limit a large number of these men will be very seriously injured.
We then come to another point which perhaps is not material to the Bill but is more a matter of machinery, and that is the method of payment. I am quite sure myself that it will be entirely impracticable as a National scheme to adopt simply payment by attendance. It must be coupled with something else. There are manifest drawbacks to every single scheme. I could bring arguments against payment by head or payment by attendance. One of the chief of them is that it tends to keep patients out of institutions. If you pay a man by attendance he is not so likely to want to send a phthisical patient to a sanatorium as he would otherwise be. I think at this stage in our discussion it would be a great mistake for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay down any hard-and-fast line. These matters can be very much better thrashed out when we get to closer grips with the actual problems involved, and therefore, while I am confident that it is necessary to make very liberal provision—which I agree will cost considerably more than is at present anticipated—yet at this stage it would be desirable not to make things too cut-and-dried.
The most hopeful part of this scheme is with regard to the general administration. I believe the friendly societies have everything to gain by unifying their service under this scheme. There will be the local health committee, which will administer the Post Office contributors. The friendly societies, as the matter stands, cannot be expected to make a profit out of medical
364
attendance. It is to their interest, for instance, to get their members into a sanatorium or a hospital as soon as ever they need it. The local health committees have control of part of these funds, and those who are contributors under the Post Office will, of course, have direct access to it, and it is very desirable that members of the approved societies shall have equal facilities. That is to say, I think it will be to the advantage of the societies if they were to allow the local health committees to manage the treatment of the sick, whilst at the same time the manifest advantages of becoming members of the society remained in the Bill and were even strengthened. The first step which I think must inevitably follow out of this Bill is that our Poor Law infirmaries will have to cone within its ambit. I sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the word "institution" to be used in a very liberal sense. It would not do, I think, to limit it too much to the sanatorium; and as institutional treatment for an operation or anything of that kind is necessary, it will be very important that the local health committee shall have access to well-equipped institutions; and I believe one of the first results of this scheme must be the improvement of our Poor Law infirmaries and the separation of them from the Poor Law itself.
With regard to the provision for treating tuberculosis, it is hardly necessary at this stage to say anything in praise of them. The country is convinced, I believe, of their necessity. But it may be perhaps an advantage just for a moment to look at the existing state of affairs. There are something like 60,000 deaths a year from this disease in various forms, and the friendly societies spend themselves considerably over £1,000,000. I believe 15 per cent. of the expenditure of the Ancient Order of Foresters is in virtue of treating this disease, and the average cost of each patient in that society is £41. According to the Report of Dr. Bulstrode to the Local Government Board, there are only about 2,000 beds at present available in this country for proper open-air treatment, and there are on the average 250,000 cases of this disease existing at any one time. Many of the beds are in very small institutions, which are inadequately staffed. I was very glad the Leader of the Opposition the other day put in a plea respecting bricks and mortar. I sincerely hope the Insurance Commissioners will see to it

365
that this £1,500,000 is not wasted in bricks and mortar. There is, for example, at Chelmsford now a very interesting and useful experiment being carried on by Dr. Lister, who is treating a large number of people at a very cheap rate by means of shelters in gardens, and there are other parts of the country where the same kind of thing is being done. One hundred pounds is a generous allowance for a sanatorium bed. A great many patients could be treated fairly well in cheap shelters costing not more than about £20 or £30 a bed. Here, again, coming back to the work of the local health committee, not only is it important that in the cases of the patients in the sanatoria, but in the cases of phthisis under local treatment, they must of necessity, whether they belong to approved societies or whether they are Post Office contributors, come under the supervision of the local health committee. This is only another reason for supporting the contention which is running all through this scheme that it is to the benefit of the whole community that the administration of this machinery should he unified and in one hand. For example, the local health committee should be the agent. I am not now criticising the constitution of the local health committee. I must leave that to somebody else. But as a part of the whole campaign against tuberculosis we must establish cheap tuberculosis dispensaries, so that if you remove a man for four or five months, you must see that his own home is disinfected and that his children, if they have the disease, are treated adequately. In one of the works on this subject there is a striking and well authenticated case given of one particular block of dwellings where all the tenements had been free from the disease for eight years, and then there came into one of the dwellings a family a member of which had tuberculosis. During the twelve years that followed four separate families inhabited that same flat, and were all infected, and finally there were thirteen deaths in the twelve years in that one dwelling. The supervision of dwellings of that kind must be carried out by the local health committee, the sick visitors, and the nurses. Whether the person belongs to a friendly society or is a Post Office contributor makes no matter from this point of view. That is to say, the actual domestic preventive measures must be under the supervision of the local health committee, and I am sure that here again we see again the wisdom of unifying the whole of this machinery.
366
The same remark applies to that valuable provision in the Bill which gives power to the local health committees to deal with recalcitrant and neglectful local authorities, and to bring them up to the scratch. I see, for instance, provision is made in respect of milk supply. It is obvious that the proper supervision of milk is the first interest not only of the local health committee, but of the members of the approved societies. One good thing introduced in the Bill is the provision that requires measures to be taken for the proper sterilisation of milk. I have here the Report of the Medical Officer for the County of London for 1907, which states that out of the ninety-two samples of milk examined no fewer than twenty-two, or 23.9, were found to be tuberculous. It will be to the interest of the local health committees as well as the members of approved societies, that this disgraceful state of affairs should be brought to an end.
I should like to say a little about the provisions of the Bill with respect to women. In some respects they are the weak provisions in the Blil. I would be the last to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the scheme too expensive. Already, I think, it will cost more than is anticipated. With regard to women there is, first of all, the munificence of the maternity benefit which cannot be overestimated, but coupled with it there are one or two strange anomalies which I do not understand. A woman may be an insured person, and yet sickness benefit is now allowed during maternity. If she has the measles, she will get sickness benefit, and I think that in the case of an insured person during maternity it should be arranged that she should have greater benefit than is provided under the Bill. I think it will be a great advantage if in connection with this in the case of a woman who is an insured person before her marriage, and who has paid in premiums for several years previous to her marriage, she should have her benefit made up to some extent and used in the form of a dowry at the birth of children, or a percentage of it might be so used. You might have a woman who has paid her premium for ten years, and who then gets married. I think we may fairly suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should take this into consideration. It would seem very hard on this woman that, having paid in these premiums all this time, she should, when she comes to the time of her greatest need receive no benefit. I think it should

367
be open to married women during pregnancy to pay the premiums—I will not say for how many weeks, but for a certain number of weeks. If she pays the premiums, she ought in that way to be able to get considerable sick benefit during the time of her need and for some weeks afterwards. I think that something should be done to extend the benefits to married women who have, while single, paid premiums. That would be a valuable addition to the Bill. Another thing should be mentioned in this connection as something which will show that we have in our minds the attendance given by qualified midwives for whom we have passed legislation. The majority of cases are attended by midwives, and the benefit in maternity cases should cover the attendance given by them. As far as I am able to understand the scheme, a mother is not able to receive the sanatorium benefit. That, I think, is a serious drawback, because the mother of a family is the one in a house it is most desirable to get out of it in the case of illness. It is exceedingly important that something should be done so that married women should obtain the sanatorium benefits.
I hope the House recognises that while I advance these criticisms on the question as to who shall administer these sick benefits with regard to the treatment of sickness, I am strongly of opinion that it would have been best for the whole thing to be in the hands of the local health committees, for the reasons which I have mentioned. The necessity of providing within reasonable limits for a free choice of medical attendance and the consideration of the matter so far as it affects people whose incomes are over and above the Income Tax limit are matters as to which practitioners of medicine and the general public should be more fully informed without much delay. It would be unreasonable to expect that so complex a measure, which of necessity is full of difficulties and of necessity affects a multitude of interests would not cause a great deal of apprehension in many quarters. It is manifestly necessary that we should do all things possible to encourage and stimulate those great societies which have done so much to promote self-help in our midst. At the same time, I am sure we all recognise that the smooth working and ultimate utility of this measure must depend upon the hearty cooperation of that great profession whose livelihood and daily work are immediately
368
involved, and concerning whom this scheme is full of possibilities of failure. I believe that they are only too anxious, if satisfied that they will be able, to cooperate with confidence and self-respect, and if their assistance and hearty union with this House and with the community in general can be obtained, we shall then be in the way to obtain in this country the most efficient engine for the prevention of disease which is possessed by any civilised community.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus
Isaacs): I am quite certain that no one in this House, and certainly no one on this side of the House, will venture to complain in any way of the comments or criticisms that have been passed with regard to this Bill during the discussion today. I cannot help thinking that the speeches on both sides of the House during the course of this Debate have shown the House of Commons at its best, from one aspect. That is from hon. Members whom we are accustomed to regard as the Opposition, we have received comments, we have heard criticisms, and suggestions have been made which are all designed to help the Bill and not to oppose it, and I am quite sure that the Government recognises to the full and appreciates thoroughly the spirit in which we have been met; and also during the whole of the discussion that will take place on this Bill I trust that we may meet with the same spirit and that we may all fully and frankly recognise that the only object that we have in this House with regard to this Bill is to make the best possible measure of it, and not in any way to prevent the passing of what we believe to be a beneficent measure.
The objections which have been made with regard to this Bill on the Second Reading may be readily summarised, I think, under three heads in the main. The first is some objection, and I cannot help thinking it a very weak objection, has been raised to the Second Reading of the Bill being taken at so early a date, as it was suggested, after the introduction of the Bill. No doubt many hon. Members of this House have received letters in what I think I may describe as a stereotyped form from our constituents and sometimes from those who are not our constituents, pointing out to us how desirable it is that we should postpone the Second Reading of this Bill, with the object of giving time to make amendments. I cannot help thinking that most of the writers of these

369
epistles have not fully appreciated the Parliamentary situation. They do not recognise that it is only when you get past the Second Reading of a Bill that you begin to consider the alterations and amendments, and as everybody who has written about it seems to be animated with the most earnest desire that the Bill should pass as quickly as possible—
Mr. BOOTH: No.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Except my hon. Friend.
Mr. BOOTH: No; the London "Standard."
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the suggestion of my hon. Friend is that the London "Standard" does not want the Bill to pass, I understand the interruption. But if he means the London "Standard" wishes the Bill to pass, as do all my hon. Friends opposite, then it was quite unnecessary for him to correct the statement which I made, which is to this effect, that if you wish a Bill to become law, but desire to amend it—which is what I conceive to be the situation on both sides of the House—then the sooner you get to the Second Reading and carry your Bill in Committee the sooner you will arrive at a point of agreement upon some matters which are at present in dispute. The second objection which has been made to the Bill is on behalf of the medical profession. I do not propose to discuss at length the various proposals that have been suggested, some of them very valuable suggestions, emanating from both sides of the House, and worthy of the most careful consideration, and which are really helpful to any Government which is desirous of meeting the profession that has given ungrudgingly and generously its assistance to patients, without caring whether they are able to pay or not.
But I am quite confident of this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in charge of this Bill, will be only too anxious to deal in a fair and just and equitable spirit with this medical profession when he gets an opportunity of meeting them, so that any suggest ions that may be made not only may be considered, but, if useful, may be accepted, and then dealt with in a Committee of this House. So I do not propose to spend more time in the discussion of that part of the objection which has been raised, because I conceive that it is not really a matter which goes to the
370
principle of the Bill, but that it is one which will be dealt with in Committee of the whole House when we come to consider Amendments. The third abjection is principally with reference to approved societies. Observations have been made as to the numbers, and the 10,000 which is named as one of the conditions, as to the security to be lodged, and more especially with reference to the trades unions, on which I shall have an observation to make when I come to deal with that part of the Bill. I postpone that for a moment in order to deal with what I conceive to be in logical order the various points of the Bill to which I desire to call attention. For instance, I may point out to the House what I think has been made apparent during the course of this discussion—that there is no dispute between us as to the main principle of this Bill. We are all agreed, first of all, that there must be a compulsory insurance. It cannot be rested upon a voluntary basis.
There is no doubt upon any side of the House as to that, and, further, if you have compulsory insurance it must be upon a contributory basis. Secondly, it must he remembered that this measure was intended not only to provide for compulsory insurance, but also for the cure and prevention of disease. In the framing of this measure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who have been privileged to take any part at all in the discussion of the details of this measure have had the incalculable advantage of the experience of the German Empire in relation to this compulsory insurance. Germany has gradually built up a system which by common consent is of a most beneficent character, and is working to the advantage not only of the employer, but also of the employed. The White Paper which has been circulated quite recently contains the opinions of a number of German employers which really are most valuable in considering what we can anticipate as the probable result of this measure, certainly upon employers. I am not going to attempt to read them or to quote them to this House, but I will summarise them in two or three sentences, and I believe fairly, having regard to the opinions therein expressed. The general opinion in Germany is that by freeing the working classes from anxiety by reason of sickness, infirmity and accidents, their conditions of life have been materially bettered, and, from the employers' standpoint, the contributions they make have

371
proved an excellent investment. The insurance law has tended to improve the relations between the employer and employed, without impairing the independence of the workers.
Indeed, if you study the history of the last twenty-five years, the period covered by the insurance legislation in Germany, it will be discovered that trade unions have flourished and multiplied exceedingly in the German Empire, concurrently with the progress and development of this industrial insurance legislation. On the either hand, so satisfied are the employers with the result of this legislation that it is roundly asserted by one prominent employer, speaking, as he believes, on behalf of the employers, or the majority of the employers in Germany, that they do not desire, and indeed would oppose, the repeal of these insurance laws, which, nevertheless, necessitate their making a contribution to certain funds according to the legislation of the country. At one time as was naturally to be expected, when this scheme was launched or mooted in 1881 by Prince Bismarck, there was the greatest anxiety amongst German employers as to what was to be expected as a result of his proposal. It was said, at first, that it would fine employers, that it would tend to cripple industry, and that the cost of production would be increased without any co-relative advantage. It was explained, according to their views, that these new contributions to be made by the German employer would act injuriously upon the employers' interests, and that it would consequently re-act to the disadvantage of the employed. But all these apprehensions have long since disappeared, and Germany has continued to develop under this insurance legislation, and at the present moment—it is a curious coincidence worthy of observation—that during this very week, in the German Reichstag, there has taken place a debate on the Second Reading of a measure for the consolidation and codification of the German insurance laws, running, I believe, to something like 1,517 paragraphs. That is the position at the present moment.
Mr. BOOTH: It has been in Committee for twelve months.
10.0 P.M.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Of course, if there are from 1,500 to 1,700 clauses, I am not at all surprised that it has been in Committee for twelve months. But we, during these twenty-five years, have not progressed along the same line as Germany.
372
But, nevertheless, we have made great strides. We have ourselves instituted workmen's compensation. We have instituted—it was originally introduced by the present Opposition and developed and extended by the Liberal Government since 1906—old age pensions, which in this country are on a non-contributory basis. In Germany, as, no doubt, the House is aware, it is on a contributory basis. The difference is that at the present moment, for the year 1911–12, the Government requirement for old age pensions is £12,840,000, whereas in Germany there will be required of the State as its contribution to old age pensions, £2,575,000, which is a contribution to the £7,500,000, which is the total amount provided under old age pensions for the working classes in Germany. The average old age pension under the scheme in Germany works out at 3s. 1d. per head. It is not surprising, therefore, to know that, notwithstanding that there is this scheme of old age pensions, very often, and indeed most often, the working classes who are in receipt of old age pensions have to have recourse to the Poor Law. One of the striking features of the system in Germany to which I desire to call attention is this, that the compulsory provisions for sickness and disablement insurance has proved a stimulus to thrift in other directions. This is confirmatory of the views which we hold. It shows that the habit of saving increases as you make provision, and as you help by contributions either from the employer or the State, so you induce the worker to make further insurance for his own benefit. He comes to realise what is the true advantage of insurance.
He would, further, appreciate that, in the case of sickness or of some temporary destitution, when he has either to withdraw or to exhaust the fund which he has managed to accumulate with great difficulty and great trouble because of the receipt of sick benefit or disablement insurance benefit, the money which he has managed to save for himself is still there in the savings bank, still accumulating from day to day, increasing in amount, and to which he can add his little store from week to week, and month to month. The desire to save becomes greater, and the appetite for it increases daily, and, consequently, as we believe, if we can only, manage in this country, by reason of these contributions, to instil into our people the desire to save, not only by those contributions that they have to make

373
under this Insurance Law, but to save in order that they may be able to make their own provision, to create their own independence altogether apart from this scheme, I do believe that we shall have taken a most notable step along the path of progress, the self-respect and the independence of the workpeople of this country. One further point which we learn from Germany is that the curative and preventive effect of the treatment of disease by means of sanatoria and other institutions, such as convalescent homes and kindred establishments, in Germany, have not only succeeded in arresting the ravages or the disease of consumption, but have helped to prevent it. As the hon. Member for Plymouth said, in what I would like to describe as not only his most interesting, but most graceful and eloquent and sympathetic speech, in this respect, from one who had undoubted knowledge, and who gave the House the most valuable information, which he had acquired doubtless with much study and labour, from the result of all those efforts in Germany it has been established that you do assist in checking and preventing the disease by having resource to sanatoria. I am not going to travel over the ground which the hon. Member traversed, because I could not, if I attempted, say so well what he has said during the course of this Debate. My attention was also attracted to the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. David Davies), who from his knowledge and study of this subject contributed from this side of the House valuable information. I can assure the hon. Member for Plymouth and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and others who have spoken on this subject, that every word that has fallen from them has fallen upon ears that are open to suggestion, and that are really most anxious and desirous to find the best means of meeting what we all believe to be the most terrible scourge of this country. I pass from that subject with the observation that in the data to which I have called attention we have the most valuable experience from Germany, which has assisted us in formulating the scheme in Part I. of this Bill.
Let me make this observation to hon. Members, so that they may bear it in mind in criticising the actuarial calculations of our actuaries, who are men of the highest standing in the country, and who have of course devoted their whole lives to their science, and who speak with a skill which I am quite sure is certainly
374
unexcelled, although it may possibly be rivalled, throughout the country. The observation to which I want to direct attention is that in Germany workmen's compensation for accidents and old age pensions form part of the contributory system, and therefore must be taken into account and borne in mind. When you are criticising our actuarial calculations as compared with those, those are factors which must not be lost sight of. Let me point out to the House how we stand with regard to this matter. Before I pass to some of the criticisms and to some brief exposition of some of the points which I think have not yet been elaborately dealt with, I think that it is a great satisfaction to us to find that Germany, which has been the pioneer in this movement, and which has hitherto held the leading place in the world for social legislation of this kind, is itself much impressed by the measure which has been introduced by my right hon. Friend. I noticed in reading the German newspaper dealing with the introductory speech of my right hon. Friend that the German criticism of the measure is that, owing to its directness, its simplicity, and its comprehensiveness, it will excel what one German newspaper, the "Tageblatt," calls the "bureaucratic hotchpotch of the German insurance system." Let us note as we pass the compliment that is paid to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In German Press articles, German experts are advised to study the pleasure which has been introduced by my right hon. Friend, lest they should be left behind, and, indeed, one German newspaper I happened to read said that the introduction of this measure had earned for my right hon. Friend a statue in Westminster Abbey. I hope the time is long distant before we shall have to consider whether it will be desirable to erect a statue for him in Westminster Abbey.
I cannot help thinking that there has been a considerable amount of misapprehension with regard to some of the details of this measure, not in this House but outside the House. There are some points upon which I would like to dwell, and I will just call in rapid review the main provisions of the sickness and insurance part of this Bill. It is first of all obvious to the House that it would not be possible, I think all must agree, to compel the working classes to insure against sickness and invalidity unless you gave material assistance both from the employer and the

375
State. In the most interesting speech which was made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. H. W. Forster) this evening, and will he permit me to say in the high-minded speech which he addressed to this House, we were all perfectly conscious that he agreed with us, as every man must agree when you come to consider the imposition of a measure of this kind upon the industrial classes in the community, that it is idle to talk of it or to think of it as a voluntary scheme. You can only make it effective if you make it a compulsory scheme. It is not necessary to dwell further on that, having regard to the complete unanimity of the House upon this subject. Under the Bill we have included all those who were not provided for outside the Bill, and we have sought to include under it all those whose incomes do not exceed £160 per annum, with certain exemptions which are to be found in the schedule of the Bill. We have sought to do this upon a principle which I think is novel, or, at least, it is so to me in the history of insurance. The Government recognised that when it said to the working classes, "You must come into this insurance scheme and you must pay your contribution," that it is useless to say to a man of forty-five years of age, "You must pay your proper age contribution in order to get your benefit." The Government recognise that if you ask him to do that you are imposing on him an impossible task. He cannot afford to do it. He probably has not done it because it may be he has not sufficiently or fully appreciated the benefit of insurance, or it may be that he has at first joined a society and has then fallen out because he has not been able to continue his contribution, or it may be because he has at no time been able to afford the contributions demanded of him in order to secure benefit. Whatever may be the case, the fact remains that you find again and again that out of some 15,000,000 people in this country insurance provision is made for, at most, only 6,000,000. Now the Government say, "We must help the men of thirty-five, forty, forty-five, fifty years of age and onwards "—and this is what I consider to he the novelty and the boldness of the scheme." Every man, whatever his age up to sixty-five, shall be entitled to insure by a payment which is properly applicable to a lad at the age of sixteen." In other words, what the Government say is, "For the purpose of this insurance, all who
376
come in during the first year shall be allowed to come in at the premium which would be the premium if the entrant were sixteen years of age. You shall regain your youth for the purpose of insuring at the present moment, and you will have to go on paying that premium during the rest of the time "—although the man may be forty-five years of age, and has the great advantage that from sixteen to forty-five he has not been forced to pay a premium at all.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We are all anxious to get information, and that is my excuse for interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that a man of forty-five years of age, for instance, is to pay a premium which would be the correct premium for a youth of sixteen.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: For the benefits.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is that so?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Certainly.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not the case that the youth of sixteen has to pay more highly for the benefits which he is to receive? I am not criticising; I am only asking for information. Is it not the fact that for the first fifteen years or so he will receive less than the benefits applicable to his premium, because you take in the man of forty-five? In other words, is it not the case that the expense of bringing in the men of forty-five is charged on the young men rather than on the State?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not complain of the question in the slightest degree; I am glad to have the opportunity of answering it. The contribution is that which would be applicable to the age of sixteen for the benefits offered. If I may refer the right hon. Gentleman to the actuarial report, pages twenty-three and twenty-four contain really the pith of the whole matter.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry I have not had an opportunity of reading the report.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have studied it for this purpose. It is a table which may require a little explanation; but if it is studied it will be found that the premium payable is the premium which would be payable by a youth of sixteen to obtain the minimum benefits granted by the State.

