Sitting of 7 November 1911

Preamble
The House mot at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the county of Somerset, Southern Division, in the room of Sir Edward Strachey, Bart., called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Gulland.]
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings during the month of August, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
Copy presented of Order made by the Urban District Council of Portadown, and confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Supplementary Regulation made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, during the Session of 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
Copy presented of Report, No. 81 (Southern Nigeria. Report on the Results of the Mineral Survey, 1908–9, by
1450
Professor Wyndham R. Dunstan, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Great Britain and Germany.
  Mr. KINGasked whether communications had passed between the Foreign Office and German Government relative to an alleged interview granted by a British Ambassador to an Austrian newspaper; and, if so, what was the purport or conclusion of those communications?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Two incidents have lately formed the subject of communications between His Majesty's Government and the German Government. One is the article published in an Austrian newspaper, and referred to in the question; the other is the report in the German Press of a speech delivered by my right hon. Friend who is now Home Secretary. The communications between the Governments have been of a more or less informal character, and it is unnecessary and perhaps would not be suitable to publish them; but I may say that they were not of a nature to cause any difficulty between the two Governments. I think, however, that it is desirable to state the facts. It was alleged, and in some quarters believed, that the British Ambassador at Vienna had been—through an interview or in some other way—a party to the publication of an article criticising German policy; it was reported that my right hon. Friend, then First Lord of the Admiralty, had in a public speech used language attacking German policy. Both these incidents were construed in Germany as a direct public and intentional affront to Germany on the part of a British Minister and a British Ambassador, and have given rise to great resentment. The facts are that the British Ambassador in Vienna was not in any way a party to the publication of the article complained of, nor had he any knowledge of it before its publication. My right hon. Friend did not use the language complained of in his speech; the passage in question was interpolated into the report of his speech from some entirely foreign source, and nothing of the kind was said by my right hon. Friend. I would express the hope,

  1451
  after these incidents, that public opinion will be on its guard against being carried away by false statements. Difficulties may, of course, arise from time to time between this country and others from a real divergence of policy at a particular moment. I believe that the Governments concerned will be able to overcome all such difficulties if facts are not exaggerated or distorted. But if false news is to be reported and believed, public excitement and resentment will some day get beyond what it is possible for Governments to control. There has been a tendency in individual organs of the Press, sometimes in Great Britain, sometimes in Germany, to put a sinister construction upon action taken, or supposed to be taken, by the German or British Government respectively in different parts of the world. I trust that, with the conclusion of negotiations now happily arrived at between France and Germany on the subject of Morocco, the tension that has given rise to suspicion and misconstruction in the British Press and the German Press will disappear. As has already been stated on behalf of the Government, both here and in another place, there will be an opportunity later on for a statement and discussion of foreign policy, and I shall hope then to deal more fully with this and other matters. It is impossible to deal with them adequately within the limits of a reply to a question.
  Mr. KING: Arising out of that reply, for which I feel sure the whole House will be grateful, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the assurances and explanations were cordially and quickly accepted by the German Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think, after the full and considered statement I have given, my hon. Friend ought to ask me further questions. I would refer him to what I have already said in my answer, that any communications which passed were not of a nature to cause any difficulty between the two Governments.

  Persia.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state approximately the number of British and Indian troops employed as Consular guards in Persia at the present time?
  Sir E. GREY: The total number of Indian troops at present employed as Con-
  1452
  sular guards in Persia, including the reinforcements now being sent, is approximately 770. There are besides 191 officers and men at Jask, and 111 at Charbar, employed in connection with the prevention of the arms traffic and the protection of the telegraph station.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the number of Russian troops at present in Persia; if any addition has recently been made to the number; and, if so, can he say for what purpose such additions have been made?
  Sir E. GREY: It is believed that in August last the number of Russian troops in Persia was about 3,500. Since then the Russian Government have notified us of their intention to send additional Consular escorts to Khoi (100 men), to Resht (100 men), and to Ispahan (150 men). These men are, I understand, being sent in view of the prevalent insecurity.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say if there is any truth in the report which has appeared in the Press that the Russian Government propose to occupy the Caspian provinces of Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not even seen the report in the Press, and I have no information whatever on the subject.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information showing the number of British subjects who have been killed during the fighting between the Turks and the Italians at Tripoli; and whether any steps, and, if so, what steps, have been taken to protect non-combatant subjects in Tripoli?
  Sir E. GREY: It is reported that eight Maltese were killed by falling masonry at Benghazi. His Majesty's Consul at Tripoli is in charge of British interests, but it is not possible for us to interfere in the military operations unless we depart from an attitude of neutrality; the Consul-General at Tripoli is instructed to keep us informed of any developments that may endanger British subjects.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a British subject be accused of an offence in those