377
If a man loses the opportunity of joining on those conditions during the first twelve months of the scheme and comes in afterwards, he will have to pay his proper age contribution. It is for that reason, and only for that reason, that the Government have to assume what has been referred to in the Debate as a debt of £60,000,000, or £63,000,000, counting the married women provision. It is simply for the reason that you impose on the approved societies the obligation to take entrants at a flat rate, based upon the contribution payable by a lad of sixteen for the minimum benefits, the Government have to meet the societies by giving them a credit for their aggregate annual reserves. What it means is that a society has to get credit corresponding to the age reserve of its members, with 3 per cent interest added, in order that it may be placed in what I may call a position of present actuarial solvency. If a society were to liquidate to-morrow, after having taken in all those members who applied at forty, forty-five, or fifty years of age, with the addition of the credit which the Government give on the basis of its aggregate annual reserve, that society would be actuarially solvent on any valuation that you might make.
The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that this is a matter of mere calculation, and it is carried out as, I might almost say, an exact science. With the knowledge and data that our actuaries have, and with all the materials before the House, and as the memorandum of the actuaries show, there is not the slightest doubt but that this has been calculated upon a very conservative basis indeed. Although it does not appear, from Table S, page 23,—which is the material table—if you work it out it will be found that a man would have to pay 6¼d.—to be exact 6.288d.—in order to obtain the minimum benefits per week. For that, of course, there is the contribution both by the employé and the employer of 7d., supplemented by the Government, and the margin between that 6¼d. and the 7d. is a margin which my right hon. Friend has allowed for the purpose of providing for any present contingencies, and to allow for further benefits which may be allowed upon that basis. There is, of course, another margin for a sinking fund which is to be created for the next fifteen and a-half or sixteen years approximately, in order to wipe out a sum year after year, so that eventually the scientific annual reserve will disappear altogether, and a paper debt of £60,000,000 will be completely
378
wiped out. Everything will then be upon an actuarily solvent basis. These contributions, which are made, are more than sufficient, as I have I think pointed out already, to provide the benefits under this scheme.
I want to call the attention of the House to three very important provisions in reference to the payment of these contributions, and benefits to be given, which I think have hitherto escaped observation. They are most material matters in the making of our actuarial calculations, and they are of great benefit to the working community. The first is that no contribution is payable when a person is in receipt of sick benefit, or if he would have been in receipt of sick benefit but for the fact that he is receiving compensation either for an accident, or is the inmate of a hospital. In other words, the Government, by their scheme, say that when a man is receiving sick benefit the money is to be paid out to him without any deduction. He has no contribution to make during the time he is sick. Under a friendly society scheme, suppose that the benefit is 10s. and the contribution 9d., he would have 9s. 3d. handed out to him, the deduction being made from the sick benefit before the money is paid over. That, of course, is a very valuable benefit to him. But we do not stop there. If a man is unemployed—and I am sure the House will appreciate the value of this concession—notwithstanding that he is not paying his contribution, although he is in arrears with his contribution, until his contributions have fallen into arrear for four weeks, that is under the wording of the Bill beyond three weeks, he will receive his sick benefit without alteration, and he is under no obligation to pay; and, further, if the case goes beyond four weeks and provided it does not exceed on the average thirteen weeks of the year, he is entitled to receive his sick benefit, notwithstanding that he is in arrear with his contribution for this period. In order to make that plain let me take a concrete example. Suppose a man has been insured for twenty years and has paid his premium, and at the end of twenty years he loses his employment, he may be out of employment then and in arrear in his contribution for five years before he will be under suspension of the payment of sick benefit. Again, suppose a man after twenty years is unemployed, and after a time is unable to pay his contribution for one, two, or three years, and I will assume that for three years ho has not paid a

379
single penny of contribution, if he then falls sick he is entittled to his benefit under the Bill, notwithstanding that he is in arrear, because he is not in arrear more than 25 per cent. of the time during which he was contributing; that is to say, he is not in arrear for more than thirteen weeks on the average per year. That is a most valuable concession, because the difficulty that must always occur to a man in keeping up his contributions is experienced either in time of sickness with which I have dealt, or in time of unemployment, which we have expressly met in, I think, a very generous spirit.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There will be great temptation for a man to avail himself of such generous terms as that. Is there to be any check upon his statement that he is unemployed for the purposes of Part I. of the Bill?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, there is this check. If it gets beyond the period of four weeks the benefits he receives will diminish in proportion to the arrears of contribution. There is a schedule in the Bill which deals with that in detail. His benefit never can go below 5s., but it would decrease to 9s. 6d., to 8s. 6d., and so forth, according to the number of weeks he is in arrear. If there is not sufficient check some such check must be provided. I will not pledge myself that it is already provided in the Bill, but it must be remembered that all these benefits have to be dealt with by the friendly societies who are responsible, and who themselves have to make up any deficiency in consequence of lax management if they allow too much to be expended or paid over in benefits. I have pointed out what the value of this provision is. The House will remember what the benefits are. I am only going to deal now with what I may call the main benefits applicable to persons from sixteen to twenty-one, and if married from twenty-one to the age of seventy. In all these circumstances the scale of benefits are from 10s. to 5s. for three months for maternity, sanatoria, medical attendance, and similar other benefits provided under the Bill. In reference to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) I want to compare the rates in Germany of contribution for sickness and invalidity. We are making a business proposition, and we are very anxious that it should be made clear
380
to the House that not only is our scheme actuarially sound, but also that it is conceived on real business lines, and will stand comparison with any other scheme. For my own part I will defy any hon. Member of this House, or anyone outside, to compare any scheme of benefits with those which are given under this Bill for the rate of contribution which is exacted from the employer. There is no scheme which can approach the benefits given under this Bill. I am not unmindful of what the hon. Member has said in reference to this point.
Let me turn to Germany as an instance, because to Germany we owe this industrial insurance. In Germany, as hon. Members no doubt know, there are various rates of contribution, and they vary according to the weekly income. I will take a fair average in order not to weary the House with a series of calculations. I take a man with a weekly income of 20s. A man with that income will pay in Germany 5½d. for sickness and l¾d. for invalidity, making 7¼d., as against 4d., which is the contribution under this Bill. That is the employers' contribution. It is quite clear that the employed has got the benefit of this 4d., as against the 7¼d. in Germany. The total amount payable therefore is 11¾d. The employer in Germany pays 2¾d. sickness and 1¾d. invalidity, making up the 4½d., whereas under this Bill they only pay 3d. A workman in Germany does not get the full benefit because he does not get the three probations to which I specially referred when I pointed out the valuable nature of this exception, which was made by us to the payment of contributions during the time of sickness and of unemployment. I daresay hon. Members are well aware that the figures I have taken are only taken as one instance out of the series of instances given in a White Paper. Any hon. Member can take any other instance he likes. I do not stop to explain the details now because it would take up too much time.
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that in Germany the workmen are insured against accident also and they pay two-thirds and the employer one-third, and after thirteen or fourteen weeks they are transferred to the sickness fund.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I pointed out earlier that that was a fact which had to be taken earlier into consideration. I do not want, however, to get into a discussion of that because for the purpose of a Debate of this kind I am afraid it would make it

381
impossible to discuss the other part of the subject. I have gone into the matters very carefully myself, and the hon. Member can do the same by reference to the White Paper. I am now taking the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows, and I have worked out the benefits of a similar character for sickness and invalidity and I find that for a contribution of 4d. it actually works out for a man at forty years of age, that he gets up to 1s. 4½d. in order to get anything, approximate to the sickness and invalidity benefit which is given under this scheme. You must add to that—unless you do, you will very likely be misled by the tables you may construct—1d. for management expenses and 1d. for medical benefit, so the real contribution is not what it appears in that table, but 6d. per week, as compared with 4d. per week which I give. Mark also, you have not for that contribution the addition of either the sanatorium or maternity benefits to which reference has been made. Neither have you the great advantage upon which I at any rate lay very great stress, of immunity from contribution during the period of sickness or during the period of unemployment. All these benefits are calculable in money actuarily, and I think it would be no exaggeration to say they would make at least another contribution approaching 2d. per week. I take that only as a typical society, because it is a very good one to choose. The result is you do get an enormous advantage. Of course, it naturally follows you do. These schemes are all based on calculations and tables by the actuaries, and, when you have the contribution of the workman only at 4d. and the contribution supplemented by the employer's contribution and the State contribution, it necessarily follows. It is no merit of the Government—it is so. I only want to point out to the, workmen that they get the enormous benefit of having only to pay 4d. for what otherwise would have to be purchased at 8d. or 9d.
Mr. BOOTH: Do not the Oddfellows give death benefits?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Of course they do, but I was purposely taking the sickness and invalidity benefits. I quite admit, if you get death and funeral benefits, the premium is greater, but in making comparisons, and in order that there should be no confusion in the mind of the House I have compared like with like. I pass from that part of the scheme to another part which has been very much discussed,
382
and that is the approved societies. Let the House consider what is the position of the Government. On the one hand you may do what they do in Germany; you may have a vast bureaucracy, a great organisation, an army of officers and inspectors, who have all, at any rate in Germany, had a military training, and who will go to the working man and ask him various questions by the right which he will have as an official. If a Government in this country were to start an army of that character, apart from all other considerations or arguments which might very properly be addressed to the Government against it, let me ask what possible security would there be against the evil which is the very crux of insurance of this character against sickness and invalidity—the evil of malingering? Anybody who has had any experience of friendly societies, and has had to examine their accounts, go into their figures, or deal with the facts must recognise that is a great evil. The friendly societies do their best to suppress it. They cannot succeed in entirely suppressing it. Of course no friendly society or any Government society could do that. So long as human nature is what it is there will always be those who have sick benefit who will appear, at any rate, to be a little sicker than they really are.
What is the alternative? It has been the subject of much careful consideration on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He found to his hand societies with a large membership, with great accumulated funds, based on the principle of self-help and mutual aid and brotherly feeling. When the members of the societies who are formed to relieve the sick and assist the distressed and elevate their members to positions of self-respect and independence, and managed their own affairs without State control, elected their own representatives, and really opened up a career for their fellow members, surely these societies are deserving of the highest respect and admiration. They have had to check malingering. The trade unions have exactly the same difficulties to deal with; for this purpose they are in exactly the same position as the friendly societies. They have won for themselves a position of high esteem and respect among the community. Therefore we find at hand societies ready to do the work which no Government can properly and efficiently do: that is the work of looking after the men themselves. Who can do it best? It is the men themselves. If there is any malingering, if a man is

383
seen at the corner public-house enjoying himself he will be called to account by his friendly society. It is to them that the Government has turned for co-operation and assistance in carrying out and administering this Insurance scheme.
Of course, when the Government turns to friendly societies, trade unions, and kindred societies it necessarily, when dealing with State Funds, lays down conditions which must be observed by all those societies. If the Government says that State money and the money of employers is to be administered for the purpose of paying out benefits under a State compulsory insurance scheme, it behoves the Government to see that the State moneys are properly administered. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) made some observations in reference to trade unions, and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) also asked a question on the same subject. The Government position on this is quite clear. The one thing that is plain is that the Government cannot sanction a scheme which would permit of money levied by Act of Parliament from the employer to be paid into the coffers of a trade union fund to be used by that trade union as a war chest against the employers. I am perfectly certain from a considerable knowledge of the executives of trade unions that not one of them would ask that.
Mr. BONAR LAW: That was not the point. What I wanted to know was, are the contributions of a man for this special purpose of compulsory insurance to be available for any other expenditure?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That seems to me to be the same point, only it is not for the purpose of a war chest, but other purposes.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Then it is not available?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, it is not available. Money which is provided for the State scheme is to be used for the State scheme, and for no other purpose.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether it can be paid in with money which can be used for any other purpose?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The answer to my hon. Friend would be "No"; for this reason. The Government is by this legis-
384
lation providing that a State benefit should be paid out to the man—that is to say, that a minimum benefit should be paid out under the State scheme to a member of the society, and the Government view is—of course there may be considerations which may be brought before my right hon. Friend in Committee—the Government view is that you must keep the State fund separate. I do not mean by that that you have necessarily to pay it into a separate coffer. That may not be necessary. There may be other means. You may meet it by a system of crediting. I am not going into the actual working, but what I do mean is that the Government view is that you must keep these funds collected under the scheme separate and distinct, and it follows necessarily from this that in dealing with these societies you must have a Government valuation, you must have a Government audit, that is, so far as it affects the scheme, and not otherwise, and all the funds belonging to a trade society and which have accumulated hitherto and which are there for their ordinary benefits will be untouched. Trade union funds will be in the same position, they will be untouched, and they are in no way interfered with, except those contributed for this purpose. What is affected is the money under the State scheme. I will take a concrete case, which is so much easier. Of course the trade union or friendly society may be receiving 9d. under the State scheme in respect of a member from whom it has received 9d. for benefits under the friendly society or trade union before the Government scheme came into existence. A man being for years a member, may have been paying 9d. for, it may be, some other benefit, which may include the sick benefit and invalidity, and also some other benefits. He may be doing that under the Government scheme. If the trade union or friendly society or other private society receives the 9d., which will be the 4d. and the 3d., and the contribution from the State in respect of this member, it cannot collect the money for the same benefit both from the member, and in this respect from the three sources. It will, of course, have got 4d. from the member which will have been deducted at the source by his employer, and a stamp will be put upon the document, but that is all that the employé has to pay. It is quite true that some of our critics say in the newspapers what becomes of the rest? The other 5d. is received from the State

385
and the employer. In respect of that other money, that is for the friendly societies to deal with, and provision is made under the Bill that they may deal with it. The workman's power to contribute is just the same before the Government scheme as it is after, or rather it is a great deal more. He has much more in his pocket to pay over to the friendly society and the trade union for other benefits than he ever had before, because if he has only to pay 4d. to get the benefit which he will have to buy for 9d. from the friendly society, and the State and the employer pay the 5d., making up with the 4d. paid by him the 9d., he has that 5d. in his pocket to contribute to the friendly society or the trade union for other benefits which do not come into our scheme at all. He may do it in that way, or, if he likes, he may go to one of the insurance societies and insure his life, or he may take a larger funeral benefit, as the case may be. The effect of insurance is to beget insurance, and the effect of this scheme is to release money in the pockets of the working classes which in the ordinary course will go amongst the various friendly societies, trade unions, and industrial insurance societies. I suppose nothing will be clearer than this, that if an approved society manages to secure a person as a member who has not hitherto been a member of any one of these societies, he has money in his pocket to invest in insurance, and as long as he is treated fairly, with civility and courtesy he will desire to continue with the same society in a new kind of insurance which has nothing whatever to do with the Government, instead of going to some other society. It is just the same as if I am accustomed to go to a shop for the purchase of one article. I have been well served and properly treated, and I want another article which I might buy equally well at another shop, but I will not go to the other shop if I am once in this shop which I know and where I have been served well. So it will be and thus it will continue with the friendly societies. They will all get an enormous advantage by the scheme because there will be an increase in their membership. Instead of having as now 4,500,000 in friendly societies—6,000,000 really all told, distributed all over the country—you must have something like 14,000,000 members. They must join either of these various societies or must become members of the Post Office scheme.
In dealing with these societies, I have pointed out the enormous advantage
386
which the Government have given them. What is it that the Government ask from them? I want members of friendly societies to bear in mind, first the benefits which are conferred upon friendly societies, trade unions, and industrial insurance societies. There is a large and deserving body of men who are collectors in these industrial insurance societies, men who must not be treated with any want of consideration by this House. They are men who have helped to make the way for this insurance scheme. They have helped to stimulate thrift. They know the position of members, and are able to locate the various members in the localities, and know them as no one else can. Their co-operation, of course, would be of the highest value to the Government. Nothing that can be introduced into this Bill is intended to prevent their coming in. They can come in if they choose, but it must always be on the same terms as everyone else. They must conform to the prescribed conditions. There is not a word in the Bill which prevents them conforming to the prescribed conditions. They may have to form, and doubtless would have to form, branches or subsidiary societies, in order that they may work under these prescribed conditions. It is all to their interest to do it. They get the money paid over to them from the society, and in that way they get a largely increased clientele among insurers. It is all to their benefit to get these people. If they do that, and come under the scheme, and work and administer the scheme in the same way as the friendly societies and the trade unions, it would be all to the advantage of everybody concerned, because then we should not lose the great benefit of the knowledge they have acquired and of the experience they have gained, and we should not be accused of placing in jeopardy the livelihood of any of these men.
Some fear seems to have been occasioned in the minds of these men that under the Government scheme we are proposing to deal with life insurance or death benefit. There is not a single word in the Bill which would entitle the Government to take up that form of insurance under any circumstances whatever. There was not a single word in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would warrant any such assumption. On the contrary, he pointed out that we did not contemplate to deal with death payments. Those must be left

387
to voluntary effort. The men are, of course, quite entitled to make what bargain they please. Voluntary effort must do it. The Government cannot do it. Even if you consider the extended benefits which the Government may be able to distribute at a subsequent stage, you will find that there is not a single word which would enable the Government to make payments for death or funeral benefit. Therefore I do hope that any apprehensions which may have been in the minds of any members of these societies may be allayed with reference to this scheme, and that they may not think that their livelihood is placed in jeopardy by the proposals now before the House. I think it will be better to adjourn now till to-morrow, before entering on another part of my speech. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow (Thursday).

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (NIGHT WORK).
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold His Assent to the Order, dated the 10th day of April, 1911, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 54, Subsection (4), of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the Special Exception by which a male young person may be employed during the night to male young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards employed in the process of making artificial silk fibre carried on in non-textile factories."
I desire very briefly to move the prayer contained in this notice on the Order Paper, and in doing so, the first observation I have to make is one of protest against what appears to many of us the unnecessary increase of the number of these Orders that are being from time to time issued, and as many of us are afraid, issued without inquiry being made in order to see that all the interests of those affected are properly safeguarded. I think it may very safely be said that the legislature, when passing the Factory Acts and making arrangements for
388
certain exemptions to be permitted by Order, were exceedingly anxious to protect, in certain cases, especially the youth of our country. I think that. everybody who is at all familiar with the Factory Acts will admit that they were not anxious that these Orders should extend the hours of overtime that might be worked, more especially the working of all-night shifts in connection with boys or girls, especially girls. In this case it is a question of boys from sixteen to eighteen years of age.
I do not know that I need trouble the House for a single moment as to the reasons why this anxiety existed at the time the Factory Act was being passed, but I think I may safely say that one of the primary reasons that influenced our legislators when the last Act was passed was the question of health. I think in the case I am moving—for it is the prevention of night work of boys of between sixteen and eighteen years engaged in the manufacture of silk fibre out of wood pulp—if my information is correct, there is a very strong case to be made out against the extension. I find that the Section under which the extension is made, Sub-section (4) of Section 54 of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901, that the Secretary of State is given power to make an order permitting night work providing he is satisfied that such employment will not injure the health of the male young persons employed in it. The question of extension might be argued altogether apart from the very general but very important provision that the Act specifically lays down, but in the case before us I have a little information which, if it be correct, and if the Order that is about to be made (and I believe the forty days that the Order is to lie on the Table expires on Monday) applies, as I am afraid it does, to the making of artificial silk at Coventry, all I have to say is that we will have to search a long way back before we find an Order issued with such little justification, and, in fact, on the other hand, with such strong condemnation against it as in this particular instance. I find that these boys are working under this process in this particular town.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The Order does not apply to work carried out in this particular town.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: I thank the Under-Secretary for his interruption, but

389
I think he will have to convince the House, in view of the words contained in the Order. The words in the Order are:—
"The process of making artificial silk fibre carried on in non-textile factories."
Mr. MASTERMAN: It is only by courtesy I can intervene, but I do so to save time. The Coventry process, we are advised in law is not a non-textile factory.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am very pleased to have that declaration. It is a very important declaration. I have endeavoured to find out, and I have not been able to find out, and those concerned in the process and those who are engaged in the process are apprehensive of the dangers. I think, notwithstanding the interjection of the Under-Secretary, that I ought to be permitted to give to the House the information as to the article to which I referred, because I think unless it can be shown beyond a shadow of doubt that the Order does not apply in the works at Coventry then I think it ought to be prevented from being confirmed. In the first place we are told that they are working, not only during the day, but during the night, in a temperature of 80 degrees. If in this House during an all-night sitting the temperature gets up to about 64 degrees, we are not long before we show signs of drowsiness and wish to be in more comfortable conditions. This is what the article in the local press declares:—
"The smell of the chemicals, acids, etc., used in this operation is well nigh intolerable, and calls for immediate attention from the factory inspector."
The article further states that the workers so suffer that many of them are exposed or subjected to temporary blindness, that their eyes are badly inflamed and that they suffer as a result of these chemicals and acids the most excruciating pain. It is also declared to be a "loathsome, injurious and degrading occupation."
The article adds that the occupants of the houses immediately near the works complain that the fumes emanating therefrom are so strong that they find it well nigh impossible to remain in the houses, and I am told that but for the shortness of the supply of houses they would not remain in them at all. We have the ordinary objection to the continued increase in the number of exemption orders which are being issued by the Home Office; secondly, there are also the general objections to putting boys of sixteen to eighteen years of age on night shifts; and, thirdly, I am
390
not convinced on the point in regard to which the Under-Secretary interrupted me. I hope he will be able to explain clearly the difference between a textile and a non-textile factory, and to show why, in regard to making artificial silk fibre at one set of works at Flint and making it out of wood pulp at Coventry, one is textile and the other non-textile. The words in the Order apparently cover the whole. I hope he will be able to show that the Order will not apply in any sense, either now or hereafter, to the works at Coventry. If there is any doubt at all, I would suggest that he should promise a full and complete inquiry, in order that we may satisfy all concerned that they will not be subjected to working overtime in this process under these obnoxious conditions and working night shifts as the Order provides. I beg to move.
Mr. BOWERMAN: In rising to second the Motion, I desire to refer to an answer given by the Home Secretary on, I think, the 15th of this month, when, at the close of an interesting reply, he stated that a copy of the draft Order had been forwarded to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, and by that statement, I do not say intentionally, perhaps unintentionally, appeared to throw a measure of blame on that Committee. That Committee very much appreciate the fact that it is the custom of the Home Office to send them draft copies of these Orders in order that they, being in direct touch with the trades of the country, may forward the Orders to those who are immediately concerned and invite criticisms, should criticisms be necessary. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement I was much surprised. As a member of the Committee I had not seen a copy of the Order, and I made it my business the following morning to inquire at the office whether or not such an Order had been received.
The statement made to me was that such an Order had not been received. A communication was sent to the Home Office to that effect, and the reply was that the Order had been sent on 27th or 28th February. It is perfectly true that Draft Orders have been received by the Committee, but there was no trace of this particular Order being received. With regard to the general question, may I say that it is a well-established and well-understood custom in this country that young people from sixteen up to eighteen years of age are not permitted to work at night?

391
That practice is well supported by both employers and employed. Speaking for my own trade, the printing trade, were such an Order as this attempted to be introduced there would be in a sense a revolution. I understand that one reason given for this exemption is that it introduces into this country a new form of industry. I do not know from what country it emanates, but I understand it has been brought into this country under the provisions of the new Patents Act. I agree fully that it is very desirable that new industries should be started wherever they come from. But I would submit to the Home Office that if industries are to be started they should be started precisely on the same footing as industries already established in this country. I would submit to the Under-Secretary that if this exemption is once permitted it will be extremely difficult, nay, almost impossible, to prevent exemptions of this kind being made in the case of other industries and in other directions. I would again acknowledge the courtesy of the Home Office in sending us these Draft Orders, so that we of the Parliamentary Committee may communicate their purport to the respective trades, though we cannot find that this particular Order has been received. I beg to second.
Mr. SUMMERS: I have seen the works at Flint; have been through them, and seen the manufacture. As far as I am able to judge it is a perfectly satisfactory occupation, a very simple process, entailing no physical labour. I may say my Constituency are very anxious that nothing should be done to discourage this new industry, and I hope when the explanation is given by the Home Office it will satisfy my hon. Friends below the Gangway.
Mr. MASTERMAN: May I say at the beginning how much I regret any mistake that may have arisen. I heard of it for the first time to-night from my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford. He will agree with me that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated in reply to a question that the practice of sending a copy of the draft Order to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress was carried out he stated what he believed to be the fact. I shall certainly enquire what happened, and if it has not been sent I will see why it was not sent, and perhaps I shall communicate with the hon. Member, because it is important when we make statements to the House they should be substantiated. I agree it is a point of
392
importance and that when the custom was established, which is a statutory custom, it should be continued. As to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle, I think I am right in saying he has two objections to the Order. One is very much stronger than the other for the moment. First he has a general objection to night work for boys between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, and I think a considerable number of us share that objection unless the night work is safeguarded in the most stringent manner. He has an especial objection to this Order because he thinks it applies to a very objectionable form of manufacture so far as the employment of boys is concerned. I am sure he will acquit me of any discourtesy when I interrupted him when he was going on to describe what were the conditions in Coventry, but I can assure him having gone very fully into the subject before the Order was drafted and having taken the highest legal opinion that this Order does not apply to the work at Coventry. In making that statement I neither echo nor deny the statements he quoted from the local newspaper. I have been told by our factory inspector that the Coventry trade is subject to dangerous fumes. No boys are employed at the present time, and no boys will be employed either by day or night under this Order. I should be perfectly willing to accede to the suggestion my hon. Friend made and to see that some inquiry is made into this exceptional process with a view to ascertaining whether the trade is dangerous or not quite apart from the employment of boys, and our Factory Inspector or the Labour Adviser to the Board of Trade shall make that inquiry now that the question has been raised on the floor of the House. The Coventry process for making artificial silk is a textile process defined upon the authority of the Law Officers of the Crown. It is a continuous process in which the filament is made from pulp, and in which the filament is twisted into thread, and that brings it under the definition of a textile factory. The unobjectionable system which is in operation in two factories was introduced under the Patents Act. The process of making the filament from the pulp is separate from twisting the filament into thread; the process of making the filament from the pulp is a textile process, but the process of twisting the thread is non-textile, and under Section 147, Sub-section (2) of the Factories Act may be legitimately subject to this

393
Order, but the process of twisting the filament into thread, which is non-continuous, is a textile process, and therefore done in a textile factory.
Our inspectors advise us that the processes are quite separate secret chemical processes, and that the particular dangers found at Coventry from fumes do not operate in the systems at Flint and Yarmouth. Perhaps I may say a word or two on the general question. There is, I believe, an increasing feeling against the employment of boy labour at all at night in this country. May I point out that boy labour is employed not only in the exceptions allowed under the Factory Act of 1901 and subsequent Orders, but also in the mines of this country, in the newspaper offices, and on a part of the railways, and I submit that in dealing with the general question of boy labour between sixteen and eighteen it is unsatisfactory to impeach some particular kind of boy labour which may be better than that which is now legalised, and it would be better to deal with the whole question and see whether some general agreement could not be arrived at, in which case we should have to repeal this particular Section of the Factory Act of 1901, which authorises the labour of young persons between sixteen and eighteen in certain continuous processes.
Boy labour is sanctioned between sixteen and eighteen under certain conditions very definitely laid down. It must necessarily be a process carried on through the night—being a continuous process. Since the Factory Act was passed it has been extended through this provision to something like twenty of these continuous processes, and no objection was advanced to the Draft Order when it, was first laid before the House or afterwards when it was laid on the Table of the House. The conditions applying to boy labour are rigid. The employment is not to exceed twelve consecutive hours with the usual intervals for meals. Application has to be made to the Home Office with regard to the employment of boys in the manufacture of artificial silk in the non-textile portion al the manufacture as at Flint and Yarmouth. This is a growing industry giving considerable employment which has been brought to England by the operation of the Patents Act, and it is almost a new industry in this country. Out of 4,500,000 articles of silk, 370,000 are made in this country. This work has been investigated by both our Divisional Factory Inspectors in Wales and the District
394
Factory Inspector, and they have reported that the work is suitable to be included under Section 54 of the Factory Act, 1901.
It is a continuous process which has to be carried on day and night. It is work suitable for boys, who can learn it at an early age, and it has this advantage, that it is not a blind-alley employment, because boys can obtain permanent work at considerable wages at this trade later on in life. It is work in which in Germany young persons are engaged, and it has been imported from Germany owing to the operation of the Patents Act. Our Factory Inspectors reported that if the Order was not granted there would be difficulty in getting the required number of boys, and the factories would be handicapped. At the age of twenty or twenty-one these boys are transferred to the other work. It is believed that this will be a good process, which can be continued in this country with advantage to all concerned. The conditions laid clown are stringent. The boys will be allowed to work eight hours with intervals of sixteen hours. As tie process is not continued during Saturday the boys will only work forty-three hours per week, allowing for the intervening time for meals. That compares with eight hours at night, or forty-eight hours a week in the coal mines, which may be their alternative, or with the sixteen hours' day of a vanboy, which is a blind-alley occupation, or with the seventy-four hours a week which is now legalised under the Shops Act.
I must say that, so long as night work is continued to be allowed for boys between sixteen and eighteen years of age, this presents a case far better than some alternative processes allowed at the present time, not only under the Special Order, but in work which is outside the Factory Act. On the other hand, it would be idle for me to deny there is a growing feeling that night work is undesirable for boys even of sixteen years of age, and certainly for boys over fourteen years of age, which at present is legalised under the Act of 1901, although not under this Order. The International Labour Congress which met this autumn reported that the time was ripe for some international agreement on this subject, although I must confess they suggested that agreement should allow exemptions which are not allowed under the English law, and should deny exemptions which are allowed under the English law. Immediately after that suggestion

395
was formulated my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) appointed one of the officials of the Home Office to undertake a thorough investigation of the nature of labour of young persons of the male sex between the ages of sixteen and eighteen at present legalised. That investigation is being continued, and I must say that at present it is not entirely in favour of the complete prohibition of this system. In response to the challenge of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson), I may say, I am sure my right hon. Friend would be perfectly willing to agree that investigations shall be continued to cover the whole field and also this particular manufacture. I shall be very glad to have the whole question raised as soon as possible in the House. I suggest that such an opportunity will occur on the Home Office Vote, which I suppose will not be greatly delayed in this Session. We can then deal with the question as a whole and not piecemeal. We cannot deal with the further regulation of night work of boys between 16 and 18 by opposing one particular Order. It may be a better system of work for those boys than the alternative to which they may be legally subjected under the law as it stands at present.
Mr. J. W. HILLS: Before we put off the discussion till the Home Office Vote comes on we want to be convinced that the conditions under which boys are employed in other trades are better. I do not think the Under-Secretary has tried to meet the case made out. He has told us the process is continuous and that the works are running day and night. Are these boys employed in the daytime as well as at night, or are they only employed at night?
Mr. MASTERMAN: The boys are employed at eight hour shifts day and night.
Mr. J. W. HILLS: What is the meaning of the sentence the hon. Gentleman read out to us, that if boys are not employed at night young men of 18 cannot be taken on for training? I take that to mean these boys are employed at night only, otherwise that sentence is meaningless. Surely it means that boys are not employed except at night, and that they are employed at, night because they are cheap. Though the process may be continuous, and though it may be a new and valuable industry, you can pay too high a price even for a good industry.
396
I do not think that the Under-Secretary has at all attempted to meet that case. The instances he quoted were those of cases in which the labour of young people at night was necessary—such as in mines and in connection with newspapers, where under modern conditions you must employ night labour. In this case he has not shown the necessity. I hope he is right in thinking the Order does not apply to the Coventry factories, and I trust that that fact will be made clear to the Inspectors. In view of the promise the hon. Gentleman has given to reconsider the whole question, I suppose we cannot go much further to-night. But may we assume that the whole question is open for reconsideration? The Conference to which reference has been made was a great advance on previous International Conferences, and I hope that this country will not keep in the background in this matter.
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: The House must be grateful to the Under-Secretary for the new fact of which he has informed us, that this is no question of "blind-alley" employment. When the Under-Secretary stated that the boys who were put on this work hereafter would be given continuous employment in this industry, that to some extent modified the position. It also took away altogether the reason for the Order, because if these boys, when they reach the age of 18 years, are still going to be employed in that industry, surely it is possible for the manufacturer, if he is prepared to pay them between the age of 16 and 18, to give a somewhat higher wage in order to have young men over 18 years of age to do this work. If he is going to employ boys over 18 hereafter, why not do it now—it would only involve a slightly increased wage? The fact we have elicited is important, because it finally takes away the reason for the Order. The argument of the Under-Secretary was one we could not wholly accept. He admitted that boy labour at night is not a satisfactory thing, be he added: "Do not let us deal with the evil piecemeal." I say at once this is creating a new evil which many of us are prepared to resist to the last, and I hope, therefore, that this Motion will be pressed to a Division.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary if he cannot reconsider his decision if only for a few weeks. We none of us deny that he wishes to do his best with regard to young persons. We

397
none of us deny that perhaps at the present moment complete prohibition may be impossible. There are two points in regard to this matter which really deserve every consideration. The hon. Gentleman has asked us not to attempt to deal with this matter piecemeal, and he has suggested that it might be allowed to come up for consideration on the Home Office Vote. But cannot we ask him to withhold his Order until after the time when the Home Office Vote is brought on? This Order is dealing with the question piecemeal in adding to the work which may be done by young persons under these conditions. Therefore, if the matter is to be reconsidered, then at least there is every reason just at the present minute for holding his hand, so that the Order should not come into effect until after the Home Office Vote has been taken. There is one other point. I would just suggest to the Under-Secretary that I can hardly believe that the reason that he gave holds good, namely, that this kind of work offers an occupation which will lead to adult occupation in the future. It may be that some young persons employed in this process may obtain adult occupation in the work afterwards, but the real fact in point is the proportion of young persons who will afterwards be absorbed in the trade. I do think my hon. Friend did not quite appreciate this fact, that if we have these young persons employed at night it means that there are a larger number of young persons employed than those who can be absorbed as daily workers in the same trade. If that is the case the defence is no longer good that this work is necessary in order to find employment for young persons, who will find daily work afterwards. I do not wish to press one or two other points which occur to me, but in view of that fact and in view of the fact that the whole subject will come up on the Home Office Vote, cannot the matter be delayed so that a fresh trade may not be added to the list? The fact that other trades already exist in which this kind of work is carried on is really no positive reason in favour, but rather a reason to the contrary why we should not add another against the general sense of the community until the whole question has been discussed on the Home Office Vote.
Mr. GILL: I should like to ask whether or not, there were any boys employed, before this Order was issued, at night, and, if not, who performed the duties they carry out? I also wish to press for delay in putting into operation this Order.
398
There is a rather strong feeling as to boys working at night, and I trust the Under-Secretary will see his way to postpone the coming into operation of this Order for another month until the whole question can be debated.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the proposal made is a fair one if it can be carried out, but I am not quite sure that the Order can be arrested from coming legally into operation, but we can always start a rescinding Order, which has just as much validity as the Order itself. I am perfectly willing to consider the matter that all these Orders should be rescinded. There are twenty of them, and they deal with electric stations, sugar refining, galvanising, china clay, explosives, newspaper printing, and other industries. All these are cases of the night work of boys between sixteen and eighteen, and they are all under similar conditions, and the great majority of them under more objectionable conditions than this particular Order. If on the Home Office Vote it is the considered opinion of the House on the report of our experts that all these Orders shall be rescinded we will rescind them altogether and stop the practice. I do not think it is logical to deal with one which I consider is the least harmful without dealing with the whole. I hope the Committee will agree to that, and under the circumstances, although we may legally not be able to annul it without a Motion from both Houses of Parliament, I am sure it will not be put in operation while we are engaged in our deliberations.
Question put, and negatived.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Six minutes before Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  DISTRAINT FOR RENT.
  DISTRAINT FOR RENT.
  Income Tax Assessments.
  Income Tax Assessments.
  Trust Funds (Ireland).
  Trust Funds (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  H.M.S. "Invincible."
  H.M.S. "Invincible."
  British and Foreign Navies (Armaments).
  British and Foreign Navies (Armaments).
  Woolwich Arsenal.
  Woolwich Arsenal.
  Telephone Exchanges.
  Telephone Exchanges.
  Illegitimate Children (Workhouses).
  Illegitimate Children (Workhouses).
  CENSUS RETURNS, 1911.
  CENSUS RETURNS, 1911.
  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES 1911.
  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES 1911.
  Workman's Compensation (Liquidation of Employer).
  Workman's Compensation (Liquidation of Employer).
  Samos (Prince Governor).
  Samos (Prince Governor).
  Trusts (United Kingdom).
  Trusts (United Kingdom).
  Naval Review.
  Naval Review.
  Savings Bank Deposits.
  Savings Bank Deposits.
  King's Bench Division (Causes).
  King's Bench Division (Causes).
  Education (Scotland).
  Education (Scotland).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE (TRANSFER) BILL. CHASETOWN GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL.
Read 3a with the amendments: Further amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUNDEE HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION) BILL. [H.L.]
The Duke of Wellington, Chairman of the Select Committee, reported that the Earl of Lytton was not present this day, and that the Committee continued sitting in his absence, all parties having consented thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (ALNWICK CORPORATION PAYMENT) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. DER WENT FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to order).
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to one branch of this subject, the importance of which is, I venture to think, as yet very inadequately appreciated by the public generally. I allude to the complete abandonment of such financial control as has heretofore been exercised by your Lordships' House. It may perhaps be thought that it is useless to say anything on this subject because, in the somewhat loose phraseology of the day, the public has made up its mind that finance is exclusively the province of the House of Commons, and that the House of Lords should have nothing to say in the matter. That may be so, but I very greatly doubt whether the very grave consequences which may and probably will ensue by withdrawing from this House the functions in respect to finance exercised by every other Second Chamber in the world are fully appreciated. In any case, my Lords, holding, as I do, that sound finance is the basis of all good government, I cannot reconcile myself to allowing this Bill to receive a Second Reading without littering a note of warning on this subject.
My Lords, I do not propose to make a Budget speech, but I cannot enforce the argument to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention without alluding briefly to the main facts of the present financial situation. I leave out of account the figures for the current year, merely observing that I cannot help fearing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has greatly under-estimated the cost of his invalidity and unemployment insurance scheme. Looking to the past five years, I wish to point out that the Imperial expenditure has increased during that period by about thirty-one million pounds, or at the altogether unprecedented rate of more than six millions a year; that, in spite of the onerous taxes imposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only been able to balance his accounts by reducing the amount heretofore applied to Sinking Fund by three and a-half millions a year, besides making some very formidable raids on the old Sinking Fund, which is being largely diverted from its original object; and that simultaneously with this enormous increase of Imperial there has been a very large increase of local taxation and expenditure. It is very generally thought

749
that this huge increase in the public burden a mainly, if not entirely, on account of armaments. This view, however, is wholly incorrect. The increase of naval and military expenditure during the last five years has only been ten millions, as compared to an increase of twenty-one millions in civil expenditure.
I am aware that hardy optimists, who either cannot or will not look the real facts of the situation in the face, airily brush aside all warnings based on these Stupendous figures with the comforting commonplace reflection that similar warnings have often been given before, and that in past times the event has falsified the predictions made by prophets of evil. I do not in the least deny it. I was reading not long ago that in the middle of the eighteenth century a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Bathurst, said that one of the most distinguished mathematicians of the day had foretold that the country would be irretrievably ruined if an attempt was made to raise a revenue of five millions in any one year, and fifty years ago Mr. Gladstone, whose very sound financial principles have been cast to the winds by his successors, said—
"There is no country that can go on raising seventy millions in time of peace with impunity. England cannot, and, if England cannot, no country can."
I wonder what Mr. Gladstone would think if he could be told that in time of peace we are raising, not seventy millions, but 152 millions, exclusive of some thirty millions of revenue not derived from taxation properly so-called. The fallacy which underlies all the conclusions based on the falsity of past predictions is this—that whereas it may be said, broadly speaking, that in the past the increase of the public burthens has been in some degree proportionate to the growing wealth and prosperity of the country, such is by no means the case at present. We have a falling birth-rate; we have to deal with a population which is but slowly increasing by comparison with former times. The growth of expenditure has by far outstripped that of population. Some twenty years ago the total Imperial expenditure amounted to no more than £2 11s. per head of population. It is now considerably over £3 per head.
I am not going into the question of whether all this increase of expenditure has or has not been justified. I quite
750
admit that in view of the urgent need for social reform, which is universally recognised, much of it was justifiable. Neither will I deal with the methods adopted for raising the revenue required to meet this expenditure beyond saying that, however objectionable some features in those methods may have been, I have always recognised that the income of the income Tax-paving classes has enormously increased of late years, and that I therefore hold that, supposing the money to have been really required, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly justified in placing the main burthen on those who pay direct taxes, But I do say that, in view of the perfectly reckless manner in which liabilities of unknown amount have been incurred without any provision being made to meet them, and in view moreover, of the manner in which the large revenue derived from the Sugar Duties was unnecessarily sacrificed, there never was a moment in our history when strict financial control over the proceedings, not only of the Government, but of the House of Commons was more urgently required than at present. Yet this is the moment chosen to sweep entirely away the financial control heretofore exercised by your Lordships' House. I do not say that, in view of the very limited powers claimed by this House, that control could ever have been very effective or complete. It could never have interfered, nor did it ever claim to interfere, in detail. But, my Lords, it was better than nothing. It was, at all events, a control exercised by a body less exposed than the other House to ephemeral gusts of passion.
We are often told—and we have heard a good deal on the subject in this debate—that your Lordships' House is not sufficiently in touch with popular feeling. I do not deny that there is some force in the criticism, but I am not at all sure that being in touch with popular feeling is the quality exclusively required in those who have to watch over the increase of the public burthens. It is a quality apt to degenerate into a complete inability to resist unreasonable popular demands, especially in matters of finance. Reading over a short while ago for the second time that very remarkable life of Mr. Gladstone, written by the noble Viscount opposite, I came across the following passag—
"No Chancellor of the Exchequer" ['Mr. Gladstone said]" is worth his salt who makes his own popularity either his first consideration or any consideration at all in administering public affairs:"

751
Those were the opinions held by one of the greatest State financiers whom this country has ever produced, at whose feet I sat in my youth, and the adoption of whose financial principles led, I may remark incidentally, to the rescue of Egypt from a state of bankruptcy. Can it be maintained for one moment that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has acted in accordance with this very sound principle? To the outside public it would certainly appear that the present Government, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the most important members, have given a more prominent place to the popularity than to the soundness of their financial proposals. Concession after concession has been made—each popular, each costly, and each, as it appears to me, based on the temporary Parliamentary or electoral necessities of the moment rather than on a statesmanlike appreciation of the permanent interests of the country. The last measure is that of payment of Members of Parliament, as to which Mr. Gladstone once said that—
"of all the changes that may in the course of generations be made in the constitution of this country, he trusted that the very last and latest will be the payment of Members of Parliament."
My Lords, I am waiting with some anxiety to know whether this vitally important change, which is more important in its political than in its financial aspects, will be regarded as a measure wholly within the competence of the House of Commons, and will thus be abstracted from the cognisance of your Lordships' House. If the latter proceeding is adopted, it appears to me that a more flagrant instance of "tacking" could scarcely be conceived. One is tempted to ask oneself how long will this last—Quousque tandem? Will a moment ever arrive when His Majesty's Government will realise that there are other considerations more important than the fleeting popularity of the moment? Throughout the whole of the proceedings of the Government I see no indication whatever of the fundamental truth that that redoubtable, I believe well-intentioned but often misguided giant, Democracy, cannot safely be governed by yielding at the first onslaught to all its wishes and caprices, but that unless disaster is to ensue it must be guided, and at times even saved from the consequences of its own rashness. And yet, in spite of these extreme concessions to democratic sentiment, when we, believing that the people are often much more sensible than their representatives—as has been shown
752
to be the case in Australia—ask that they should really be able to express their opinions by means of the Referendum, the Government, with an inconsistency which cannot be explained away, are horrified at so democratic a measure.
Let me now, in illustration of the use which may be made of the financial control heretofore exercised by this House, call to your Lordships' recollection what occurred in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act. It was that Act, passed in 1908, which necessarily led to the Budget of 1909, and which has brought about the whole of the present Constitutional crisis. Your Lordships may remember that I was not one of those who thought that the Budget of 1909 should have been rejected. I did not think that that was the best way to safeguard the important Conservative and moderate interests, of which your Lordships are now, in reality, the only representatives in this country. But I did think that, looking exclusively to the merits of the case, there were far stronger reasons for exercising the authority of your Lordships' House as regards the legislation of 1908. Then was the time to make an effective protest; in 1909 it was too late. When once the spendthrift legislation of 1908 was passed the money had to be provided somehow, and the production of a Budget in 1909 which would bring about a collision between the two Houses of Parliament was inevitable. There is no subject, however, on which there has been a greater amount of misrepresentation of the views entertained in this House than on this question of Old Age Pensions. It has been stated on every platform in the country that your Lordships were opposed to granting Old Age Pensions. No statement could be more false. What we objected to was taking liabilities without any real knowledge of their extent, and without any idea of how they were to be met when they fell due.
Moreover, we objected to passing a hasty, ill-considered measure, and we thought that if more time had been given for reflection a much more thorough and beneficial scheme could be worked out by adopting the principle of contributory payments. My Lords, will any impartial man, who is not carried away by party spirit, now have the assurance to say that we were not quite right? I venture to say that we have been right on every point. The original estimate of the cost of Old Age Pensions was

753
6 millions. My noble friend, Lord Curzon, the other day said, if I remember rightly, that it would cost 10 millions. I ventured to correct him and said 12. My Lords, I was wrong; I ought to have said 13 millions. But we now never think in less than seven figures, and the mere addition of a million appears to be considered a matter of but trifling importance. Moreover, we were told two years ago that it was quite impossible to prepare a scheme on a contributory basis; yet what has now happened? Only two years have elapsed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after paying a hurried visit to Germany, comes forward with a plan which, so far as its general principle is concerned, has met with universal acceptance, and which ratifies the very principle which was scornfully rejected but a short time ago.
There is one further point in connection with this measure to which I should like to draw attention. An Amendment was moved by myself in your Lordships' House and carried by a large majority, not in any way hostile to the principle of Old Age Pensions, but merely providing that the scheme introduced in 1908 should lapse in a few years, and thus enable a more thorough plan, based on a contributory principle, to be worked out. If that Amendment had been accepted by
the. House of Commons the result would have been that in course of time a far better scheme than that which now exists would have been created, and that the wholly gratuitous principle would have gradually disappeared without any harm being done to the actual holders of pensions. I cannot help thinking that future Chancellors of the Exchequer will have reason to regret that that Amendment was not passed into law. My Lords, this Amendment was not rejected because any solid arguments were produced against it. Many of your Lordships may remember the debate which took place in this House; they may remember the halting defence which was made by noble Lords opposite of the proposals of the present Government; they may remember that the ominous silence of some of the most distinguished of noble Lords opposite certainly engendered the suspicion that some members of the present Government were not very enthusiastic supporters of the policy of their colleagues. But though, as I venture to think, worsted in argument, our proposal was rejected merely because it emanated from the House of Lords. I venture to say that although
754
we were overborne on this point, the mere fact that criticisms of the nature of those to which I now allude were made in this House shows that the financial control of the House of Lords may at times be highly beneficial to the public interests. It is now, however, to be swept away, and what is it proposed to put in its place? Absolutely nothing. Experience has taught us to what an extent the present Government can be considered as efficient guardians of the public purse, and as to the control of the House of Commons it is quite clear that it is not only absolutely illusory, but that that body, whatever may be its other merits, will always encourage rather than check reckless expenditure. So far as I know, the only criticisms that have been made by the leading Radicals of that House have been directed against that branch of the national expenditure which, however regrettable, is absolutely necessary in order to ensure our existence as an independent nation—I mean naval and military expenditure.
For these reasons, my Lords, as I said at the commencement of my remarks, I am unwilling to allow this Bill to be read a second time without entering an earnest protest against the destruction of the only feeble barrier which now exists to check the growth of the public burthens. And, my Lords, in doing so, let me add that I feel assured that a day of reckoning will come. Matters will, I do not doubt, go fairly well as long as times are prosperous and no great political or commercial crisis ensues. But if ever this country is engaged in war, it will be found than as the result of the financial policy of the present Government there will be no fiscal reserve on which to fall back, and that we shall have to pay for war expenditure, not, as heretofore, largely out of revenue, but entirely out of borrowed money, which, in view of the great depreciation of the national credit which has taken place, we shall have to raise at a ruinous rate of interest. Then, my Lords, I think sober-minded people will begin to reflect that a great error was made in bestowing unrestricted financial power upon a Single Chamber and upon a Government which must owe its existence to the extent to which it will be able to gratify the extravagance of which that Chamber is certain to approve.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to give a silent vote, if a vote be required at all, upon this notable Bill. When questions