  1453
  parts occupied by Italian troops, he would now enjoy the same advantages which he would have enjoyed when those parts were occupied by the Turks?
  Sir E. GREY: The Italian Government have announced the annexation of Tripoli, as no doubt hon. Members have seen, and I can only say that we reserve for examination the question how our treaty rights are likely to be affected. Until some case arises affecting them, and there has been time to examine it, and to consider what attitude we shall take in regard to it, I cannot give a definite reply.
  Mr. GRETTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider the advisability of sending some of His Majesty's ships to those ports where war is going on so that British subjects may be taken away if they so desire?
  Sir E. GREY: I have telegraphed to the Consul to inquire whether there are British subjects who are anxious to leave and who are unable to do so. He has not yet reported that there are any British subjects who wish to leave and who are unable to do so. But if it should be the case that there are, we should take measures for providing transport to enable those to leave who wish to leave.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether the communication was made by cable or messenger?
  Sir E. GREY: By cable.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the British Consul a British subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member to give me notice.

  British Shipping.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the danger to British shipping by reason of many of the lights for the guidance of shipping in the Mediterranean and Red Sea having been extinguished since the outbreak of the war between Italy and Turkey; and whether the Government will take steps, either by representation to those two countries or by stationing British warships at the most dangerous spots, to minimise the dangers to shipping?
  Sir E. GREY: Every possible step has been taken to minimise the dangers caused to shipping by the extinction of the lights.
  1454
  Both His Majesty's Consular officers at ports of call and His Majesty's ships stationed within the sphere of operations have been kept constantly informed by telegraph as to the individual lights extinguished or in working order for the purpose of warning outward and homeward bound British vessels; and the attention of both the Italian and Turkish Governments has been called to the urgent importance to British commerce of maintaining the lights. As stated in my reply of the 2nd instant to the hon. Member for Central Hull, the Italian lights in the Red Sea have been relit; and I have asked the Turkish Government to consider whether they cannot restore such lights as are of importance to through traffic.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to the latter part of my question with reference to stationing warships at the most dangerous points?
  Sir E. GREY: I have been in communication with the Admiralty, and I understand that they are not in the least willing to do that.

  Riot in Alexandria.
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked the origin and cause of the riot that took place at Alexandria in Egypt on 31st October?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not yet received precise information as to the cause of the riot. That will reach me by dispatch, so far as it can be ascertained. The latest telegraphic information is that all is now quiet.

  Blockade and Contraband.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Proclamation of Neutrality issued in the years 1859, 1866, 1870, 1877, 1898, and 1904, on the occasion of the wars which took place in those years, British subjects were specially warned of the penalties consequent on breaches, or attempted breaches, of blockade and of the carriage of contraband of war to a belligerent, and were given notice that if they committed such acts they would do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they would obtain no protection from the British Sovereign; and whether he can state what change of circumstances has taken place since the year 1904 which made it desirable in the recent Proclamation of Neutrality wholly to omit all mention of breaches, or attempted

  1455
  breaches, of blockade and carriage of contraband of war to belligerents, and all special warning in relation thereto?
  Sir E. GREY: I am well aware of the phraseology employed in the Royal Proclamations issued in the years mentioned, but after careful consideration it was held that the wording then used was out of date and not in accordance with modern practice in matters of contraband. The change was made in the recent Proclamation for the reasons stated so fully in the answer to the hon. Member on the 30th ultimo, that I can add nothing to them.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to what are the changed circumstances that cause the change in practice?
  Sir E. GREY: It has been given in the previous answer to which I have referred. That answer was:—
  "The language used in the King's Proclamation of Neutrality, issued on the 3rd instant, was designed with a view to bringing it into closer harmony with modern requirements and usage than did the phraseology employed in similar instruments issued in past years. The carriage of contraband to a belligerent is not an offence against English law, but is undertaken subject to the usual risk of capture, and the penalties attaching thereto. The same principle applies to breaches, or attempted breaches, of blockade. That being so, it appeared to His Majesty's Government no longer necessary to state that British subjects concerned in such operations would thereby necessarily incur the high displeasure of the Sovereign, and the King was accordingly advised to omit the phraseology referred to from his recent Proclamation. No inference should, however, be drawn from this change of wording that British subjects are no longer liable to the pains and penalties recognised by the Law of Nations if, at their own risk, they embark on such transactions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1911, col. 531.]