755
of sheer or mere Party politics are before the House I retain the view I have always expressed that the less the Bishops take part in the clash of arms upon such topics the better. This is not such an occasion. A great change in the Constitutional relations of the two Houses of Legislature is proposed, a change—and this is the point I want to make—which has already virtually received the approval, in very many of its parts, of both sides in polities. I can neither reduce such a proposal to the petty dimensions of some Party strife, nor can I feel that the Bishops, who, after all, are the oldest part of the Legislature of the kingdom, ought to allow it to pass without some word or comment.
I desire to draw a contrast between the picture of facts as they were two years ago and the picture of facts as they are to-day. Two years ago the country rang with denunciations of the House of Lords. Some of them were so grossly exaggerated as to be merely travesties or burlesques of the facts. Others, whether highly coloured or not, were so far intended to be honest and accurate that they were, at all events, deserving of respect and attention, and they gave the orators' view of the situation. Such descriptions were agreed in this. All depicted, and, with something more than a measure of truth, all were directed to denunciations of a house purely hereditary, a House that claimed the right to reject Money Bills as well as others, and a House which claimed unlimited power in regard to all legislation other than Money Bills. That picture lent itself well to lurid street hoardings, and to vociferous oratory, and people will long remember the period of those denunciations and their sequel. That picture does explain—I am prepared, for the sake of argument, to say it even justifies—the claim that was then put forward, the need that was then expressed of root and branch legislation to restrain, to cripple a body of men who, simply as hereditary legislators, were so acting. Many members of this House on the Government Benches made speeches to that effect.
Turn to the actual facts to-day, painted as accurately, as cold-bloodedly, as you can. The House of Lords, whether rightly or wrongly—that is not my point at all—has deliberately divested itself of no small part of its claims and attributes. If it has its way, if its Resolutions are made effective, it will no longer exercise the power of rejecting Money Bills. That is gone, and
756
gone by its own act. With regard to other legislation, it has cut down, I will not say abandoned but largely cut down—we may even say that it has actually abandoned—its claim finally to reject Bills by its own vote alone. It makes definite and far-reaching, and surely conciliatory, proposals, whether they are wise or unwise is no matter, for destroying, either by Joint Sessions or the Referendum, the powers it has hitherto used of free and unrestrained rejection of legislation of an ordinary kind. But above all it has declared, not by Resolution, but by a Bill read unanimously a second time, that it will, if it has its way, be no longer the mere hereditary House which was denounced, but will, in its largest part, consist of members brought in by election or nomination from outside. Right or wrong, wise or unwise, these proposals at present hold the field, and they are the handiwork of the House itself.
The two pictures are so widely different that it might be said that they have very little in common, and yet, by a judicious use of generalities, the declamatory speeches, the vituperative articles, sometimes even the caricatures which did duty two years ago, are made to do duty still, and are applied to conditions almost as different as can be imagined from those for which they were originally compiled or given forth. That applies in some degree even to speeches in Parliament, even to speeches in this House. Nothing less like a declamatory harangue could be imagined than the calm and reasoned and considerate speech of the noble Viscount who spoke yesterday on behalf of His Majesty's Government; but his main argument seemed to me to be one which might with equal effectiveness, and perhaps with more appropriateness, have been used two years ago, than it could be used now. In an opening sentence of his speech the noble Viscount, in grave tones, stated that the Bill was rendered necessary by the rejection of the Budget in 1909. I was no party to that rejection, and I am not discussing it, for good or for evil, now, but, when that incident is claimed as now necessitating this Bill, it is surely material to remember that the House itself has said that the claim to act in that particular way is now dropped or abandoned for good.
My plea is this. We want to look at the facts with straightforward honesty and simplicity. We want to reduce the outstanding

757
divergence to its true dimensions and to see the facts as they really are to-day. I am a poor mathematician, but I recall the rule, Reduce your fractions to their lowest terms. So reduced, does the outstanding difference between the policy to-day declared by the two Parties in the State, important as that difference may be, loom large enough to justify the chaos and the confusion with which we are threatened if no arrangement of any kind be arrived at? How does the matter stand, putting incidental and trifling parts of it on one side? The Government introduce a Bill providing, first, no rejection henceforward by the House of Lords of purely Money Bills. So says the House itself. It has gone the whole length to meet you in this way, and, if you will, the remedy that you suggest is already granted. The Government Bill next proposes the curtailment of the power of rejecting other Bills. The House has gone far to meet that too. I am not discussing the methods of the proposed via salutis, whether by Joint Sessions, the Referendum, or the rest; but, at all events, it is prepared to go a very long way in that direction. And, most important of all, though that is not in the Bill, is the point that the House to be dealt with in the future will no longer be the hereditary body which has been so lustily bethumped in the past, but it will be a different body, to which the old speeches will, surely, be quite inapplicable.
Then notice that all the changed conditions in the controversy, all these advances and concessions, if you call them so, have come from one side. The Opposition has said, "We recognise the difficulty of the situation; we recognise, if you will, the inequality of which complaint has been made. We propose a way to meet it." You cannot, after that, argue as if these proposals had not been made as an inherent part of the controversy which we have now to face and settle. Of course, there remain the points of possible, of, I dare say, probable difference in large details of the Bill. We may have suggestions—they were almost foreshadowed last night—of modifications, about which I know nothing. They seem to relate to what might be called "the wholesaleness" of some of the Bill's provisions. About that I have no knowledge whatever, but surely these must be matters which are capable of negotiation, of arrangement, add of mutual concession.
I venture, I hope not wrongly, to draw
758
good augury in that direction from the notable speech of Lord Morley, to which I have already referred. Let the take two examples of what I mean—matters in that speech which seem to me to offer good hope that this question is at least capable of a solution other than that of mere force and strife. The noble Viscount quoted with care and in detail the speech made by the then Leader of the House, Lord Crewe, in November, 1909, with regard to the difficulties under which the Front Bench of the Liberal Party were placed in this House. But that speech was made, and was presumably endorsed by the noble Viscount in the same sense, not as complaining of the position of those Peers when their Government is in office, but when they are in Opposition. Here are the words—
"We retired into exile for several years; and in fifteen years of Opposition I can say with all honesty that I cannot recall a single case when or my noble friends…did the slightest good to any human being by attendance in the House cannot recall a case when anything we said here had the slightest effect. I cannot recall a case when any Amendment of substance to any of the Bills of the then Government, were modified at our instance."
Your Lordships will note that this is a complaint, not of the difficulty of the position of noble Lords on the Liberal side when their Government is in office, but of their difficulty when they are in Opposition. It may be a serious grievance that no Amendment of substance to any Government Bill was carried at their instance, but I should have thought that, real as that grievance may be for an Opposition, it is not peculiar to the House of Lords. I should imagine that the minority on the Opposition Benches in the House of Commons ordinarily, at all events, find some little difficulty in carrying Amendments of substance as against a Government measure. But, if it be, as the noble Viscount feels and as Lord Crewe felt, a grievance that such Amendments of substance were not readily accepted from the Opposition in this House, it is impossible to suppose that that grievance will be allowed to recur now. There was then a very small Opposition, there is now a very large Opposition, and if it was a grievance that; noble Lords on the Opposition Benches were unable to obtain a fair and successful hearing for Amendments which they proposed to a Government Bill, we have the noble Viscount's virtual responsibility for feeling that such a grievance would not, presumably be allowed to be repeated under other circumstances now.

759
Then the noble Viscount referred to the very important incident of 1869, the Irish Church negotiations, his point being that this House has known on great occasions how to yield, when yielding was for the public good and for the nation's gain. I hold in my hand the actual half sheets upon which Mr. Gladstone and Lord Cairns respectively made the annotations as to what they thought was possible by way of negotiation with a view to a settlement of that controversy. I have retained these half sheets, in the handwriting of those notable men, as an interesting record of a great Parliamentary incident, but I have kept them, too, as evidence of the willingness and power of a great Prime Minister—one of the greatest Prime Ministers in English history—in the very moment of his triumph, to deal in a reasonable and conciliatory spirit with conscientious opponents who desired amendment in his Bill rather than plunge the country into fresh and disastrous strife. Have we not ground for saying it is of good augury that the noble Viscount should refer so markedly to that particular incident in connection with the perplexities of to-day? What I am trying to urge now is that honesty of statement does require at this juncture the admission that the field of controversy has been surprisingly narrowed. The acceptance of the opponents' position has been most remarkable, at least on one side of the House. Is it out of place, is it presumptuous, that a man who sits in this House with no hereditary qualifications and certainly with no outstanding personal claim, but who sits here upon the oldest tenure of any member of the House, yes, and sits here with his friends on the Episcopal Benches in order to further what is true and peaceable and for the common good, should make an appeal to both sides at this moment of great Constitutional difficulty? Hitherto, so far as I can see, all concession in this controversy has emanated from one side. Yes; so far. Now the opportunity has come, or will come, for that fair play which we have heard so often asked for. It is certainly not least with His Majesty's Government that the power of using or missing that opportunity will rest.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships must feel how entirely appropriate to his vocation and his great position in this country is the language of peace and good will which we have heard from the most rev. Primate. It is always
760
easy to make appeals to the House, but it is not easy to make them in such impressive tones as the most rev. Primate has adopted. He depicts to us a situation of approximate agreement, as though that had been already attained. Surely every one must know that it is only a few days ago the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, told us that this was a measure which he would meet with implacable hostility. Is it any use then trying to make us believe that we are not in the presence of a grave Constitutional crisis, an important stage of a great Constitutional development, which does not, I am sorry to say, at present offer to my mind any promise of such a settlement as the most rev. Primate indicated? Indeed, he did not indicate any method by which we were to attain this settlement; not a single suggestion of a practical kind, because he knew perfectly well that the only suggestion he could make to the Government was that after all which has passed we should now withdraw the Bill before the House. I always regret to appear in any unduly controversial attitude, but I think your Lordships will feel as practical men that we are not able to assent to the proposal, the only proposal which really was involved in the most rev. Primate's speech.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very sorry to interrupt. Nothing was further from my thought than that the Bill should be withdrawn. I indicated some modification or amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very sorry if I have misunderstood the most rev. Primate. If any amendment is suggested in Committee, then will be the time for us to consider it and not at the present time.
Let me recall as uncontroversially as I can the history of this Bill. In the year 1909 we found ourselves driven to break up a great majority after a period of four years of Parliamentary life. Try, my Lords, to put yourselves in our position. Put yourselves in the position of a Liberal who really did care for the measures which were before this House, but did not pass through this House from 1906 down to 1909. We had been practically out of office for twenty years. We had a crop of measures which commended themselves to our own convictions as being essential for the welfare of the country. You may have differed from us, but those were the opinions which we entertained. I will not dwell upon the subject unduly, but your Lordships all

761
know what happened to the three or four Bills the last of which was the Finance Bill in the year 1909. We were frustrated and humiliated, and my own feeling at the time was that if this kind of thing went on Parliamentary labour had no further attractions for me at all. It meant that after great labour and toil in preparing complicated and difficult measures, after great exhaustion in the House of Commons, sitting sometimes right through the year, depriving ourselves of holidays, sitting sometimes all night, we found we had no chance if there was any real opposition on the part of certain strong vested interests of getting our measures through this House. It breaks the hearts of reformers to be defeated and broken at every point and unable to carry anything they desire to see added to the Statute-book. We were driven to the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, last night said that we had not given the Opposition the opportunity of preparing their alternative. Why, it was they who were the authors of the Dissolution of January, 1910. Had they not themselves prepared the alternative policy which they were going to propound to the country
for the reform of the House of Lords when they themselves prepared the Dissolution which took place? My Lords, they had that opportunity; they propounded no alternative policy then. Then in the spring of 1910 Lord Rosebery brought forward his Resolutions, which I quite agree were a distinct advance. But the criticism I made at the time was this—you could not tell from those Resolutions what was to be the structure of the new House of Lords which was adumbrated. You did not know the crucial point—namely, what was to be the relative strength of Liberals and Conservatives in the reformed House of Lords. Then came the Conference. That seems to be an incident altogether forgotten. The Conference failed because the leaders on both sides were unable to come to terms. They avowed their desire but were unable to come to terms and the Conference therefore broke up.
What was the position that left us in? Supposing we had begun again to negotiate, what was the use? We had just seen the impossibility of arriving at a conclusion by negotiation and agreement. The General Election of January, 1910, was treated as having no significance at all. Is it really true that a General Election is to mean everything
762
when the Conservative Party wins and to mean nothing when the Liberal Party wins? We were driven to another election at the end of 1910, and then again the country repeated, one might say totidem verbis, or totidem suffragiis at all events, the verdict which they had before given and which had been inoperative and disregarded and spurned by Mr. Balfour as having no significance or importance. Here we are now five months after that election. If ever there was a direction given by a vote of the community to a Government which appealed to them, a direction was given to bring in the Bill which is now before your Lordships. It was lying in black and white available for everybody to criticise and had been so for six months. It was made the main and crucial point—and no election ever turns on one point alone—at the General Election by both sides, and now we are only asking your Lordships to carry out that which you have always professed your readiness to do, the opinion expressed by the people directly at the General Election. I am sure your Lordships will not think I am disrespectful when I say that this will be a test of the sincerity—which I do not question—of those declarations is it to be said that after this has happened your Lordships will defy the expression of opinion which has been faithfully rendered by the House of Commons on the direct instruction of the people at large?
Let me turn to another side of this subject and point out that notwithstanding that this stage of the controversy is really concluded by the circumstances to which I have referred, yet that does not preclude the possibility of agreement upon the ulterior problems concerning this subject. There are hopeful signs that there may be matter for consent hereafter. Not only is the Bill of the noble Marquess a very great advance, but, in the concluding passages in the speech he made to the House, just before it gave a Second Reading to that Bill, he used some very significant language. He conveyed that he would not attach any very excessive importance to the question of numbers of either side, Liberal or Conservative, when the composition of the new House of Lords was being considered. I must not put too strict or too extensive an interpretation upon that language, but from our point of view it is a very hopeful sign. The real point upon that part of the speech is this, Will the Conservative Party give us as good an

763
opportunity as they themselves have of passing measures through the reconstructed House of Lords? Will they equalise between the two Parties the restraint that is hereafter to be possessed by the reconstructed House of Lords? Let there be a Second Chamber that is fair to all Parties and it may well be that then some method of procedure which involves less delay and which is more expeditious than that proposed by the present Bill may be found to commend itself to all Parties. Of this I am sure, that it is only by recognising the real needs of equality and fair play between the two Parties that there will be any possibility of that result. If that real equality is given it may well be that fresh relations may hereafter, by common consent, be established.
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, spoke last night as if his chief dread of this Bill was that it might be used to further a Home Rule Bill. I do not wish the House to be under misapprehension. They know the policy of the Government involves Home Rule for Ireland; not only so, but I venture to say that when that subject comes forward we shall find a very different tone and temper towards it from the country at large and from the Conservative Party than prevailed in the unhappy efforts which we have made before. The younger members of the Conservative Party are largely in favour of some measure which may fairly be called Home Rule, and some of the more experienced and leading members of the Party are so too, and the Press and many Conservative influences in quite recent times have shown that they are not prepared to offer the obstinate resistance that has been offered in the past to a measure of this kind. Our people are beginning to see that there are very vital causes why we should endeavour to deal with this question in a way satisfactory to Ireland. There are the Imperial reasons that we may not have this as a constant source of weakness and reproach; there are the Irish reasons why we should apply that principle of reconciliation which has been so successful in South Africa and everywhere else all over the British Dominions to Ireland as well; and there are the Parliamentary reasons, visible to anybody who chooses to consider the present congestion of business of the House of Commons and the urgent need for the reform of that House in that respect. For my part, I should think that Parliamentary reform would be of comparatively
764
little value if it did not enable us to handle and deal with a subject of that kind in a way which for five-and-twenty years I have desired myself to see it settled. I should greatly regret if the spirit which the most rev. Primate indicated were absent from this House either now or at any time, but I do feel it would be encouraging an illusion if I said that His Majesty's Government could depart from this Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure that no noble Lord on this side listens to the Lord Chancellor without a feeling of respect. That respect arises from the fact that we know that he is a really honest Radical. In this House no one is cried down for any unpopular opinions he may happen to hold, and though there be a large majority on this side of the House, the noble and learned Lord knows well, and the noble Viscount has expressed it to-night, that this House always accords a fair hearing to any member of it, whatever his opinions and in whatever part of the House he may sit. But I must say that I was rather disappointed at the first words of the Lord Chancellor, although I think he partly withdrew them afterwards. The speech of the most rev. Primate enlarged upon the necessity of conciliation, and in it the most rev. Primate pointed out, what is perfectly true, that all the concessions and all the offers so far had come from this side of the House alone. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the debate on the reform of this House, made a speech which, I think, was rather unfortunate in the sternness of the attitude taken up. To-night he ended his speech by saying that the Government adhered to the Bill as it is now before the House, and he added, "You cannot expect us to give up the fruits of victory." He said something of that sort. But then the noble and learned Lord proceeded to enlarge upon the sins of commission of this House. He said that you had rejected Bill after Bill which had been introduced by the Government, but I have noticed that in the country and even in this House noble Lords opposite have acknowledged how your Lordships acceded to their Bills. I myself obtained a Return a year or two ago which showed that more Bills had been passed by this House with less consideration and in a shorter time in this Parliament than in any Parliament during the last century. It is therefore hardly fair to make this charge against your Lordships. Let me take the

765
two most important Bills, next to the Budget, which were not passed by this House. Will the noble and learned Lord say that the Licensing Bill was really popular in the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know. I think it very likely that in some quarters it was unpopular, but it was a Bill that was needed for the health of the people, and it is the duty of Parliament to pass such a Bill whether it is popular or not. May I respectfully suggest that to the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble and learned Lord says that the Licensing Bill was needed for the health of the people. Is he certain that the people thought so? After all, whether it be the Referendum or any other means that you take, surely the people have a right to express their opinion. You must also remember that that Bill was not a Licensing Bill pure and simple; it had a part of a Budget tacked on. Then there was the Education Bill, on which there were prolonged negotiations between the two Houses. I do not know exactly the grounds on which they split, but I believe it was something connected with the tenure of teachers. Surely it is not fair to say, because your Lordships thought that teachers ought to be allowed a certain tenure that that is flouting the other House. Then we come to the Budget. It is always being reiterated that this House threw out the Budget. This House did nothing of the kind. What this House did was this. Believing that the principles involved in the Budget were not in favour with the country, it wished the country to decide upon that matter. The country did decide What was the result? The result of the election showed that the Parliament of 1906 did not represent the opinion of the country. It is true that noble Lords opposite came back with a majority of 100 or thereabouts, but that majority was a diminished one, and the new Parliament was entirely different in constitution and temper.
The noble and learned Lord was, I think, also a little unfortunate when he referred to the question of the reform of the House of Lords. I should like to know what the Liberal Party has ever done to assist in reforming the House of Lords. When the Committee was appointed, Lord Crewe, who was then leading the House, threw cold
766
water upon it in every form he could, and he dissuaded his friends from joining. I venture to say, with all respect, that the noble Earl on that occasion unconsciously did great disservice to the House. He certainly did a great disservice to the Committee, because the Committee were prevented from having the full advantage of Liberals upon it. I would appeal to Lord Courtney and one or two other Liberals who did come, whether their proposals were not received with great attention, and whether they ever sat on a Committee which in its constitution, in its methods of doing business, and in its consideration of the whole case, was more impartial or more absolutely without any regard to Party? Then the noble and learned Lord referred to the Conference of last year. I venture to say that your Lordships approach the discussion of this Bill under a great disadvantage, because you have never been informed what took place at that Conference. This House placed its rights and its liberties to a great extent in the hands of that Conference, and I think it has been a great mistake in the public interest that we have never known from that day to this what took place there. I am sure that this secrecy was not owing to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne; nor, I dare say, was it due to Lord Crewe; but they bound themselves to secrecy with regard to their proceedings because they thought that if the proceedings at such a Conference were revealed, such Conferences would become impossible in the future. But the eight gentlemen who took part in it were appointed by Parliament, and surely their colleagues in Parliament had a right to know what occurred. I do not say that there should have been a verbatim report, but surely there ought to have been some official report of what Motions were made and so on, that we might have been in a better position to discuss this matter.
With regard to the Election of 1910, I do not think the circumstances reflect very great credit on His Majesty's Government. They came from the Conference and dissolved in a great hurry in order, for some reason best known to themselves, to obtain a decision on an old and practically dead register. But whatever the reason, I think that if they had really wished to obtain the verdict of the country they would not have endeavoured to snatch the verdict in the way they did upon a register which was almost at its end. The noble and learned

767
Lord said that the noble Marquess had made some remark which had given him hope. The noble Marquess, I believe, said that he was not very particular about the exact numbers of Peers. I believe he said that in the thoroughly impartial and honest spirit which always characterises his speeches. If it was merely a matter of numbers I do not think there would have been any difficulty. At all events, I cannot believe there would have been any in arriving at an arrangement. But what did the noble and learned Lord and the Government do with regard to that matter? They declined to take any part whatsoever in putting forward that Bill. They say that they must have in this House a balance which is fair to all Parties. I am at a loss to understand what this equality of opportunity and so on means. Wherever you have an Assembly which is made up of men who are not obliged to have recourse to electors, their attitude is one which it is much more difficult to calculate upon than the attitude of those who are elected. It is a well known fact that a great many men who at one time sat on that side of the House have come across to this side. Do noble Lords mean that the House must be divided into two equal parties, whatever may be the principles of the measures put forward? So far as I understand it, that is what their words mean. Do noble Lords mean that whenever a measure is brought in such as the late Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill and noble Lords cross the floor of the House that the balance of the House is then to be redressed by some automatic process? I will not follow the noble and learned Lord into what he said about Home Rule, but it is evident that one of the main reasons for putting forward this Bill is to drive Home Rule through Parliament. Your Lordships are recognised, at all events by the Irish, to be the main obstacle to the passing of such a measure. I think that on such a Constitutional measure as that of Home Rule the people ought always to have something to say about it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, in his introduction of the Parliament Bill, said that on examination it would be found not to be so revolutionary as we supposed. I cannot agree with the most rev. Primate that there was a great deal of conciliation in Lord Morley's speech, for the noble Viscount said clearly and distinctly—he has said it on a previous occasion—that, whether reformed or unreformed, the House of Lords
768
must have its powers of stopping legislation taken away. I cannot conceive a greater revolution. If that is not revolution, then what is? Whether you look at this Bill from the point of view of drafting, or to the substance of it, it is without precedent. Take the Preamble. If it went upstairs to one of your Private Bill Committees three-fourths of it would be cut out at once as having nothing to do with the Bill. The Preamble runs—
Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:
And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:
Did any one ever read such a Preamble? Why, I would like to know, were words put into the Preamble of the Bill when they have nothing whatsoever to do with its contents? We were told—I do not know whether it is correct or not, but it certainly was currently reported—that those paragraphs were put in to conciliate the scruples of the moderate men. If that is so, it was a work of supererogation, because though those men talk a great deal, when it comes to action they toe the line and vote with the most extreme men in the Party. What, for instance, has become of the Liberal Imperialists? On that point, perhaps, the noble Earl on the Cross Benches could give us some very interesting information were he so disposed. A Chamber such as that which appears in this Bill is not to be found in any country which is possessed of representative institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, said that they had not invented this. All I can say is that no one ever saw such a Chamber as you propose.
The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, said that such powers as it is proposed to leave to this House would rest no longer on the disputed survival of an antiquated right but on the firmly defined creation of a modern Statute. But how long is that Statute likely to last? Is the authority of that Statute any greater than the authority of those principles on which our Constitution is established? What is to prevent a noble Lord three or four years hence coming here and saving that we have used these powers of delay in an unwise and improper manner and introducing a further Bill to take away the remaining powers of the House? This Bill is really founded on the necessities of the Government, who have to depend for

769
their existence upon the Nationalist vote. It is through the Irish and also the Welsh and Labour Members that Ministers live and move and have their being. Mr. John Redmond and his satellites have reminded the Government of that in language the reverse of complimentary, but they have always taken it lying down. The noble Viscount seemed surprised at our cheering when he referred to his Party being described as a log-rolling coalition; but what else is it? Let me quote to him his own words; they describe this coalition so well that it leaves nothing to be desired—
"The more numerous the reasons that bring a great body of men together, the more obvious it is that their concentrating on one particular point shows the depth of the feeling that they have for their own interests and for the interests of the other groups that work with them."
Certainly, they have the very greatest regard for their own interests, and they promote them quite independently of the general good of the country. With regard to their caring for the interests of the other groups, I am not quite sure of that. I have seen disputes between them as to which was to come first, and I have seen arrangements made that one was to come first and the other was to follow immediately afterwards. If that is not log-rolling, pray what is? The Party in power is formed of several Parties, each having a particular interest of its own and putting that interest forward quite irrespective of the general public advantage. As for concentrating on one point, they have all concentrated on this House because, weak Second Chamber as it is, it is the only obstacle which intervenes between them and the attainment of their wishes.
It is said that this House is partisan, and that there must be equality of chances. But how do you obtain this equality of chances? By loading the dice and
upsetting the Constitution? There is no surer way of getting rid of an enemy than by throttling him, and that is exactly what this Bill proposes to do to this House. We are told that if we would only pass this Bill we should repair and render stable the Constitution, we should bring about tranquillity, and very probably conduce to co-operation. But what substance is there in those fine words? How is it proposed to carry these things out? Is the Constitution likely to be more stable when the Government have forced down the throats of this House a Bill which offends the
770
opinions of at least half of the people? Is tranquillity or co-operation likely to be secured by an act not of statesmanship but of violence? This Bill is a violent Bill. No other word will describe it. You may pass the Bill now, but if you do you cannot help creating a burning sense of wrong and injustice that will rankle in the minds of your political opponents and I believe in the minds of at least half the people of this country, and you will introduce a new and a bitter spirit into politics. How that will bring about better relations between the two Parties I for one fail to understand. It would be much better for the Government to at once abolish the Second Chamber, to act straightforwardly and do what they mean. Just see what the position is. The Government say that they are opposed to the hereditary principle, but that they are not going to touch it, at all events for the present—it may be that they consider that it may be useful to them in a variety of ways hereafter. With regard to a Second Chamber they say, "We are in favour of a Second Chamber, but at the smile time by this Bill we will take away all effectual power from the Second Chamber." It is foolish to attempt to disguise that this Bill will take away all effectual powers from the Second Chamber.
LORD ILKESTON: My Lords, I listened to the debate which took place on the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess, and I think there was one feature of it which must have struck every member of this House. In spite of the ability and the eloquence with which the noble Marquess introduced the Reconstitution Bill, in spite of many great and vigorous speeches, that debate was unreal from beginning to end. It lacked real substance and real earnestness, and all through it there was the flavour and the thought of this Bill now before us and the discussion to follow. In those circumstances it is very natural that that debate should have been unreal in its character and tone. There is, however, a marked contrast in the debate which is now proceeding. This debate has what the other debate lacked—a certain amount of earnestness, nay, almost a grim earnestness, in the way in which it is being carried out and the way the Bill has been received and supported and denounced. I think that is very natural.
Although I am a very new member of this House and one who is bound to look upon

771
this Bill more from the point of view of an old politician than as a member of the House of Lords, yet I am bound to admit that I have the greatest sympathy with noble Lords who denounce this measure as an invasion of their rights and a revolutionary proposal. It is natural. There is as much human nature in this House as elsewhere, and I never knew anybody yet who had to face the possibility of losing his rights and privileges who did not denounce the proposer and emphatically object. But while that is so, I am very much astonished at the way
in which this Bill has been received by noble Lords opposite. I would specially refer to the speech of the noble Viscount who followed the Leader of the House. He began his speech with all that declamatory eloquence which we used to listen to and admire so much in the House of Commons. I had the pleasure of sitting opposite to the noble Viscount for many years in the other House and listening to language, possibly a little stronger, a little more forcible, but of the same class as the language he used yesterday. That language was in denunciation of this Bill and its proposer in this House, Lord Morley. It began in the superlative degree, and ended very lowly in the positive. It was very strong in the beginning, but the conclusion of that speech was one that one could never have anticipated from the manner in which he denounced the Bill in the beginning. He reminded me, when he said that neither he nor his friends proposed to object to the Second Reading of this revolutionary measure, very much of Pistol who, in that discussion he had with Fluellen, said this: "By this leek, I will most horribly revenge: I eat and eat, I swear." The noble Viscount's speech concluded with that threat of revenge, and, like Pistol, although practically eating the leek on this occasion, he said that in the future he and his friends would take a proper and adequate revenge for the indignity forced upon them now. I hope that that spirit, as time goes on, will wear down and become gentle, and that this House will endeavour to co-operate with those sitting on this side in bringing about through this a lasting peace, and an end to our troubles and our grievances.
This Bill, described in such strong terms by some of the speakers, is naturally open to attack, because I am honestly bound to confess that I regard it as the beginning of the end of the old system. The old
772
system must pass away and give place to influences and methods that are new, but I think this departure from the old system which is hurrying on the advent of the new system is due largely to the action of this House in using its powers unwisely during the last few years. Ever since that great trouble that we had in 1886 there has been growing up in this House in its relations to the other House a spirit of arrogant resistance which has led us to the present position. Time after time we have had exhibitions of that, and none more striking or more serious than those which have occurred during the last few years. I believe that a wiser and more careful use of the powers of this House might have kept unchanged the absolute Veto for many years longer. Unfortunately that course has not been pursued, and we find ourselves in the position in which we are now joined in an issue that must be fought to the end. When once begun, it must be finished. It has been going on ever since 1886, when the balance of Parties in this House was so greatly changed by the action of the Liberal Party in advocating Home Rule. That stripped the Benches on this side, filled up the Cross Benches, and flooded the Opposite Benches with members who had up to that time been followers of the Liberal Party. The moment that great change took place the attitude of this House, as was natural, inevitably became altered in relation to the House of Commons. But numbers were mistaken for strength, and gradually, year by year, this House grew more arrogant in its relations to the elected House, more determined to exercise to the full its powers of absolute Veto against legislation that it did not like. As I say, it was almost inevitable that numbers should be mistaken for strength, and for years this House has revelled in its power of checking and thwarting Liberal legislation.
Yet all the time that this was going on in this Chamber, there was growing up outside a stronger and a more organised democracy than this country has ever seen. During those years under a Liberal Government measures were passed winch took into every small village in the country, as well as into every great city a breath of democracy illustrated by the establishment of parish councils, urban district councils, and municipalities, until the people by their daily life and in every function from day to day became impregnated with the right and just notion that the proper persons to

773
look after their interests were persons elected by themselves, representatives of the great democracy. That democratic spirit has spread throughout the length and breadth of the land, and since 1886 has become so potent that this country is no longer what it was in the olden times, but is a great democracy governed by freely elected representatives in every county, in every village, and every borough. But, as I say, while the movement outside these walls was going in that direction, inside these walls the attitude of a privileged class, not elected, and not representative, was more than ever strongly opposed to legislation sent up to them in the name of the elected representatives of the people. You cannot have two opposing currents of thought more likely to bring about a clash and a conflict than those which were going on at the same time—one inside this Chamber, the other outside in the country at large. And the people, trained in this way, naturally more and more looked to the elected Chamber to be the master of their destiny. Once you have a question in dispute repeated from time to time between a Chamber of non-elected Peers and a Chamber elected by seven and a-half millions of voters, the issue must be joined. No man who has ever read history, or who has ever thought over the progress of events, can have any doubt, when that issue is joined as between the elected representatives of a Chamber representing seven and a-half millions and a Chamber consisting of 600 men, not elected and not representative, as to that issue being in the end in favour of the people. You cannot have any other result. No other result is conceivable to those who really understand the feelings of the great democracy. And this is why we want this measure passed. We are pressing it in the interests of peace, and, I think, of goodwill between the people outside this Chamber and those who sit within.
In his speech the other day, the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, said that we confused the House of Commons with the people. Well, I am not ashamed to meet that challenge. I take the House of Commons to be what one of the greatest authorities we ever had in this country, speaking on such a subject, described it, "the complete image of the nation." That was Burke's view of the House of Commons, and when I think of taking an opinion as to what the House of Commons is and what
774
its powers ought to be I am bound to prefer the authority of Burke to that of Lord Midleton. It is "the image of the nation" that is asking us now to so alter our position that it may have a way through this House, a slow and a deliberate, aye, a tardy and delayed way, for legislation passed in the other House. It is impossible for me, with my training in the House of Commons, to conceive a House resting on "the broad basis of the people's will" and elected by seven and a-half million electors remaining any longer at the mercy of a non-elected Chamber. In 1894 Mr. Gladstone, in one of his last speeches in the House of Commons, used these words—
"It is a state of things which cannot continue."
He said that after your Lordships had mutilated and partly destroyed the Parish Councils Bill. That Bill came back to us mutilated and defaced by Amendments inserted in this House—a Bill on which I spent forty days and forty nights in Committee in the House of Commons trying to get it into shape and get it passed in a form which I knew the villages of England wanted. That Bill came back from this House not nearly as good, according to the popular desire, as the Bill we sent up. The country does not forget those things, and when Mr. Gladstone said that that was a state of things which could not continue he spoke the words of prophecy. It cannot continue if the safety of the nation is to be considered. It is true it has lasted from then till now, but that only shows how patient the British people are. I have always said there is no animal in the world so patient as John Bull. He will do almost anything he is told. He is obedient; you can tie his hands and his feet, and he does not grumble as long as he is not hurt; but once you say to him, "You shan't do a thing" John Bull is a totally different animal. And if this House says to the people of this country," You shan't have legislation," the country will one day wake up in all the plenitude of its wrath and a revolution greater than any we contemplate will result. It is because we hate the prospects of bringing about such a condition as that that we are taking steps to prevent the obstruction of legislation which is desired by the representatives of the people.
In this debate many things have been said in reference to the production of this Bill. Some people say it is produced simply

775
for Party purposes, and that measures will follow which the House of Commons want to pass. It goes much deeper than that. This Bill is the result of slow evolution. It has been growing and growing in the minds of the people for many long years. It started in 1884 when your Lordships were opposed to the Franchise Bill of the Liberal Government of that time, and then it was that Mr. John Bright suggested the proposals of this Bill as the best remedy for meeting the difficulty. He proposed that a Bill passed twice by the House of Commons and twice rejected by the House of Lords should become law immediately after that, without any reference to this Chamber. Those were proposals that at the time appeared exceedingly moderate. There was no outcry in the nation against them. They were even received with complacency and some amount of praise by The Times and the Spectator, and there was no outcry as to their revolutionary character. Now, twenty-seven years after, we come with a Bill which is much more generous than the terms proposed by Mr. Bright. We do not say that a Bill that is rejected twice must of necessity become law without your Lordships' consent, but we say that a Bill should be thrice rejected by the House of Lords, and over a period of not less than two years will that Bill be under consideration before it can finally become law. Under Mr. Bright's scheme it might have happened in a single twelve months, but this Government have had no desire to hurry legislation in that way. All that they have sought by this measure is that the expressed will of the elected House of Commons should be able to make itself effective within the limit of a single Parliament, and this Bill would enable them to carry any great measure in that time under the conditions which are now prescribed. It takes away from your Lordships' House only that power of absolute Veto which I think, with all respect and submission, has been so grossly abused during the last few years.
Some people think that if the power of absolute Veto were lost, this Chamber would cease to have functions. I do not agree for a moment. I think this Chamber would have very important and valuable functions still to perform. Every Bill would have to be considered by your Lordships. Every Bill could be amended and discussed. Every Bill you objected to could be rejected twice, over a period of
776
two years, and during the whole of that time the country would know what you were doing. They would read your Lordships' debates with greater interest than they do now, because they would recognise that you were a deliberative Chamber, considering measures on their merits, not with a view to their final extinction for Party ends, but with a view to their amendment and improvement for the benefit of the nation. By the use of those powers wisely exercised strength and influence would be added to this House, so that your Lordships' power with regard to legislation would be greater than it has been for years past—not greater in the destructive direction, but towards the construction of better and more adequate legislation. It is that which, after all, ought to be the end and aim of everybody assembled to legislate for a nation—to make the construction of legislation as good and as perfect as human ability can devise.
People outside say—and I think I have heard an echo of that sentiment even in this House—that under this Bill we should have hasty and ill-considered legislation. I would ask your Lordships to think for a moment how impossible that would be. Every Bill and every proposal would be discussed in the House of Commons during the three Readings, the Committee stage, and possibly the Report stage, before it came to your Lordships' House for its first consideration. The whole country would know all about its details; it would read the debates, and morning and evening be regaled in the newspapers with articles pro and con on the subject of the measure, and that would extend probably over three or four months of the sittings of the House of Commons. Then the measure would have its First Reading in your Lordships' House. It might possibly pass a Second Reading. If not, there would be a thoroughly adequate debate, the whole nation would be apprised of the grounds upon which you objected to the particular Bill under discussion; and if it passed the Second Reading, your Lordships would amend and alter it in Committee in such a way that it might be more useful to the people and more consonant with the general spirit of the constituencies. All that would go on probably for some five or six months during which the country would be occupied with the Bill. In case it were rejected what would happen? In the next Session of Parliament the Bill would go through the

777
same process. If it were a Bill desired by the people there would be meetings in every constituency; every one of the 669 Members of Parliament would be discussing it with his constituents; every great organ of public opinion in the metropolis and in all the towns and villages throughout the country would have articles on it, and if the Bill were not popular mass meetings of the people outside would very soon tell the House of Commons that they did not want the Bill, and no Government would dare to go on with it. If your criticisms were sound, the Bill would be dead after it had once been rejected by your Lordships'
House. If, on the other hand, popular opinion stuck to the measure and desired its being passed into law, then, after the second rejection by your Lordships and after two years from the introduction of that Bill, then and then only would the Bill become law. There is no danger. None whatever. There is not a tittle of danger of hasty or ill-considered legislation.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in speaking of this Bill the other day—and I always have the greatest respect and regard for anything that falls from the Leader of the Opposition in this House—said that the terms proposed were humiliating and disgraceful. I thought at the moment that that was probably a slight lapse into rhetoric on the part of the noble Marquess, because I do not think those words were quite justified. It is easy to talk of humiliation. For twenty-five years some of us sitting on these benches have tasted the dregs of humiliation. We have had our measures contumeliously treated in this House. As I said before, for forty days and forty nights we sat up in the other House with the Parish Councils Bill, and we had it mutiliated and practically destroyed by your Lordships' House. We have seen other measures, suited, as we thought, to the best interests of the people, rejected by your Lordships—for example, the Licensing Bill, and, what still more rankles in my mind, the Plural Voting Bill, which was a Bill that had no reference whatever to your Lordships' House. That was a Bill to say how the House of Commons was to be elected; how the voters were to vote for their own representatives. It was not a matter which concerned this House, but you treated it with all the indignity in your power. And then you talk to us of humiliation! I say it is we who have suffered humiliation daring the last twenty-five years in the
778
House of Commons. We do not come here, however, on that account in any spirit of revenge, but I would ask noble Lords who talk of humiliation to remember that we have suffered it for a very long period.
With regard to the terms being disgraceful, I submit that in a case like this it is well to meet your enemy at the gate. It is not for the members of the Opposition in this House to dictate terms. They cannot produce in a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords any alternative to this measure. The challenge
which has produced our Bill came from your side. That challenge was taken up, and the answer is this Bill which I hope your Lordships will read a second time. So far from the terms being disgraceful, I think they will leave to this Chamber, if it likes, great powers for public good, powers of initiating and modelling legislation, and of seeing that that legislation is directed to such ends as will conduce to the benefit of all classes of the community. If wise counsels prevail, I can conceive this Chamber growing in power and popularity and esteem, if it works under the conditions enunciated in this Bill, for it will then be able to carry out its chief function—protect all classes of the community by judicious criticism of any proposals that may be submitted to it, and its criticism under those conditions will have a weight and authority that it has never hitherto possessed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think your Lordships are to be congratulated upon the speech to which we have just listened. It is a source of satisfaction, I am sure, to all of us to hear the noble Lord opposite, who, I think, for the first time has taken part this evening in our debates. [Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.] I am told that is not so. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I ought to have said that this is the first time I have had the pleasure of hearing him. I think it is also a source of satisfaction to us that one of the supporters of the Government immediately behind them should have spoken in favour of their policy. That is not a very usual proceeding in your Lordships' House. I was cudgelling my brains during the earlier part of his speech as to how it was he occupied so exceptional a position, and light did not come to me until he began to remind us of that awful act of sacrilege which your Lordships' House committed seventeen

779
years ago in actually having the face to amend the Parish Councils Bill for which the noble Lord himself was so largely responsible. Little did their Lordships of those days think of the dreadful Nemesis which would await them seventeen years afterwards, or that they would bring upon the heads of their successors the unholy wrath of the noble Lord. I am afraid I do not remember what the Amendments were which were inserted in that Bill, and I am quite sure I have never heard those provisions called in question in any part of the United Kingdom since that day. Indeed we hear very little about the Act at all. I doubt whether it deserves the feelings of remorse and indignation which the noble Lord has expended upon it, for from that day to this I do not believe the Parish Councils Act has been the slightest use to any community throughout the length and breadth of this country. But passing that by, I do think that the noble Lord's speech affords a great contrast, and a pleasing contrast, to the speech which was delivered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
What has been the most striking and dramatic circumstance of this afternoon's proceedings? There has been a most dignified, and, may I say, a most eloquent appeal delivered in moving language by the most rev. Primate. He spoke from the elevated position which his office and his own personal character give him in your Lordships' House. He made a solemn appeal to both sides to approach this subject in a spirit of moderation. He was followed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the head of the Judiciary of this country, and one bound, one would think, to take a constitutional and non-partisan view of almost any subject submitted to him. Did he clasp the hand which was held out to him by the Archbishop? Did he advance a single step to meet him? Did he, in those fluent,
sweet, and honeyed words which we always hear from his lips give the least hope or opening for conciliation? Not one word. He banged the door, he bolted it, he locked it. So far as he was concerned, notwithstanding his great position, notwithstanding the enormous importance of the occasion on which he was speaking, he would have nothing to do with conciliation. He left that to Archbishops and non-partisan persons of that description. He, the partisan representative of a partisan Government,
780
intended to have his will, his whole will, and nothing but his will. What was the reason of this extremely unconciliatory attitude of the noble and learned Lord? It was the old story. It was what he called the intolerable wrong which he and his colleagues had suffered since 1906.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The fear of intolerable wrong in the future unless we pass this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt the noble and learned Lord had his eye on the future, but he did not say so. I do not remember whether he said it on this occasion, but it has been often said, that no Liberal Government with any self-respect would continue to hold office under such conditions as have prevailed since 1906. I confess I do not think very much of self-respect which limits public service on this account. Difficulties, of course, have to be encountered in carrying on Government. That is of the very essence of our Constitution. Difficulties do not alone exist in your Lordships' House. They are equally great in another place. Other Governments have had difficulty in passing their legislation, and for the present Government, because of opposition or obstruction of their legislation to come forward and talk about their self-respect being fatally wounded is, to my mind, an entire misconception of recent history. They think it a matter of surprise and a matter for great indignation that in regard to a certain number—a very limited number—of Bills your Lordships' House did resist the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons. As has been said before—I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for repeating it—the truth is that we are entering upon a new epoch. I believe the two noble Lords who have spoken for the Government said so this afternoon. We know the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Haldane, has said so, because he used a most admirable quotation from the speech of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
If, then, we are entering upon a new epoch in which new ideals are to be translated into law, is it surprising that there is a little difficulty in getting all the legislative measures which embody these profound changes passed into law? I appeal to the sense of fairness of every noble Lord who hears me, especially to the Government themselves. If you are really engaged

781
upon establishing a new state of things, would not any Second Chamber in the world make some demur to some of the changes proposed? If half of your claim be true that you are establishing a new and better state of things, with widely extending changes, it would be not only a matter of surprise but a matter of great blame to any Second Chamber who passed all that you proposed without demur. Of course, they must have thrown out some of your Bills, and from your point of view, from the point of view of Progressives and Liberals—or strong Radicals really, because that is what you all are, and I do not think noble Lords opposite would reject the phrase—it is a testimony to the vigour of the measures which you propose that there should be some difficulty on the part of the Second Chamber in translating them into Acts of Parliament. Great changes have been proposed, and the House of Lords has said, "We cannot sanction all these changes until we are satisfied that the country wants them." Is that unreasonable? Could any Second Chamber have said anything else? I do not say that your Lordships' House was always perfectly right. It is possible that we on this side may have made mistakes in certain instances, but, broadly speaking, there cannot be any doubt that a Second Chamber, however constructed, whether on the hereditary or a nominative or an elective basis, would have been bound to throw out some of the more emphatically wide proposals which you desired to pass into law. But they were not refused finally. They were not refused absolutely, as the phrase is. We have always said that we are willing to act upon what the decision of the country might be upon them.
When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave us the history of the last few years as the ground for the situation in which we stand, I thought he entirely misunderstood what had really taken place. He said, "You lost the election of 1910," and then he seemed to think that the reform of the House of Lords ought instantly to follow. I do not quote his words accurately, but he went on to say, "What did we, the Liberal Party, get by the Dissolution of January, 1910? Why, we got the Budget. We got the very thing we went to the country upon." Of course you did; but the noble and learned Lord said they went to the country upon the House of Lords. They know perfectly well that we asked you to go to the country on the
782
Budget. It was the Budget we referred to the country, and the moment the country gave their decision we passed the Budget. Why did you not pass the other legislation which we refused? For example, the Education Bill? Because the
country did not want it. It was quite manifest that the country did not want it, and it is notorious that if noble Lords opposite were now to propose the education legislation which they tried to force through this House, it would be rejected in the House of Commons. That is why the Education Bill has not had exactly the same history as the Budget. Why has not the Licensing Bill been reintroduced? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does not even pretend that the country wanted it. He said with some heat that, however unpopular it was, you ought to have passed it because it was for the health of the country. That is what we call begging the question. We did not think it was for the health of the country. He has not convinced us that we were wrong in that respect, nor can he show that our masters and his—the country—wanted it. Therefore his whole argument on that, as far as the Licensing Bill is concerned, absolutely collapses.
But, of course, we have to deal with the present situation. I, for one, entirely recognise that after the decision of the country at the last election we are bound to accept a great deal which we might not have been willing to accept had that election never taken place. That is perfectly true; but it is entirely consistent with everything I have said to-night, and with every speech which has been made from these Benches. Some Bill, some Parliament Bill, or some change in the relations of the two Houses of Parliament has undoubtedly been sanctioned by the country and must be carried into law. Here we come to the most amazing feature of the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He advocated on behalf of the Government the Second Reading of this Bill, but he said not one word as to any of its provisions. More than that, he was following within a few hours a most cogent speech delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, who gave a very careful, and, I thought, damaging criticism of the Bill. Your Lordships would certainly have expected that the noble and learned Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, would have had some answer to make to some of my noble friend's