  Lake Michigan Naval Station.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United States Government is making a naval station on Lake Michigan at the cost of about £7,000,000, whether this is a breach of the Rush-Bagot Treaty; and whether he has had any communication from the new Canadian Government as to the fact that the United States is still continuing to break in a three-fold way the Rush-Bagot Treaty with this country, as to the number, size, and armament of their warships now stationed on the Great Lakes?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to all three questions is in the negative.
  Mr. HUNT: Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there is any
  1456
  truth in the statement that a naval station is to be established there, or whether it is a joke, like Mr. Clarke's annexation of Canada?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot make any promise about this matter. I have actually been in communication with the Canadian Government, who are the persons most intimately concerned and whose interests are mainly affected by any questions connected with the Rush-Bagot Treaty, and I would deprecate the giving of answers which would have to be given without consultation with the Canadian Government, who are most directly interested in the matter and with whom we keep in closest touch.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the Canadian Government whether it is a fact?
  Sir E. GREY: The Canadian Government keep us fully informed of their wishes with regard to what they wish us to do.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will he, or will he not, call the attention of the Canadian Government to this matter and to ask them whether they are willing that the treaty should be broken?
  Sir E. GREY: No. I propose to leave to the Canadian Government matters which concern directly their own interest, and to show our desire to act in sympathy and co-operation with them by not making statements about what they may or may not wish.

  Mashmi and Rima Missions.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the friendly missions now being dispatched to the Mashmi country and to Rima have been invited by the people of those countries, or whether they are being sent against their wishes; and, if so, whether it is intended to press them by force if they are resisted?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The friendly mission to the Mashmi country is not being sent at the invitation of the tribe. But there is no reason to anticipate that its presence will be resented by the tribesmen or that any opposition will be encountered. As I informed the hon. Member on the 31st October, no expedition is being sent to Rima, which is in Tibet.