783
criticisms. Not a word. He did not deal with a single point contained in my noble friend's speech. There were the old dry bones of the intolerable wrongs of the last six years which I have already described, but there was nothing at all upon the Bill or upon the debate. Is it not amazing that a man of the enormous ability and acuteness of the noble and learned Lord could not find a single word to say in favour of the Government Bill which he is defending? I earnestly hope that the organs of public opinion will make a special note of that fact, that the most distinguished member of His Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House, speaking upon this Bill, which is most particularly his own subject for he is always telling us about the iniquities of your Lordships' House, has not found a single argument in favour of the Bill.
I am not going to repeat the arguments of my noble friend Lord Midleton, but perhaps the most important point was that the Bill proceeds upon the basis that the House of Commons is not merely representative of the people but is a counterpart of the people—that we must assume that everything that the majority of the House of Commons say is the view of the people. Of course, I ought to have limited it to the first two years. That was the main part of the principle of the Government Bill which my noble friend criticised, and the Lord Chancellor has nothing to say to convince you that as a matter of fact the House of Commons was a counterpart of the people. I should like to ask whether there are any grounds for thinking so? I would call as my witness in this respect no less a person than the Prime Minister, who was asked recently in a debate in the House of Commons whether he thought that the Unionist Education Bill of 1902 represented the wishes of the people. Observe, that Bill was passed within two years of the meeting of that Parliament, and therefore would have come within the provisions of this Bill. Of course, he was bound to say he did not think so. He was bound to say that, because he had said it so many times before. How did he get out of that difficulty? He did not get out of it. His only argument was that it was an exception. I do not want to be misunderstood, but the charge is that the General Election of 1900 took place solely upon the question of the Boer War. That was not the case. I want to guard myself. I am a person of no importance but I put the Education Act
784
into my election address. As a matter of fact I consulted no less a person than Mr. Balfour, and it was quite clear that the election was not taken merely upon the Boer War but upon the general record of the Government. But this by the way. I put that in to guard myself. I do not admit that the Unionist Government had no right to legislate on the education question, but the point is that the Liberal Party and Mr. Asquith, and I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor, have said over and over again that the Unionist Party, the majority of the House of Commons of that day, had no moral right to deal with the education question. How does that affect their present contention that every Parliament within two years of its being elected may be taken as an absolute counterpart of the wishes of the people in the country? If I required any further ground for this contention I should find it in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, who said most frankly last night that Parliaments were continually elected upon one particular issue and yet legislated upon any number of other issues after being elected, which, of course, is a complete answer to the position which the Prime Minister took up.
So what it amounts to is that it is admitted on all hands that a House of Commons is elected without, as the phrase is, any mandate for particular measures, and yet is entitled to deal with them. I have no objection to that myself. By all means let them deal with them; but you must not say that the House of Commons in these respects represents the exact opinion of the people. It does not follow. It may be so; it may not be so. And according to our ancient Constitution the only means of preventing a miscarriage of justice in consequence of the possibility of the House of Commons legislating in conflict with the wishes of the people lay in the power of your Lordships' House to refer such Bills to the people. I should like, if I could, to convince impartial minds opposite of the truth of what I am saying. Let me give them an example which I think will come home to them. The noble Lord who preceded me in this debate spoke of our being in conflict with the representatives of seven and a-half million electors. I need hardly remind him—he must know it—that nearly half of the electors agree with us, and the important thing to remember for the purpose of this illustration is that a

785
very little might convert that relative minority into a majority. What might do that? For example, the Army policy of the noble Viscount opposite might break down. It is quite possible that a certain number of electors might be converted on that point. Then there might be the question of Woman Suffrage. I should not be surprised at a similar effect resulting if the electorate thought the Government were acting badly in the matter of giving facilities for certain proceedings in another place. Or take the case of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. If I may say so with respect, I have always thought that he behaved in a manner which deserved the admiration of all right thinking men. He might have difficulties with gentlemen in another place who think he has not put enough Radicals on the magisterial Bench. All these things might happen, and the result might be that at a General Election we change sides. Does the noble Lord opposite, or the Lord Chancellor, think it would be right, the election having turned on issues like that, that the entire fiscal system of this country should be immediately revolutionised, and that Tariff Reform in its most extreme provisions should be introduced as part of our law? I am sure noble Lords opposite do not think so. Would they say that my friends if they introduced the Tariff Reform system represented the exact counterpart of the wishes of the country? Yet to be consistent with their present argument they would be bound to say so. I do not desire to have Tariff Reform rushed on the country. I do not desire to have Radical measures rushed on the country. A Second Chamber to thoroughly come up to what I believe to be the requirements of the case ought to be able to refer all drastic measures of legislation to the people unless it is quite certain that the people approve of them. Your Lordships opposite have not faced such a contingency as I have described. We have. We are pledged, as you know, that before Tariff Reform is carried it shall be submitted to the country, to the direct vote of the country. I only give this to show how little you have really faced the consequences of your proposed action.
We submit to you a policy of reform and a policy of Referendum. As to reform, I am not speaking of any special measures. I do not pretend that the scheme of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, is the best that could have been made. That is not
786
my own personal view; but by making those proposals my noble friend has established beyond all possibility of cavil the good faith of the Party who sit on this side of the House in advocating full, fundamental, and complete reform of your Lordships' House. We are in favour of the Referendum. That is to say, we do not believe that the House of Commons is necessarily the counterpart of the people. We agree that it is the greatest representative Assembly in the world. Those of us who were Members for many years of that Assembly are, of course, by old association devoted to the House of Commons as an institution, but we do not believe it is infallible in its judgment of the wishes of the people, and we say that if you will no longer allow the House of Lords with its old deep sense of responsibility to act as it has done in the past then you must have a system of Referendum. There must be some method where the issues are sufficiently grave—an issue on which the very fabric of the United Kingdom depends—by which those issues could be referred to the direct vote of the people before decision is arrived at. It is with that policy that we come before your Lordships. When, we approach the Committee stage, I can assure you we shall enter into the discussion with a profound sense of responsibility and of the importance of what we are doing. Whatever the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be, we shall be moderate. We shall approach this subject with a deep sense of the difficulties with which we have to deal and in a spirit of moderation. But moderation on our side deserves to be met by moderation on the other side. If it is so met, well and good; but if not, then the responsibility for the resulting chaos must rest upon the shoulders of noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you more than a few minutes, but I do not like to give an entirely silent vote on the matter which is now before the House. In listening to the speeches from the Government Front Bench I have been struck with the attention which has been paid to denunciations of your Lordships' House as a partisan Assembly, from the fact of its being out of sympathy with the electorate, and the arguments that a change was necessary in order to allow Liberal legislation to have what is called fair play. We have had the Lord Chancellor telling us that owing to the attitude of your Lordships' House many

787
earnest reformers felt themselves stifled and choked in their endeavours to obtain reform. Earnest reformers, I am afraid, are very often like inventors. Every inventor thinks that his own particular invention is better than anybody else's, and I think earnest reformers generally imagine that those who disagree with them are people of a mulish and obstinate nature and are guided by vested interests which prevent them looking at matters in a proper light. It is, I think, usually the fact that earnest reformers for a long period of their existence are considerably in advance of their time. Because noble Lords opposite desire certain measures which appeal to them but do not appeal to noble Lords on this side of the House, it does not at all follow that they are not in advance of the opinion of the country.
I should like to say for myself that I was not one of those who would have opposed the Bill of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, had it gone to a Division. For a long time I have been of opinion that in view of the altered state of democratic feeling in this country it was absolutely necessary to depart from the old Party lines from which these questions were regarded, and that if this House was to fulfil its proper place as a Second Chamber it was equally necessary that some great and far-reaching modification should take place with regard to the hereditary system. We have to face facts. Many Conservatives of the old school, it is true, deplore the action which has been taken, and are at the present moment inclined to go about wringing their hands and saying, "Where is Conservatism?" But I think if we ask that question we might ask, "Where is the old Liberalism?" because it was very different from the Liberalism of the present day. We have to realise that it is absolutely necessary, if we do not wish to see far graver dangers than any of us would care to see, that some considerable change should take place. With that view, I, as a humble member of this House, welcomed the Bill of the noble Marquess, and we hope that people will regard it as a proof of the sincerity of your Lordships' House and of our willingness to make very considerable sacrifices in the interests of safe and stable Government. The fact of the Bill of the noble Marquess having been read a second time makes two-thirds of the observations from the Front Bench opposite to-day beside the mark.
788
What we on this side have to do at the present time is to prevent the attention of the country being diverted from the real question before us at this moment—the powers of the House of Lords. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, rated the noble Marquess somewhat upon his reading of recent history with regard to the particular crisis before us, and he said that it dated from the action of your Lordships' House in referring the Budget of 1909 to the country, whereby, he said, we committed the unpardonable crime of challenging the House of Commons. I do not know that there is any very great crime in a Second Chamber challenging a popular Chamber on measures which contain any element of doubt with regard to a change of novel and far-reaching effect. But the noble Viscount omitted the complete history of the present crisis. He has since been reminded by various speakers of the undeniable fact that when the Government did go to the country they lost 100 seats and came back unable to pass their Budget except with the help of the Irish vote. I suggest that the real history of the crisis begins then.
Immediately that happened the Government were told in unmistakable terms that they had to toe the line in order to cripple the powers of the House of Lords and to force through a Home Rule Bill. His Majesty's Government may declare with all the emphasis of which they are capable that there is no direct arrangement with the Irish Party, but I am afraid they will obtain very little credence among intelligent electors, or at all events amongst those who are able to see the course of events and realise what is going on. We now have His Majesty's Government in the position which was so eloquently denounced by Mr. Gladstone in the year 1885 at Edinburgh. He was supposing that owing to some cause the then Government had disappeared and a Liberal Party Was called to deal with the great constitutional question of the Government of Ireland in a position where it was a minority dependent on the Irish vote for converting it into a majority. He said—
"I tell you seriously and solemnly that, though I believe the Liberal Party to be honourable, patriotic, and trustworthy, in such a position as that it would not be safe for it to enter on the consideration of a measure in respect to which, at the first step of its progress, it would be in the power of a Party coming from Ireland to say 'unless you do this and unless you do that we will turn you out to-morrow.'"

789
A few days later, at Dalkeith, Mr. Gladstone said—
"Nothing, I think could be more dangerous to the public weal than that they [Irish questions] should be handled in a Parliament where there was no Party strong enough to direct its action according to judgment and conscience, without being liable to be seduced from the right path by time temptation which might be offered to it by the vote of Irish Members."
There are other quotations familiar to all students of political history, but I do not know that they have been referred to so far in this debate. It is important to realise that the dangerous position which Mr. Gladstone so eloquently warned the country against is the one into which this Government is now drifting and in which they are attempting to deal with this important question.
The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, in that conciliatory and mellifluous speech to which we listened with so much pleasure the other day, would have been more convincing if we could have had any sort of assurance that he had the weight of the Cabinet with him. He spoke of the overworked House of Commons and the necessity for devolution—a subject also referred to by the Lord Chancellor. I think that anybody who watches the proceedings of Parliament and sees important and imperial questions being constantly hurried through the House of Commons without adequate discussion owing to the congested state of business there will admit that the question of some devolution of local affairs is looming in the distance and will probably have to be faced at some not very distant period. But it is not mere devolution of local affairs that Mr. Redmond demands for the Irish Party. He says he will not be satisfied with anything but a Parliament with full control over the Executive. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack talks of Home Rule and says that his Party intend to bring in Home Rule, but there is a careful avoidance of giving any idea of what that means, although there was some glimmer of a definition by the noble and learned Lord to-night when he referred to the South African Constitution and seemed to infer that the privileges which His Majesty's Government established there were what he wished conferred upon Ireland. All I can say is that I cannot understand the frame of mind of any serious Statesman who regards the case of a distant Colony like South Africa as being exactly similar
790
to the case of Ireland which is within easy reach of our own shores and occupies such a strategical position with regard to the British Isles.
When Home Rule is spoken of the argument is constantly put forward by some persons that if Canada and other Colonies are fit to be trusted with self-government, why not Ireland? Is it possible that devolution in Wales and in Scotland also means full control over the Executive? If not, why is their case to be different from that of Ireland? I have the very best wishes in the world towards Ireland, but from the mere instinct of self preservation I contend that what this House must insist upon in the interests of the British people is that Home Rule, or devolution, or whatever you like to call it, when brought before Parliament by the present Government should be considered on its merits, and not at the point of the bayonet with which we are threatened in this case. We have to consider many things in connection with that vital question when it conies up. We have to consider what the position of this country would be in the event of any serious European complication or conflagration in which the British Government might have to come to some momentous decision which might involve this country in war, or which might bring us to our knees in some dishonourable surrender. We might be put in the position of fighting for our lives, into a position where the fact of an Irish Parliament not being able to see eye to eye with us might make all the difference in the world with regard to the possibility of our defending ourselves and maintaining our position. Therefore we have to consider whether such a measure, if it comes into operation, would make the British nation stronger or weaker than it is at the present moment in the event of foreign complications. It is a most suicidal thing to suppose that it would be safe to consider this measure except from an absolutely detached position, and we ought to do everything we can to warn the British electors of the danger to which they would be drifting if they allowed the British Parliament to be dictated to by the Nationalist Party, which says to the Government, "You must toe the line. You must give us Home Rule, or we will turn you out to-morrow." It is because we realise the importance of this question with regard to the Parliament Bill that we look upon the Bill as most dangerous.

791
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Ilkeston, said that a measure such as this was put
forward by Mr. John Bright in 1884 and that everybody then regarded it as moderate and harmless. There was then no Irish Party dictating to the English Government. That was before the date of the surrender to Home Rule by one of the great English Parties. Circumstances have completely changed, and what might perhaps have been regarded then with toleration cannot be regarded in the same light to-day. We regard this Bill as a dangerous and mischievous Bill, as one forced upon us by nothing short of a conspiracy between His Majesty's Government and the extremists whom they cannot resist; and if we pass the Second Reading under protest I hope that Amendments will be introduced for the purpose of securing that when the question of Home Rule or any similar question comes before the country it will be made impossible for a Government, at the dictation of a Party in the House of Commons, to force down the throats of the British nation some measure which they regard as dangerous and on which they have never been consulted.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill said truly that its provisions had already been so largely and fully discussed in the public Press, on public platforms, and even in both Houses of Parliament, that it seemed hardly necessary to enter at any great length into its provisions. I thoroughly agree with that statement, and in my few remarks to-night I shall refer more to the question of tactics than to the provisions of the Bill, though there are one or two points in its provisions on which I should like to say a few words.
Speaking as a humble "backwoodsman" I may say that I was extremely pleased to notice in the excellent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that it was to be the advice of the leaders of the Opposition that this Bill should be accorded a Second Reading. I am pleased about that. In my opinion it would have been unwise and deplorable to reject it at this early stage, because I believe that if we go further into the details of the Bill and lay the case before His Majesty's Ministers there may yet be found some ground for compromise. If advice had been given to make a stand and reject the Second Reading, I confess that I, for one, would dread the creation of perhaps
792
500 Peers. There are only two alternatives —the creation of 500 Peers, or another General Election; and I am bound to say that I could not face either of those alternatives at the present time with equanimity.
I think it was the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack who told us, or rather hinted, in the earlier part of this debate that there were certain younger members of the Tory Party who were coquetting with Home Rule. I forget his exact words, but he said they were not entirely opposed to it. Personally I am thoroughly opposed to it as I always have been, and I shall be until I can see a feasible Bill, and that I do not believe is possible. Home Rule defeated Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell, and I think it is probable it will defeat Mr. Asquith and Mr. Redmond. But, however that may be, I am bound to say that, speaking as a strong Unionist, my fear is that if a conflict were provoked at the present time and it resulted in the creation of 500 Peers the effort to maintain the Union of Great Britain would be worse than it is under this Bill, because if Peers were created the Parliament Bill would be passed and Home Rule would be put through the House of Commons next summer. It would come up here and become law in the following August. Therefore, if for no other reason, I am extremely pleased that, for the time being at any rate, there will be no further talk of the creation of 500 Peers.
With regard to the alternative of another General Election, as one who took a small part in the last two elections, I cannot see that there are any signs that so far there has been any great reaction in the country, and that we should be likely to gain any great advantage from another election at present. In the election of January, 1910, I felt that I was one of the old guard, and I rather feared I was marching with a forlorn hope. I am afraid we were fighting on ground carefully chosen by our adversaries. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer provoked the conflict, and in order to do that, like the skilful toreador, he waved the red flag. Speaking with regard to the January election I am Speaking to say that my prophecies were wrong; not only that, but the old guard came through very triumphantly and we received an accession of 100 to the cause of the Unionists. In the following election in December I was a great deal more hopeful. I thought that we had got

793
rid at last of some of those rather stupid cries of the previous election, and that we would greatly improve our position. We held our position, and that is all that can be said for it. Therefore I cannot share the very bright opinions which are held by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, on the excellence of elections. But that is the only way of getting at the true opinions of the people. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, said he had taken part in eight election contests. I believe in Scotland they are very strong and quiet people, and do not require to be roused up to that state of enthusiastic election intoxication that they do in England. When I look back on the display of election literature and the canvassing which goes on at elections and consider the personal issue which is very often involved, I am bound to say that the free and independent electors are not always able very clearly to ascertain what are the chief items on which they are voting. But, however that may be, the fact
remains that the election of December resulted very much the same as that in January. Therefore I do not see, if a conflict at this early stage was followed by another appeal to the country, that we should fare much better than we did last January. At the same time, I fully recognise that there are the very greatest dangers in this Bill, and if the Government do not agree to some compromise and meet us in some way, I do not at all think that the conditions then in an appeal to the country would be the same as at the present time.
In introducing the Bill the noble Viscount read an extract from a speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, whose absence we regret, in which the noble Earl said that he had sat here for about seventeen years and always found himself absolutely powerless; that he never could do anything, and that it was almost useless coming to the House. That, no doubt, was very galling. It was through no lack of eloquence or enthusiasm that the noble Earl was unable to obtain a majority, but I think it might have been partly owing to lack of argument. If the noble Earl had used better arguments, instead of finding himself in a minority he would perhaps have found himself in a majority on some occasions. I think his complaint is rather like that of the juryman who held out against his eleven colleagues and after being kept locked up for three days and nights complained to the others that they were the most obstinate men it
794
had ever been his fate to encounter. Lord Crewe said it was useless to come here at all. But under the Parliament Bill that complaint will be shared by every one who sits in your Lordships' House, because if we are to have no power I cannot see the use of coming to this Assembly and making speeches and holding debates. We might as well join debating societies nearer our own homes.
There are, I think, certain grave defects in the Bill. The noble Viscount, of course, tried to put the best possible construction upon it, but I am very much afraid that with a little pressure in the House of Commons from some ardent reformers who are in a hurry this suspensory period of two years may be very considerably shortened if not swept away altogether. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent this happening within the next two or three years. I feel perfectly certain that, if your Lordships hang up a Bill, pressure will be put on Governments in the future to introduce an amending Bill to abolish this suspensory period. Another grave danger is the question of what is a Money. Bill. Since the Bill was first brought to light Amendments have, I think, been inserted in this clause in another place, but. I still consider that there is grave danger that Bills which do not come strictly under the description of
Money Bills will be put into that category and be sent to this House. Your Lordships may be told that you can debate them but that you must do nothing else. It ought to be very clearly defined what is actually a Money Bill.
I will give examples. There is a proposal on foot for the payment of members of the House of Commons. I never did master the mysteries of procedure in the House of Commons, but the best information that I could get was that on an important question like that they always proceeded by a separate Bill. This year the provision is to be placed in the Budget. I am not quite sure whether I should be debarred from doing so by the rules of this House, but when the Appropriation Bill comes up here I should like to move an Amendment to delete the provision applying money for this purpose. Unless the Money Bill clause of the Parliament Bill is made very strict, is defined within very fine limits there is grave danger that all Bills which the Government desire to push through the House of
Commons will be described as. Money Bills. Again, take Welsh Disestablishment.

795
My recollection of the last Bill is that it was almost completely a matter of finance; it was chiefly concerned in taking money from the Church and devoting it to other purposes. Cleanliness, I suppose, was considered next to Godliness, for some of the money was to be taken to provide public baths and washhouses. It is easy to see that a Bill of that description might very well be turned into a Money Bill and passed through both Houses without any consideration at all. We ought, therefore, when we reach the Committee stage, to lay down as firmly as we can the principle that this suspensory power of two years is not to be altered and also define very carefully what are Money Bills.
Most of the speeches on the question of a Second Chamber have been confined to talking about the majority. I should like to plead to your Lordships on behalf of the minority. I do not believe that a free people who have enjoyed liberties for many generations would think for one moment of placing their liberties in the hands of a Single Chamber alone. I feel certain they will demand a Court of Appeal. This House, not as we are sitting now, but in its legal capacity, is the final Court of Appeal. I believe the country will demand a Court of Appeal in cases against the House of Commons so that matters shall be tried by the highest
tribunal. Liberals often describe the giving of votes at Parliamentary elections as constituting freedom. Many of the Bills which they have passed appoint a large number of bureaucrats and inspectors and plenty of tax collectors and officials, and the bulk of these measures are part and parcel of the result of living under a Liberal Government who are so fond of talking about freedom. Take the greatest democracy in the world—the United States of America. I believe that the private lives of many people in that country are much more strongly protected, not only by the law, but by the Constitution, than can be said of the rights of private individuals in this country. I believe that a Parliamentary majority may be just as great a tyrant as any in the Middle Ages. A popular phrase we sometimes hear is that minorities must suffer, but, after all, minorities of to-day may be majorities to-morrow, and I am certain that a minority, be it great or small, ought to have some Court of Appeal and ought to be able, if they feel they are suffering grave injustice, to carry that appeal to the highest Court of
796
all—namely, to a Court of their fellow-countrymen.
I remember a speech on a public platform by the late Lord Randolph Churchill when a charge was made against him that the Conservative minority of that day were engaged in obstructing Liberal measures in the House of Commons. What was his answer? He said it was perfectly ridiculous to talk about a minority, consisting of very nearly half of the House of Commons, carrying on obstructive tactics. He said that to talk about obstruction by men representing half the people in the United Kingdom was absurd, and that that could not be called obstruction in any fair sense of the word. What happened in those days when there was formidable obstruction from a substantial minority representing a large body of opinion in the country? They had not got all these rules of kangaroo closures and closure by compartments under which a Bill is born on Monday, christened on Tuesday, married on Wednesday, taken ill on Thursday, dies on Friday, and is buried on Saturday. They had not the procedure which the House has to-day, whereby no matter what force the Opposition are in, no matter how many millions of voters they represent, the Government can absolutely disregard the opinions of those men and their representatives. In those days a strong minority could put pressure on the Government, and it was only by reasonable compromise, by discussing matters in a friendly spirit and coming to terms, that they could manage to get their Bills through.
I believe that we are in the same position at the present time. The Government of the day have their majority, and their Parliament Bill which is before us holds the field. At the same time, if they desire a permanent settlement of this question and do not wish to provoke a conflict, they must take some heed of the opinions of the Opposition and of the minority. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Ilkeston, carried our memories back to the Parish Councils Bill. I would recall his memory to another period when we dealt with the Employers' Liability Bill. Undoubtedly during the last few years the minority in this country who have been attacked by Radical legislation has consisted to a large extent of men of property and wealth, and, although I for one consider they should bear their fair

797
share of taxation, at the same time they have the same rights and liberties as any body else in the country. It is only fair that they should have a Court of Appeal like everybody else. During the last two or three years, as I have said, Liberal legislation has been applied against men possessed of riches and wealth, but that has not always been the case. There have often been minorities belonging to your Lordships' House whose capital and wealth consists of the labour of their hands. Lord Ilkeston said that in 1894 Mr. Gladstone stated with regard to the Parish Councils Bill, when protesting against the Amendments of your Lordships' House, that this was a state of things which could not and should no longer continue. I believe it was not made on that Bill, but on the far more important question of the contracting-out clauses of the Employers Liability Bill. My recollection of that, time was that Mr. Gladstone tried to provoke a conflict with this House by saying that that Bill was tainted and poisoned. I remember also Mr. Balfour retorting that it was tainted with freedom, and the poison was the poison of liberty. In those days your Lordships were standing up for the rights and the freedom of those workmen who, if they could make better terms than they had been able to make before, were to be allowed to make those terms under the Bill, and that is liberty. People in this country, whether rich or poor, in times like that do require a Second Chamber, a Chamber that will hear their appeal, a Chamber that will be composed of their fellow-countrymen. Though I am pleased that this Bill is receiving a Second Reading, at the same time I hope that the spirit of compromise will not be altogether absent from these walls, and that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will, in the course of our discussions in the Committee stage, see that some Amendments are inserted in the Bill to ensure that no restrictions can be placed upon the liberties of the people.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes to eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, I trust I may be forgiven for venturing to address your Lordships twice within a very few days. My excuse must be the importance of the subjects which have been before the House in these two days. I will promise, however, to detain
798
your Lordships for only a few moments. As I understand, two chief reasons are
put forward by His Majesty's Government for the introduction of this Bill. They
take up two main lines of defence. They say, first, in a lofty, a national, and a patriotic spirit, that it is your Lordships' fault this Bill has had to be introduced, that you have gone on provoking the people until it has become absolutely necessary that something should be done. It is the old cry, "Peers against the people." The Peers have irritated the people until at last noble Lords opposite are forced to come down to this House, and their colleagues in another place are forced to go down to the House of Commons, and take drastic steps to prevent anything of the kind happening again.
There is another line taken up in a less lofty, though perhaps a truer spirit. It is the line that they will be traitors and poltroons if they give up the Party advantage they have gained. I would venture to suggest that there is a third, and, from their point of view, a more cogent reason for which they have produced this Bill. That reason is this. It is the only possible means of control they have over the various parties which go to form the Coalition they command in another place. I do not know if your Lordships may have noticed at the recent elections a caricature in which the Prime Minister was shown driving a team, I think of three horses, evidently with a good deal of difficulty. I will not enter into the question how many horses the Prime Minister ought to be driving, but I should say that really he ought to have more than three. I will not enter either into the different peculiarities of those horses; but there is one alteration I should like to suggest in that caricature. As I saw it, Mr. Asquith had in his hands two reins to the bit of every horse. I would suggest that he should have only one rein, and that should be labelled Parliament Bill. The fact is, he has only one means of control by which he can direct the various steeds in his Parliamentary stable at one time—that is the Parliament Bill. On no other subject can His Majesty's Government get a level pull at the mouths of those various horses at one and the same time. That is the reason why they are forced to bring in the Bill, why they dare not bring in a scheme of reform of this House first, why they dare not give us any suggestion of the scheme of reform they propose to bring in, if they ever do bring in such a scheme.

799
You can see quite plainly, if you look at the difference between the body of the Bill and the Preamble, that the Preamble is concocted merely with a view to uniting the various discordant elements which support the Government in another place. My noble friend Lord Camperdown pointed out this evening that in any Select Committee of your Lordships' House that Preamble would be immediately cut out as having nothing whatever to do with the rest of the Bill. I have at the present time the honour to be a member of a Select Committee of this House, and. I have noticed in the several petitions against the Bill which the Committee are considering this section, "The Preamble of this Bill is untrue and cannot be supported by evidence." Now, as to these words, "Whereas it is intended," &c.—I need not remind your Lordships of the full contents of the Preamble—I submit that the section I have quoted as appearing in petitions applies probably a great deal better to this particular Bill than to any Bill which has ever been considered by a Select Committee of this House. It could not possibly be applied more accurately. The Preamble of this Bill is untrue and cannot be supported by evidence. I ask what confidence has anybody ever had in the intentions of the Government with regard to the "Whereas it is intended" part of the Bill. Not the slightest possible due as to the future has been afforded to anybody. Though the Government have been pressed again and again, both in this House and in the House of Commons, they have refused to give any idea of any scheme which they can produce for the reform of this House. I think, my Lords, there is a very good reason why they have given no clue. They dare not do so. If they had produced anything in the least resembling a plan for the reform of this House, a large number of their supporters would immediately disagree, and would destroy their majority in another place.
I will venture to suggest, my Lords, that it is very improbable this Government will ever bring in, as it stands now apart, a scheme for the reform of this House. Mr. Asquith has told us in the House of Commons that he hopes, if time permits, to bring in such a scheme within the life of this Parliament. There are, as anybody can see, a good many loopholes in that statement. "If time permits"—that is a pretty big loophole. He can easily make
800
the excuse that time does not permit last over the present Parliament. If he is going to bring in a Home Rule scheme for Ireland first, I think it will take up the whole of his time, even if his remaining time in office be long, of which I am not at al1 certain. There is another reason which leads me to suppose that this promised scheme of reform will never be brought in. The Government do not wish to give up the Party advantage they have gained. It seems to me that if they bring in any scheme of reform at all, they will give up some part of that advantage. We have had recently a very good example of the state of affairs that can be brought about when might is right. The way in which this very Bill has been treated in another place has shown us what a Radical Government will do when might is right. Surely it cannot be contended that this is not a controversial measure, and, after it had been introduced, naturally an enormous number of Amendments were put down. Those Amendments were moved by a set of very able men in very able speeches, but not to one Amendment did the Government pay the slightest attention. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, they announced beforehand that they did not intend to accept any Amendments, and this intention they did not depart from. Anyhow the Bill remains exactly as it was, with all its faults and imperfections.
That does not look as if any spirit of compromise is going to be shown by His Majesty's Government on this subject. If we seek for the reason for their attitude we always come back to the same thing—namely, they dare not give way, because if they did they know they would lose their majority in another place. I, for one, shall be glad to see this Bill go through a Second Reading, because I hope it may be possible in the Committee stage to bring forward Amendments which I trust His Majesty's Government will treat with a little more respect than they did the Amendments moved in another place.
LORD COLCHESTER: My Lords, I venture to think that tins Bill in the shape in which it is now brought before your Lordships' House is one which means nothing else than the entire overthrow of our Parliamentary system as it has been known throughout the whole constitutional history of the country. I can heartily join with the noble Earl who preceded me in

801
saying that in the face of the utterances we have had from His Majesty's Government to-night and last night it does not look as if there is any prospect of Amendments from this side being assented to. As that is the position I must say that, in the shape in which it stands now, I shall be disposed to meet the Bill with nothing but uncompromising opposition. I should not, I confess, have taken that view if the Bill had come before this House in a slightly different form. If instead of the principle of the Bill being that the will of the majority of the House of Commons—not of the people—must prevail in the duration of one Parliament, the principle had been that it should prevail in the duration of two Parliaments I should not speak thus on the Bill. In that case, though I might have some hesitation still as to whether there should not be an exception in regard to Bills affecting the powers and constitution of the House itself, I should feel that, while nominally limiting the Veto of this House, it would really leave things practically as they always were. This House has not claimed an absolute Veto in the sense of a Veto without reference to length of time or numbers of majorities. If it has learned in time what has been the settled will of the people on a particular question this House has not, I think, ever opposed it. We cannot, however, recognise the settled will of the people in the decisions of a single House of Parliament.
There may be one great cry at the time of a General Election which may indicate the voice of the people on one particular subject, but at any rate it goes no farther. I was much struck with the remarks of the noble Viscount opposite when, speaking of a time which he well remembers, he told us how the first Ministry of Mr. Gladstone was raised to power on the one question of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. After that Government had dealt with the Irish Church it passed in addition a number of important measures which became part of the Statute Book of this country. That time, my Lords, is also within my memory. As I listened to the noble Viscount I thought he had for the moment overlooked what the verdict of the country on that Government was. We know that after passing those measures the time came when it appealed to the people, and at the General Election it was swept from power. Its opponents secured what they had not
802
had for a generation—a decisive majority, giving them not only office but a real control over affairs. I do not attack that Government or any Government for introducing measures which were not prominently before the country at a General Election. They cannot, of course, be expected to limit their legislation to the one or two topics then occupying public attention. It would be absurd so to restrict the course that it might be their duty to take. But they cannot claim, merely on the ground of support by the House of Commons, that they speak the will of the people. That must be sought, if needed, by a more direct appeal. If by an alteration of the Bill it were provided that a measure should become law within the duration of two Parliaments instead of one, it would be only by the voice of the people in the constituencies, and not by the will of the other branch of the Legislature, that the Upper House, whatever it may be, would be overridden.
I think there is something very curious about the attitude of noble Lords opposite and others in the country who profess to hold the democratic creed in its widest form, whenever the question of such an appeal as I have mentioned, and especially the proposal of a Referendum, is introduced. Their creed, as we understand it here, is that the will of the people is perfectly wise so long as it gives a blank cheque, so to speak, to some Minister or candidate to carry out whatever measures he thinks fit. But as soon as they begin to hear talk about the judgment of the people on the merits of a Bill they fall back on the language used by able men like Lord Sherbrooke when demanding the extension of the borough franchise more than forty years ago. I do not pretend to have grown up in the democratic creed, and I can see a certain force in some of their arguments where the question of democracy is still an open one, but I think all the arguments we have heard against the Referendum are arguments against popular government.
The attitude of the opponents of the Referendum reminds me of the motto which used to be attributed to some Royalists in Germany, "Long live the absolute Monarchy while it does what we please." Supporters of His Majesty's Government have the same point of view with regard to the Referendum. They are all for democracy when it will back them up in carrying out

803
the laws they wish to impose on the country; they are not for it when uncertain of its action in regard to their legislative proposals. It may or may not be a good thing to think that the will of the people should be supreme. But if we admit the supremacy of the popular will, surely it should be the real will of the people and not a fiction. We know that some men vote for a Party because of one thing they like in the Party programme, and others vote for it because of totally different proposals put forward by the Party. Some vote for a man because he is a temperance reformer, others because he supports Home Rule, Disestablishment, Free Trade, or something else. Does that mean that any one of those proposals would command the support of a majority in the country? Is it not rather the case that no real verdict is given on any one of them? As the late Lord Salisbury said some years ago, they are like a jury required to find a uniform verdict in all cases brought before them, whatever the merits might be.
It has been said that there is a tendency now to depreciate the House of Commons. If there were any such tendency I should be the last to have a right to support it, sitting as I do here on the ground of being the representative of a former Speaker of that House. But it is proposed to place the House of Commons in a new position, one it has never held, as entitled to absolutely unchecked and unlimited power over all legislation. While we may admire the functions the House of Commons has had to discharge under our existing Constitution, we cannot agree to confer on it this totally new power. It follows upon this proposal of His Majesty's Government that the House of Commons must necessarily be judged by a much severer standard. We cannot forget the frequent disparity between the proportion of members on each side and the votes they represent. Nor is this only because constituencies are unequal in size. It is because a majority of two equals in effect a majority of two to one, while a large minority, scattered equally in many constituencies, may be utterly unrepresented.
I will now, my Lords, say one or two words concerning the charges against this House. It has been said that it was we who gave the challenge by the rejection of the Budget. But I would remind your Lordships that before the rejection of the Budget we had the Campbell-Bannerman
804
Resolutions, and I, for one, always regarded those Resolutions as a simple declaration of war, without prospect of truce or quarter. It was after those Resolutions had been passed in the House of Commons that the Budget was rejected
by this House. The action of this House on that Budget was taken simply with the object of giving the nation what otherwise it would never have had, that is an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon that measure. As a result of the General Election the Government came back with only a shattered remnant of its former overwhelming strength, but nevertheless, there being still a majority, if a greatly attenuated one, your Lordships passed the Budget.
I suppose the other grievance is the Government's Education Bill. I always regretted that the Act of 1902 was not passed, as it was intended to be when introduced, as a permissive Bill. But when the present Government came into office, were they content with repealing the provisions of that Act to which their supporters objected? What did they do? They went very much further than that Act. They proposed a state of things in which practically only the schools of one party—the schools of the undenominational party—should be supported by the rates, thus inflicting a grievous wrong on the supporters of another very large and important class of schools. This House amended the Bill. It did not reject it on the Third Reading, though a few noble Lords voted against it. I myself thought, after the Amendments we had passed, that it was not right under the circumstances to vote against it. The Bill went back to the House of Commons, but the Government refused to come to any agreement, and the result was the measure fell through. The country was indifferent about it. There was a tornado of passion in one or two quarters of the House of Commons, but there was no strong popular feeling in the country over the fate of that Bill. We might have supposed that there was going to be an agitation like that in connection with the Reform Bill of 1831, but the whole thing fell flat, and we have never had that Bill sent up again.
As to the present Bill, as I have said, I see no indications of any important Amendment being accepted on the other side. For my part I confess I do not see that any worse consequences could be apprehended

805
from the rejection of the Bill than from passing it. I am not sure it would not be better, if the Bill is to become law, that it should do so by virtue of some of the strange and unheard of methods of which we have had rumours, rather than that we should appear to acquiesce in passing such revolutionary proposals. The Bill, as it stands, is one introducing a new form of Government, and sweeping away from our Constitutional system all checks against the despotic supremacy of one branch of the Legislature. Because in the form in which we are asked to pass it the Bill destroys the safeguards of well-ordered freedom, I feel bound, unless it is transformed and remodelled, to protest against its passing into law.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I should not have ventured to address you again to-night if it had not been for the fact that I stand in a somewhat peculiar position. I understand it is agreed that we should not challenge the Second Reading of this Bill. I am sorry to say, having given the subject the best attention which I am capable of giving to it, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot fall in with that course. I cannot feel myself justified in being a party to reading this Bill a second time without a challenge, and if any noble Lords challenge a Division I shall vote with them. But as at present advised, I do not know that I should even find a teller to tell with me. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' leave to take this opportunity of expressing my belief that we are not justified in reading this Bill a second time, of separating myself from the policy which understand we have adopted of assenting to its Second Reading, and of making it perfectly plain that if I do not go into the Lobby against it I am not to be thought in any way to have assented to its adoption.
I will give two reasons, and only two, why I feel compelled to take this course. I will, if you please, give you the weaker reason first. The attitude of His Majesty's Government on this matter is one which I have always found it very difficult to describe. I do not know what it is there is about His Majesty's Government, but I al ways experience a difficulty in describing their conduct in good King's English. Perhaps it is because their methods of procedure are so novel and so advanced that it requires more modern
806
terms than are embraced in classical English to describe them. But in this instance I cannot say that the conduct of the Government is due to pride, or to arrogance, or that it is haughty in character. I really think it would be complimentary to use any of those terms. The word braggadocio hardly meets the case either. I can only think of one term. It is a slang term, and I apologise to your Lordships for using it. It is what is commonly called "bounce." The whole attitude of His Majesty's Government is one of bounce. I am sure no one will imagine that I accuse the noble Viscount the Leader of the House of bounce either in manner or in language, for nothing could be more opposite to what the noble Viscount is well noted for. But I must say that if his language and manner do not partake of bounce, his matter can only be described by that term. The noble Viscount has in fact said, "Hands up," and has threatened to present a pistol at our heads. It is true that the pistol is at present up the sleeve of the Government. We do not know whether it is a popgun or a much deadlier weapon; but the attitude is one of menace, and the demand they make is for surrender. It may be that I have too much of the old Adam in me, but I must say I personally object to that sort of attitude, and I object to it especially when the demand is made by an Administration as weak and as inefficient as I believe this Administration has shown itself to be.
The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, two or three nights ago, remarked that the Government had been accused both of, I think he said, oligarchical despotism and of weakness, and he said the two accusations were not compatible. I was surprised at that remark. I should have thought weakness and violence were the commonest associates; indeed, that one might almost be said to be the complement of the other. The conduct of His Majesty's Government all through its career, and especially at the present time, is characterised by precisely that mixture of violence and weakness which weak Administrations are apt to show. I am sure I need not detain your Lordships with ancient history to show that some of the worst despots in the world have been so because they were weak. Perhaps I need only refer to the history of our country—to the history of the Stuarts. Why were the Stuarts violent? Because they were weak. It is the greatest mistake

807
in the world to imagine that violence and weakness are incompatible.
What is the sign of weakness His Majesty's Government show? Sometimes I feel as if I had, like Rip Van Winkle, gone to sleep and wakened up in a new world altogether from that world which existed when I was younger in Parliamentary days. There were great men before Agamemnon; there have been Prime Ministers before Mr. Asquith. How have other Prime Ministers managed to get on with this House? Has there been no friction in former times between the two Houses? Have there been no difficulties? Had Mr. Gladstone no difficulties to face between the Upper House and the Lower House? But Mr. Gladstone, whatever we may think of his policy, was a strong man. He knew how to deal with men and with parties, and how, without putting a pistol at the head of the Opposition, to carry his point. It is precisely because the present Government in all its proceedings have been absolutely unable to do anything of the sort that they can only resort to methods of violence, that they can only practically manufacture an emergency—because there is really no emergency whatever—and then when they have manufactured that emergency, solve it by what can only be called practically revolution.
The Government are inconsistent. The Government say they can do nothing. Their own confession, or rather their own complaint, is that they are allowed to do nothing. Yet, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, or by another noble Lord, the other night, Lord Haldane took credit outside the House for the enormous number of things the Government had done. I will return the noble Viscount's words, and say that these two assertions are not compatible. What is the result? I was rather struck by the admission of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House the other night when he told us that wise men refused to bring matters to extremities. I thought it a most remarkable sentence in the noble Viscount's mouth. Will he forgive me if I return it to him? Only let me point out there is this difference. In my mouth it is a warning; in the noble Viscount's mouth it is a menace. I do not think I need detain your Lordships at this stage with further disquisitions on the weakness of the Government. I could say much on that
808
subject, but I will reserve it for some future occasion. I have no doubt we shall have many opportunities of discussing the conduct of the Government in connection with this measure at a later stage. I cannot help repeating that the Government are guilty of the old dodge, which is known to all those who wish to seize what I may call despotic or overweening power—power to do what they like unchecked. They are guilty of the old dodge of creating a difficulty and then saying it is unsurmountable without utterly exceptional measures.
I turn from that, from my own reluctance to support a measure which is presented to us in the manner I have described by a Government of the character I have endeavoured to depict—I turn from that to my greater reason for desiring not to be responsible for the Second Reading of this Bill. The other night I ventured to address your Lordships on the reform of the House of Lords. I endeavoured to convey to your Lordships my opinion that we should not stand upon privilege or upon our rights—our right to seats or our right to our votes—if it could be shown, as I believed it could be, that reform was desirable and that reform might end in our sacrificing our present position. I do not believe very much in the importance of individuals. I believe that, whatever happened to the individual member of this House, this House, if it remained in the same position with the same powers, would, go on very much as before. I have lived long enough to have known great and distinguished men whom people said would when gathered to their fathers, make an irreparable gap in the ranks of their Party; it has been said that the efficiency of the Party to which they belonged, or the House of which they were members, would suffer permanently and irremediably. My Lords, it is quite curious how easily the ranks are filled up, and how small a gap even the greatest men make in the history of a country. If that be the case, I certainly think it is much more true of the rank and file of our noble selves. But the reason that I have regarded the question of reform readily is that I believe reform will strengthen this House. I cannot believe that reading this Bill a second time will strengthen this House. I cannot see how any measure which has for its object the weakening of the power of this
House can by any possibility in Committee be made

809
even innocuous, much less a measure which support this House, and I am afraid that if we read this Bill a second time, whatever we may say—for I fear that with the public our votes carry more weight than our speeches—it will be thrown in our teeth that we have admitted that it is desirable to lessen the power of this House, and that all we have objected to is the means by which it is to be done. That, I am afraid, will be the impression which will be given to the public, and as I cannot be a party to giving that impression even by my single vote or single voice I protest here most solemnly against it.
In this matter of the power of the House we ought to remember that our positions here are a trust. I ventured the other night to quote a passage from a man who is not a politician as to the tendencies of democracy. I will not repeat the quotation, but I say that the function of this House is to delay, if we cannot prevent, the process of disintegration of which he spoke, and it is a trust and a responsibility of which we cannot rid ourselves. Moreover, let it be remembered that we also represent, or shall very shortly represent, not only the independence of the country—for this has been the most independent Assembly in the world—but the unpaid independence of the country. Henceforth the Lower House is to be formed of professional politicians—politicians who make, or may be supposed to make., their bread and butter by their votes and by their political conduct. I think every one who has ever had a seat in the House of Commons, unless he has had a very singularly secure seat, must know how greatly is the fear of his constituents constantly before his eyes. Those of us who have been in the House of Commons must recollect men having come up to us and said, "I hope to goodness you will vote against this Bill. I am afraid I cannot—I dare not. I should risk my seat." That is the necessary defect of representative institutions. I am not saying for a moment that it is a fatal defect, but I say it is a necessary defect, and you are going to make it ten thousand times worse. You are going not only to perpetuate what you must perpetuate, the fear of the elector, but you are also going to make a man feel that if he gives an independent vote he may be sacrificing the means of livelihood of his wile and children, and that will be
810
a pressure upon the very men, remember, for whom this new paid system is invented. It will be a pressure upon them which will destroy all independence of every sort and kind. That makes it the more necessary that we should stand up for the independence of the only free Assembly left in this country.
We represent, my Lords, in a peculiar degree the education and the intelligence of the country. I am not afraid to make that assumption, although I know it is quite possible to turn it easily into ridicule. I say that as a House this House is a highly educated House and of high intelligence, and if in any particular instances that education or that intelligence be not as much shown as it might be, it does not alter the fact that as a House this House represents a high degree of education and intelligence. Not only that, but it represents in a peculiar way the property, the wealth, of the country—that property which it is necessary to preserve, and which, as I said the other night, the tendency of of all democracies is to attack, and which the end of all democracies is to annihilate. We represent these particular interests, and, as I have already said, we are in trust for those we represent, and we have no right to give up our powers. In the case of the great majority of your Lordships you did not seek the position which you occupy. It has been conferred upon you by Providence, and you are responsible to the source from which you derive it for the exercise which you make of your opportunities. The experience of ages has shown that the powers possessed by this House are essential to the liberties of the people, and a necessary safeguard against violent and confiscatory legislation. Those safeguards were never more necessary than now. According to the best of my judgment, we have no right by any act of omission or commission to jeopardise them, but, on the contrary, to hand them down, if possible, intact to future generations. Therefore I repeat, in conclusion, as I began, that I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill if I have an opportunity, and, if I have not, I beg it may not be taken that I agree or assent to the policy of reading it a second time.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I venture to think His Majesty's Government have more than one reason to congratulate

811
themselves upon the course which the debate has taken during the last two days. We have nothing to complain of with regard to the terms of the speeches made against the Bill, and we have every reason to congratulate ourselves upon the result which is foreshadowed in those speeches. We understand that a Second Reading will be given to the Bill, and although the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, who spoke last night, indicated the possibility of various Amendments, His Majesty's Government hope that when the time comes they may be able to persuade your Lordships not to press those Amendments to the ultimate issue. We have, after all, reached, as the most rev. Primate said this evening, a certain amount of agreement upon this subject. Both Parties admit the existence of a grievance. We both admit that it is necessary to find a remedy. The noble Duke who has just spoken introduced a note of discord. He told us the other night that flattery was the vice of all statesmen. I am sure we who sit on this side may acquit him of any share in that particular vice. He certainly never flatters His Majesty's Government, and from what I remember of his speech last week he certainly did not flatter the Bill of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. But, if he will allow me to say so, he did express to-night views and opinions to which we listened with the utmost respect. They are views which ought to be put forward in your Lordships' House on an occasion of this kind, and however little we may find ourselves able to agree with them we were, at any rate, able to listen to them with a great deal of respect and attention. But will the noble Duke allow me to say that in the conclusion to which he arrived—namely, that, if possible, he would vote against the Bill of the Government—he would have received more sympathy from noble Lords on this side if he had proceeded to the same extremity with regard to the Bill of last week, against which also he had a great deal of hostility.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl; but what did I say to show great hostility to the Bill of last week?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I certainly understood that the noble Duke did not approve of the Bill of the noble Marquess.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: But the noble Earl is not entitled to allege because I did not show great affection for that Bill, that therefore I showed great hostility to it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think I am well within the recollection of your Lordships' House when I say that the reception which was given by the noble Duke to the Bill of the noble Marquess last week was far from being cordial. But the point really is, which view is to prevail? We had last week the solution which was proposed by the noble Marquess on behalf of the Opposition, and this week your Lordships are discussing the solution which is put forward by His Majesty's Government. Both Parties are now agreed that the will of the House of Commons or of the people must prevail within the limits of a single Parliament. That is common matter between both Parties. [Opposition cries of "No."] Noble Lords surely forget that it is not very long ago that a Bill dealing with the Referendum and Joint Sessions was introduced in your Lordships' House, and that noble Lords opposite did not then insist upon a further General Election. That seems to me to mark a very distinct step in advance. Until now noble Lords opposite have always said there must be a General Election. I understand that is a position they now give up, and that if we have Joint Sessions and the Referendum they would not demand a General Election before they give way on a Bill, which has been through another place. The Referendum, as we have already explained to your Lordships, is not a measure which we wish to see introduced as a common part of our political life. We have recognised its possibilities and its advantages in special circumstances, such as those in the Colony of Natal, where before the Federation it had a very distinct value; but we have had opportunities of explaining to your Lordships why we are unable to accept either the Referendum or the rest of your programme which was introduced in the Bill of last week.
The solution which His Majesty's Government offer is before your Lordships in the Bill which we are now discussing, and I venture to think that in deciding to read this Bill a second time your Lordships have taken a very wise decision. I have an extract, which I shall venture to read to