  Abor Expedition.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the Secretary of State has inquired, and, if not, if he will inquire from the Government of India if any communications were at any time received from the Abors, offering to surrender the murderers of the late Mr. Williamson if the hostile expedition against them was abandoned; whether the expedition has any other object than to avenge Mr. Williamson's death; and when it is intended to lay Papers on the subject before Parliament?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to make the inquiries suggested by the hon. Member, as the Government of India have kept him fully informed on all matters regarding the proposed expedition, and as I said last week he has heard nothing of such communications as my hon. Friend suggests. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton on the 17th August last, the object of the expedition to the Abor country is to exact reparation for the murder of Mr. Williamson. But advantage will be taken of the opportunity to carry out such surveys and exploration as may be practicable in the tribal area. As I informed the hon. Member on the 31st October, I hope to lay Papers very shortly.
  Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say if he has formed any estimate of how many lives it will probably cost to avenge the death of Mr. Williamson?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is obviously impossible to form any estimate of that kind. It depends entirely on the conduct of the Abors.
  Sir W. BYLESasked what is the total force accompanying the punitive expedition against the Abors, the friendly mission to the Mishmes, and, the mission to Rima, respectively; what is the estimated cost of these three expeditions; whether it is intended to go beyond the village of Komsing, where Mr. Williamson met with his death; whether that village is within or beyond the external frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions; and what is the nature of the punishment which has been ordered to be inflicted upon the Abor people?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The total number of troops accompanying the Abor Expedition, including reserve, base, and line of communication, is about 2,350, in addition to a contingent of military police. The
  1458
  Mishmi Mission will be accompanied by an escort of 150 military police, and a company of sappers and miners. No mission to Rima, which is still in Tibet, is in contemplation. The total cost of the Abor Expedition is estimated at about £150,000, and that of the Mishmi Mission at about £27,000. It is intended that the Abor Expedition should visit as many as possible of the villages belonging to the Moyong section of the tribe, all of which are believed to have been implicated in the murder of Mr. Williamson's party. The villages in question (including Komsing) are not situated beyond the external frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions. The nature of the punitive measures to betaken will depend upon the action of the Abors themselves.
  Sir W. BYLES: Does it not amount to this, that because some unknown person or persons killed Mr. Williamson, the Indian Government is sanctioning the sending out of large numbers of troops to kill an indefinite number of persons who had nothing to do with the murder?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A British officer was murdered in the Abor country, and the Indian Government is taking steps to demonstrate that it is impossible to murder a British officer without serious consequences.
  Mr. WATT: That is the return to this country for the £150,000 that is being expended.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers and men are required to bring the Territorial Force up to establishment strength, and what method it is proposed to adopt in order to secure the requisite numbers?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In reply to the first part of the question, on the 1st October, 1,779 officers and 47,746 noncommissioned officers and men were required to complete establishment. As regards the second part of the question, the Government are carefully considering what is the most advantageous method to be adopted, if necessary, to secure the required numbers, especially in view of the engagements which will be completed next year. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: When may we expect some definite announcement?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly before the Army Estimates come on next year. I do not know that there is any great advantage in announcing it at a very early date.
  Mr. SANDYSasked on what grounds the efficiency of the Territorial Force is officially stated to have improved, in view of the fact that the number of the force has decreased by 284 officers and 2,645 men since last year, and also in view of the fact that the number of officers and men attending camp for the full period has declined by 129 and 12,755 respectively, whilst the numbers of those absent from camp during the whole period of training have increased from 25,995 in 1910 to 33,511 in 1911; and whether the right hon. Gentleman considers these figures satisfactory?
  Colonel SEELY: It is admitted that the figures quoted are not satisfactory. But it must be remembered that the general efficiency of a force does not solely depend upon its numbers, and there is a consensus of opinion amongst the military authorities, who are best able to judge, that, on the whole, there has been a decided and satisfactory improvement in the general efficiency of the force.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter portion of my question refers to the training and not to the numbers, and does he consider the figures with regard to attendance at camp training satisfactory?
  Colonel SEELY: That is what I meant when I said that the general efficiency of a force does not depend on its numbers. I also added that the best military opinion, which I shall be glad to quote to the House, is that the efficiency of the force has greatly increased.
  Mr. SANDYS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question, in which I ask him on what grounds the efficiency is stated to have improved?
  Colonel SEELY: I have stated that we rely on the best military opinion, and at the proper time I shall be very glad to produce the opinion of the Inspector-General and others on this point.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Napoleon did not say that "victory lies on the side of big battalions"?

  Compulsory Military Service.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether, in the event of a grave national emergency, the Government contemplate the adoption of a system of compulsory military service for two years at the age of nineteen or twenty?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir.
  Mr. SANDYS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he wishes to dissociate himself from the speech made by Lord Haldane at Chelmsford, in which he said that in certain circumstances compulsory service may be necessary?
  Colonel SEELY: The statement in the question is not the statement of my Noble Friend.

  Industrial Disputes (Employment of Military).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the total number of troops employed in maintaining order during industrial disputes in the British Isles during the years 1900–6 and the years 1906 to 31st October, 1911?
  Colonel SEELY: There are no statistics readily available to enable me to give the required information.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain them?
  Colonel SEELY: It is very difficult to get the exact information. I will find out how long it will take, and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the cost of the use of the military in connection with the recent railway strike will be borne by the railway companies?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer is in the negative. There is no precedent for such a course.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Prime Minister if the Government intended to pay compensation to the dependents of those who were killed by the military in connection with the recent railway strikes?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Have the Government made any demand on the railway companies in connection with the railway strike?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not that I am aware of.
  Mr. WATT: Has any demand been made on the railway companies to subscribe, either to the expense of the military or in connection with the injuries resulting therefrom?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member means a demand made by the Government, not so far as I am aware. But there may have been demands made by private persons; I know nothing about that.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to state how much the railway strike cost, owing to the use of the military?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend should address that question to the Under-Secretary for War.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already done so, and have got no satisfactory reply?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    VOLUNTARY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a copy of a joint resolution passed by the boards of management of the four voluntary medical hospitals in the city of Sheffield, calling upon the Government so to amend the National Insurance Bill that the continued existence of voluntary hospitals may be safeguarded financially and their efficiency as curative institutions and schools of medicine may be maintained and developed; and whether he proposes to take any and what steps to safeguard the interests concerned?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part I would refer the hon. Member to the Debate that took place on Clause 12 on 31st July.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Supposing that, notwithstanding any contributions made to these institutions by the authorities in charge of the benefits, there is still a deficiency, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of giving these institutions power to make application to the State for assistance?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot promise to go beyond what is provided by the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. JAMES HOPErose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that if there is a tendency to abuse the privilege of asking supplementary questions they may endanger the retention of that privilege.