813
your Lordships, from a speech which was made by the late Lord Salisbury on the Irish Church Bill. It affects so vitally the issue before the House that I think it may be of some value. The late Lord Salisbury said, on June 17, 1869—
"But when once we have come to the conclusion from all the circumstances of the case that the House of Commons is at one with the nation, it appears to me that—save in some very exceptional cases, save in the highest cases of morality—in those cases in which a man would not set his hand to a certain proposition, 'though a revolution should follow from his refusal—it appears to me that the vocation of this House has passed away, that it must, devolve the responsibility upon the nation, and may fairly accept the conclusion at which the nation has arrived. My Lords, I cannot think that in thus stepping aside we are abdicating our duty. It is no courage, it is no dignity, to withstand the real opinion of the nation. All that you are doing thereby is to delay an inevitable issue—for all history teaches us that no nation was ever thus induced to revoke its decision—and to invite besides a period of disturbance, discontent, and possibly of worse than discontent."
This Bill, at any rate, was the main issue at the General Election, and I think it is admitted by everybody that the Government are pledged to pursue it to an ultimate issue. What else can your Lordships expect us to do? Would you have us throw it over and accept some other measure? We might possibly, were it not that we feel ourselves pledged in this matter, propose some other solution which finds favour with noble Lords opposite—the solution which is now in existence under the circumstances of the South African Constitution; but by their method of Joint Sessions, let me remind noble Lords opposite, the will of the House of Commons would prevail, not within a limit of three sessions, but at the end of one session; and although we admit that this Bill is not a remedy for all the defects that require remedy at present, we cannot but think it is the best method of dealing with the subject at the present time.
This Bill does not remedy all the defects. We have more than once said that although this Bill deals with the situation when a Liberal Government is in office, it does not deal with the difficulty which undoubtedly arises when there is a Conservative Government in office. Noble Lords opposite are fond of speaking of the blow which this Bill deals to the dignity of your Lordships' House. I do not know that any blow which was ever delivered by His Majesty's Government was as deep as the blow which
814
was delivered by the Conservative Government in 1901. A Factory and Workshops Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House in that year which dealt with the whole law as to factories and workshops. It consisted of more than 100 clauses. It was read a second time, put through Committee, and read a third time on the same afternoon, and the Conservative Government refused to consider a single Amendment being introduced into that very important. Bill. I venture to think that was far from a dignified or proper way of treating your Lordships' House. We propose this Bill as a step forward, and a necessary step forward, in dealing with this matter. We deal with relations rather than with reconstitution.
Noble Lords opposite criticise the fact that we have omitted to deal with the reconstitution of the House of Lords, but may suggest to them that there is some common sense in settling what the machine is to do before making up your minds as to what the machine is to be like? When once you have made up your minds what the functions of the machine are to be you will be better able to make up your minds as to what it should be like. Nor do we think that any reconstruction such as is suggested, without dealing with the proposals we suggest, will affect the vital issue. In the course of the discussion more than one noble Lord has suggested that during the last twenty years any Second Chamber would have acted as this House has acted. Let me, like other noble Lords, briefly go through the period from 1895 to 1910, which divides itself into two periods—one during which this House gradually sank into a condition of coma, and the other during which its action has been somewhat feverish. When a Tory Government were in office noble Lords will remember how readily they accepted the Bills introduced by noble Lords opposite. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in the course of his speech this evening, told us that any Government establishing a new state of things ought to meet with difficulties in so doing. I am not disposed to quarrel with that statement, but the criticism which I should make upon it is that a Conservative Government meets with no difficulties in this House when it does try to establish a new state of things. It is only a Liberal
Government which meets with difficulties. Noble Lords will remember perfectly well how the Education Act of 1902, the

815
Licensing Act of noble Lords opposite, and even the institution of Chinese labour met with no direct frustration on the part of members of your Lordships' House. I have always regarded the Archbishop of Canterbury as more responsible than any man in England after the Colonial Secretary for the establishment of Chinese labour in the Transvaal. The right rev. Prelate spoke on more than one occasion, but he was as unable as the Liberal Party to effect any change in the policy of the Government.
Then, during the last few years, we have seen this activity on the part of your Lordships' House. The noble Duke who has just spoken tried to charge my noble friend Lord Carrington, and I think also my noble friend Lord Haldane, with inconsistency on the ground that they had spoken with some pride of the achievements of His Majesty's Government. We do not deny that His Majesty's Government have been able to pass a considerable number of small Bills through this House as well as the other House. What we complain of is our larger Bills have not only been rejected, but have been largely amended by your Lordships' House, and it has struck me as curious in the course of this debate when noble Lords opposite have been attacking the position of the House of Commons that when His Majesty's Government introduced a Bill to make the House of Commons more representative of the people the Bill was immediately thrown out by your Lordships' House. But we had the General Election of January last year, the Conference which failed, and then the General Election of last December, when, I think we are all agreed, generally speaking the policy of His Majesty's Government was the main subject before the country.
A noble Lord who has some official connection with the Front Bench opposite introduced a new note, it is true, into the discussion. I am sorry he is not now in the House. Lord Hindlip brought the case of Mr. Crippen into an election and told us that no doubt if Crippen had had 100 votes the Government would have interfered to save his life. But apart from an occasional eccentric such as the noble Lord, I think we are all agreed that the real question before the country was the policy of His Majesty's Government; and we have brought in our alternative, which, after all, secured the largest number of votes. There has been considerable discussion on the
816
question during the past few months. There has been discussion also in previous years. In another place it was discussed in 1907 as well as in 1910. In this House it was also discussed last year, and there were also the discussions which took place at various times upon the reform proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and also of Lord Newton, so that I think nobody now can say that the proposals of His Majesty's Government were not within the full cognisance of the people of this country.
In spite of that, however, we had the noble Marquess who spoke earlier this evening telling us that nearly one-half of the country was in his favour. Let me venture to give your Lordships the figures relating to this point. During the last General Election the total majority for the Liberal and Labour Party was 350,171, and that, of course, is ignoring the plural voter, who as an individual is now thrown over in connection with the Referendum. If we take into account the plural voters—and if it is a question of individuals it is not unfair to do so—taking the calculation of Mr. F. E. Smith, the number of such votes cast at the General Election was 400,000. I make a present of 300,000 to noble Lords opposite, and retain 100,000 for ourselves. That is not an unfair estimate to make. Under those circumstances we find that the majority of the electors voted for His Majesty's Government and their policy rather than for the policy of noble Lords opposite. Let me remind the noble Marquess opposite what the majorities have been during the past few General Elections. In 1892, when the Liberal Party was returned to power, the majority was 200,000. In 1895 the Unionist majority was 104,000; in 1900, it was 123,000; so that on both those occasions, if we make allowance for the plural voter, we find that the noble Marquess and his friends were maintained in office, not by a majority of votes, but merely by the aid of the plural voter. I should not have entered into this question if the noble Marquess himself, following other noble Lords, had not done so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to point out to the noble Earl that what happened at previous elections has no bearing on the matter whatever. It is a question of absolute figures. I have not checked the noble Earl's figures, but even if every one of them is correct it would

817
still follow that a very large number of the electors of this country are on our side and not on his.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. I felt sure I should be interrupted by him, and I have won something.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise. I will not interrupt again.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no complaint to make on this occasion. Let me turn for one moment to a statement made by Lord Leven and Melville. He told your Lordships that no Amendment had been made to the best of his belief, in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. Will the noble Earl allow me to advise him on another occasion to read the debates in another place before he makes a statement of that kind? I do not think he would have found a single book of reference or newspaper which would not have pointed out to him his inaccuracy on matters of fact, and important fact. Let me point out that the Government did accept Amendments—one dealing with the date of Bills and the other dealing with the matter of rating. The noble Earl, perhaps, in view of those inaccuracies, will excuse me if I say no more on the subject of the speech which he made. Let me say one word upon the question of rating. I am sure I shall have the agreement of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite when I say that few questions are so difficult for us all to deal with as those which come within the debatable ground of whether Bills are or are not Money Bills. On such a Bill, for instance, as the Housing and Town Planning Bill we have had real difficulty in knowing whether Amendments were privileged or not. I venture to think that what is in the Parliament Bill will clear up that difficulty to a very large extent. All these questions of rating have been removed, and there will be, I believe, much less difficulty in dealing with these questions in the future.
After all, what will be the practical result of this Bill if it becomes law? We agree that a Bill which is introduced in the first session of a Parliament will, in the circumstances set out, ultimately, in spite of the resistance of your Lordships, become law. So also if it is introduced in the second year it will ultimately become law.
818
But is it quite fair to describe that as entirely a system of single-Chamber government? There are at least half the number of years during which a Parliament exists in which the powers of this House remain exactly as they were before. You will have every opportunity of amending and rejecting Bills during the last two years of any Parliament. You will also have during the first two years every opportunity of Amendment and of delay. Indeed, one noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite is of opinion that it gives considerable powers to your Lordships' House. Last week Lord Curzon said—
"Is it not certain that by your tyrannical measures, as we think them, you will breed an obdurate and reactionary spirit in the House of lords as it then exists? Is it not certain that your Lordships House will be a greater bar to Radical legislation, within its powers, in the future than it has been in the past?"
Mr. Balfour has also expressed the opinion that we are increasing the power of the House of Lords in the things in which we do not want to increase it. In those circumstances I do not think it is any exaggeration on our part to say that the system we are proposing is very far removed from a system of single-Chamber government.
What do noble Lords opposite mean when they say they wish for the continuance of a system of double-Chamber government? There is at present no equality between the two Chambers; they are not equal in any kind of way. This House has admitted that it has nothing to do with finance. Its connection with administration is comparatively small. Occasionally your Lordships pass an Address to the Crown protesting against a small Order in connection with a scheme of education. But in the administration of the Foreign Office, in the great questions of war, of peace and of defence, your Lordships have nothing like the same powers as the House of Commons, and practically the power of originating Bills in this House has died away. No Bill of first-class importance has for some time been originated in this House. Therefore, only certain legislation would be affected by this Bill. Vetoes have gone, and have left the powers which used to exercise them even stronger than before. Your Lordships know very well the system of checks which exists in this country—the check upon the Commons, upon the Cabinet, upon this House and upon the Crown. Is it not a

819
question well worth consideration whether, after all, the check proposed in this Bill might not become in time a far better check upon this House than the check which at present exists? I think your Lordships might well consider in time to come that such a check as that in this Bill is far better than the one which exists, and which might conceivably, according to the text books, at any rate, be used.
What we ask your Lordships to do is to make only one of many steps and of many concessions which have been made by the House of Lords. Mr. Lecky, a well-known Unionist, spoke of the magnitude of the power theoretically vested in the House of Lords as an obstacle to its moderate exercise, and he expressed the opinion that a Veto defined and limited by law would be more fearlessly and generously exercised. That is an expression of opinion not altogether unworthy the attention of your Lordships' House. What in our opinion is really wrong at the present time is not the position of your Lordships' House, for the moment at any rate. I do not wish to complain of the position of your Lordship? House. What we say has gone wrong is the attitude which you have taken up with regard to measures which come to you from another place. It is the relations between the two Houses which are wrong; and it is those relations which we are anxious to improve, it is that difficulty rather which we are anxious to solve. We hope that this Bill will be a solution of the difficulty. The futility of political prophecy is proverbial, but at any rate I would venture to say this. If this weapon were used too tyrannically or too harshly it would break in our hand, and it would be we who would be hurt rather than noble Lords opposite who have always protested against its use.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the noble Earl who has just sat down, and before I comment on his remarks I must say I cannot congratulate him upon the number of supporters sitting behind him on such an auspicious occasion. I see nobody at all behind the Front Bench opposite. I am addressing the occupants of the Front Bench, it is true, and I feel honoured at being allowed to do so, but I am addressing nobody else on the opposite side.
The noble Earl who has just spoken congratulated the House on the fact that this
820
Bill was going to be read a second time, and he went on to say that he hoped we should not press Amendments. I imagine that if we give this Bill a Second Reading we shall certainly in Committee press Amendments—Amendments which the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, foreshadowed would be grave Amendments. The noble Earl referred to the Referendum and to Joint Sittings. But he said, on behalf of the Government, that they would not have anything to do either with the Referendum or with Joint Sittings. The fact of the matter is, the noble Earl wants the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Then the noble Earl—and in this I could not follow him—referred to the reform of your Lordships' House and said he wanted to know what the machine was to do before considering what the machine was to be like. I cannot understand that. When I buy a machine I am anxious to know what it is like, so that I can form some opinion of what it is likely to do. There is nothing whatever in that argument of the noble Earl. Then what was the use of dragging in Crippen? Crippen is hanged, and there is an end of him. The noble Earl said he was anxious to solve difficulties. There is one very easy way of solving a difficulty with your enemy, and that is to knock him down and stamp upon him. After all the abuse that has been poured upon this House and the charges that we have left undone those things that we ought to have done and done those things we ought not to have done, we are face to face with this Bill, which is the outcome of all the threats and abuse that have been poured upon your Lordships throughout the country for many months past.
The noble Viscount moved the Second Reading of this Bill in stern and uncompromising words. The only thing that is to be said for the Bill is that it is short enough and plain enough. That is really the only praise which one can give the Bill. But I, and I think a great many others, dislike being vetoed and reduced to the position of being able only to re-edit the Bills which the House of Commons sends up to us. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said yesterday—
"This House has now admitted, in the most formal and definite manner that I can imagine, that its moral authority in discussing and opposing this Bill is not what it was before the noble Marquess's Bill received a Second Reading."

821
I beg with all humbleness to differ from the noble Viscount. Lord Lansdowne's Bill makes this House stronger. How can we have lost our moral power when the proposals contained in Lord Lansdowne's Bill make this House stronger although smaller in numbers? How have we lost our moral power in discussing this Bill because we gave a Second Reading to Lord Lansdowne's Bill? Our powers would remain as strong as ever under that Bill although the personnel of the House would be entirely altered. The noble. Viscount also told us that this Bill was not final, and that this Chamber was to be reconstituted after the Bill had become law. But no matter how this Chamber is reconstituted, it will still have the Veto overshadowing it. I suppose that if this Chamber consisted of angels, with archangels sitting on the Front Benches, the deliberations of that august Assembly would be reduced by this Bill to the mere flapping of wings.
We have been told that the subject of the Veto of the House of Lords has been before the country at two General Elections, and especially at the last election. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War, in his speech on Lord Lansdowne's Bill, made a great point of that, but I cannot see that the people are evincing very great interest in the matter. We do not see crowds outside the House waiting for the verdict upon this Bill. The noble Viscount mentioned the Reform Bill of 1832, and stated that the Duke of Wellington by his wise action saved the country from a great disaster—that was when the House of Lords at first refused to pass the Reform Bill. I admit that there were riots; Bristol was half burned down, and the country was in an uproar. But there is nothing of that sort going on now. And does the noble Viscount suppose that if we did not pass this Bill, or did not pass it without amendment, there would be riots or rows of that sort?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Certainly not. I do not think there would be great riots as there were in 1832. What I said was that there might be, and probably would be, grave confusion and grave difficulties for the nation.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Viscount says there would be grave confusion and great difficulties; but when a mob
822
get into great confusion and difficulties I think there is very likely to be what we call in Ireland a row. Perhaps the people do not understand the gravity of the situation. Who will really govern if this Bill becomes law in its present form? The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, admitted that the private Members' rights in the House of Commons had disappeared, that the time of the House of Commons must be taken up by Government business, and he also said that devolution was necessary. Great Government measures and great changes such as Home Rule might, under this Bill, be introduced and passed through the House of Commons and sent up to this House, talked about here and delayed for, say, two years, but then those measures would become law automatically, and all the arguments used against them in your Lordships' House would be of no avail. That is an immense power to put in the hands of a few, and those few the Cabinet of the country. I quite appreciate that it is a power worth while making a great effort to obtain. I do not think the people of this country appreciate that if this Bill becomes law that power will be handed over to these few men.
I cannot help feeling that behind this Bill there is some force pushing the Government on. It is not the feeling of the whole of the people of this country. The noble Viscount mentioned groups. It is not because the Welsh group want Disestablishment; not because the Scottish supporters of His Majesty's Government want a change in their land laws. I venture to say it is because the Nationalist Party demand Home Rule for Ireland and cannot obtain it unless this Bill becomes law. They are a force which the Government cannot do without. They have to be reckoned with. The noble Viscount said this was an idle remark. It is no idle remark. The public utterances of the Leader of the Nationalist Party make the situation perfectly clear. They have intimated to the Government that unless the power of this House is taken away and unless they are granted Home Rule, they will deal with the Government as they think fit. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated that the feeling against Home Rule was weakening in Ireland amongst Unionists, and especially amongst the young Unionists and loyalists of that country. I can assure the noble and

823
learned Lord—I wish he were now in his place—that nothing of the sort has occurred. Devolution has been laughed out of the field of Irish politics entirely, laughed out by Unionists and Nationalists alike; and the Nationalist Party recognise that there is a strong Party in Ireland who are determined not to have Home Rule. I am not speaking particularly of the North of Ireland, which, as noble Lords opposite know, is bitterly opposed to Home Rule; but there is a strong party and a scattered party in the south just as determined that they will not have Home Rule.
I will tell your Lordships why they will not have Home Rule. They will not have it because they do not wish the government of their country handed over to men who are the avowed enemies of this country. That there is a weakening of opinion against Home Rule in Ireland I deny most absolutely. Ireland is a fair land, and it is worth fighting for. It is a land that we all love, and we would not like to see it handed over to the men to whom I have referred. I live a great part of the year in Ireland, and I can confidently state that these farmers who have bought their land under the purchase laws are not nearly so keen about Home Rule as they used to be, and I venture to say that if you were to call a meeting in my own county to advocate Home Rule you would not have that sort of meeting that you could have got together in the old days. You would not have the strong and respectable farmers of the county attending the meeting and giving the object their support. The meetings that are held in the counties where the land purchase system has had full swing consist of rabble.
I give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill on condition that Amendments, and Amendments of a grave character, are introduced in Committee, and I hope we shall insist upon the insertion of an Amendment which will prevent a Home Rule Bill being brought in under the system which will be set up by this Bill and which would preclude your Lordships from any effective voice in the matter. I think that would be disastrous. This Bill is disastrous enough as it is, but were it to bring in its train a Bill which would disintegrate the United Kingdom it would be a very serious matter. This, therefore, is a question which deserves most earnest
824
attention when we go into Committee on this Bill.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I ask your permission to detain you for a few moments, partly because I feel disposed to make a confession and partly because I desire to make an appeal to the leaders on the other side. I confess that I am immensely relieved at the policy indicated by our leaders on the Front Bench as regards the general question covering the two Bills which have been under discussion during the last two weeks. If the noble Marquess's Bill had been challenged the other night I should have supported it without any hesitation. I have been under the conviction for some time that it was inevitable that something must be done to counteract the enormous majority on this side of the House, which instead of being its strength has really been its weakness. I recognise that in that I am not altogether in sympathy with a good many Peers on this side who do not like that Bill. In saying that I should have supported Lord Lansdowne's Bill I must not be understood as holding it to be the last word on the question of the reform of this House, but it was an honest attempt, and a very excellent attempt as a first attempt, to suggest a reasonable reform, and it has been so recognised by the two noble Viscounts on the Front Bench opposite. Well, it seems to me that tactically our position is very much stronger in consequence. We have shown the whole of the country that we are ready in a practical manner to undertake our own reform. That seems to me to put us in a very much stronger position in the constituencies than we were in before.
Passing on to the Bill under discussion to-day, I am equally relieved to find that I can support the leaders of the Opposition as regards their policy upon this measure. I have here to make my confession—that I do not think I am altogether in sympathy with the whole of those with whom I have sat and voted for so long. I am not altogether in sympathy with the attacks that have been made on His Majesty's Government for introducing this Bill. I confess I do not see, having regard to all the circumstances of the last four years and having regard to the division of Parties, what else the Government could have done but try and put a limit upon the delay which this House has the power

825
of imposing upon legislation. That is the construction—a mild one, I dare say—which I put on this Bill. I think they were bound to do something of the kind, and having regard to the fact that proposals of this nature have been made previously by prominent Liberal Statesmen I am not surprised at the form which they prefer. It has been suggested—and this is one matter in which I am not altogether in sympathy with some of those on this side of the House—that the leaders of the Government are really in favour of single-Chamber government. I do not think that attack can be pressed. We have had an authoritative statement on that point from the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for. War. He has practically pledged the Prime Minister to bring in a Bill for the reform of this House at the earliest opportunity. That is the pledge which the noble Viscount gave, and I should imagine it is one which he felt himself entitled to make and which his leader will recognise.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I pointed out that on the Third Reading of this Bill the other day the Prime Minister pledged himself to do that.
LORD HARRIS: Well, I will put it in that way. The noble Viscount took the opportunity of calling the attention of this House to the fact that Mr. Asquith had pledged himself to bring in a measure for the reform of this House at the earliest possible opportunity. In these circumstances I cannot associate myself with the attack upon His Majesty's Government that they are hypocritical in making this statement, and that they have in their hearts a desire for single-Chamber government. As regards this Bill, apart altogether from finance, the construction I place upon it is that it puts a limit on the amount of delay which this House has always been able to impose upon legislation, and that is all that a great many of us in speaking throughout the country have claimed for this House. I cannot speak for other noble Lords, but I have repeatedly stated on public platforms that all that the House of Lords claim to do is to put a drag on, to introduce a delay in regard to hasty legislation; and in respect of a great deal of the legislation that will come up to this House I submit that that is what this Bill does. If the maximum amount of delay which is to be legally entrusted to this
826
House is imposed on every legislative measure, it is obvious that no legislation but finance can pass through except under two years. That is an absurd idea. But I submit that for a great deal of the legislation that does come up to this House two years and more—for it is more than two years—is ample in which to discuss, amend, and endeavour to compromise, and that in the course of that time the opinion of the country must be manifested sufficiently strongly to show the Government of the day whether or not they are wise in pressing continuously the same Bill which they had introduced on the first occasion.
But having shown that amount of sympathy with the Government, for what it is worth from a humble individual like myself, that is the limit of it; and I do venture to hope that they will not turn a deaf ear altogether to those who are anxious to see some Amendments introduced into this Bill. It seems to me that, to use a time-honoured phrase, His Majesty's Government are inebriated with the exuberance of the verbosity of their hilarious following. They think themselves all-powerful, and they are pressing their attack rather recklessly, I think, and without paying sufficient attention to their defence. They must admit that under this Bill, once it becomes law, it is possible in the course of the time limited by the Bill to introduce very dangerous legislation. I do not think that they can possibly dispute that if a Government were so minded they could introduce very dangerous legislation. There is nothing to stop them if they have a majority behind them. May I express the hope that the Government will consider the advisability of accepting Amendments of their Bill, which they are so satisfied is all-wise and which they pledge themselves is the cure for all the ills?
I must here interpolate that it does seem to me that the Government have not been very dignified in the way they have whined about what this House has done. They are for ever harping upon it; and an illustration of how the constituencies of this country are educated was given by the noble Lord on the Back Benches to-night, Lord Ilkeston, who referred to the Reform Bill of 1884 as an instance of how his feelings were affected towards the Rouse of Lords. The noble Lord knows just as well as any other Peer

827
that what the House did then was simply to demand a Redistribution Bill at the same time as the Reform Bill. That was all that was done, and Mr. Gladstone admitted that it was legitimate. May I point out that this Bill if it should become an Act is capable of being subsequently amended out of recognition unless safeguards are put in. The Government say, of course, that that is impossible, but the impossible in legislation sometimes becomes the possible; and I venture to point out that for their own safety as legislators, for
828
their own credit, for the safety of the country, it will be wise to consider whether they should not remove the possibility of reckless legislation and take care that any new legislation of that kind affecting the Constitution should be referred to the Country.
Debate again adjourned, till to-morrow.
House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.