    REMUNERATION OF DOCTORS.
    Mr. HARRY HOPEasked whether doctors in popular holiday resorts will receive remuneration for attending persons insured under the National Insurance Bill who are on holiday in such places?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question will be one to be dealt with by the regulations to be drawn up under Clause 14.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state whether, in his new proposals relating to the health insurance of agricultural labourers under the National Insurance Bill, he has incorporated the suggestion which he made to a deputation from the National Farmers' Union on 4th July that, if the employer would undertake to pay full wages to his labourers for the first six weeks of any illness, the sick benefit of 10s. per week should be paid over to the employer; or, alternatively, whether he has abandoned his original plan, as foreshadowed in his reply to the above deputation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The suggestion referred to was purely tentative. Farmers who hire their labourers for a period of six months certain will have two alternatives open to them under the Bill as proposed to be amended. The first is to pay a reduced contribution under the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has tabled and to remain under a liability for the sickness of their employés, which accords with present custom. The second is to pay the full contribution and to make what arrangements they choose with their employés as to the receipt of sick benefit.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the report of the interview incorrect which appears in the organ of the National Farmers' Union to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that "in the case of confined men where full wage was paid in the

    1463
    event of sickness he considered the State payment of 10s. per week should go to the employer?"
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not the present proposal, nor the proposal which appears in the Amendment.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether the men will have the same option as the farmers have?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it is possible to give two options. It is a question of the conditions of employment, and I do not think we could give an alternative option.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, unless the National Insurance Bill as it now stands be amended, the disablement benefit will be payable only to those who are, for the time being, totally disabled and unable to earn any wages?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under Clause 8 as it stands disablement benefit is payable to persons "rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement." I would remind the hon. and learned Member that it is because these words would probably lead to some variety of construction that my right hon. Friend has agreed to reconsider them on Report.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the number of valuation districts into which Ireland has been divided for the purposes of assessment and collection of Land Value Duties?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The number of valuation districts in Ireland is three. These are for valuation only.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Are the officers engaged in this valuation making a systematic survey of Ireland, or merely for reference?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That does not quite arise out of the question.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked how many of the 36,000 copies of Form IV. recently issued in Ireland for land valuation have been returned to the Commissioners; and how many have been satisfactorily filled in?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: 21,250 copies of Form IV. have been returned; of these 17,250 have been filled or partially filled up.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: In view of the fact that half of these forms that have been sent out have not been filled up, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to enforce any of the penalties set up in the Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue contend that Land Tax is not a fixed charge within the meaning of Section 41 of the Finance Act, and decline to make a deduction therefor except when it has been redeemed; and whether this contention is based upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The view of the Commissioners, who are acting on the opinion of their legal adviser, is that Land Tax is a tax within Section 25 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and its existence is invariably taken into account in arriving at both gross and total value.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether the difficulties which have arisen as to the interpretation of Section 25 (4) (c) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as to whether deductions for that part of the total value directly attributable to the appropriation of land for the purpose of streets, roads, etc., should be made or not, and that the practice of the Commissioners on this point is very variable and likely to lead to great difficulties and hardships; and will he take steps to secure uniformity of action by the Valuation Department?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A case involving this point is sub judice. Pending a legal decision the Commissioners are pursuing a course in accordance with their interpretation of the law, which is uniform except so far as may result from a variation in the circumstances of different cases, and I do not think any difficulty or hardship will occur. An owner has, of course, full opportunity of giving notice of objection to a provisional valuation in which this point is involved, if he dissents from the view of the Commissioners.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will instructions be given to the officers of the Inland Revenue not to enforce their interpretation of the

    1465
    law against persons who have no opportunity of knowing it until the law has been decided in the Courts?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will consider that point.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether forms are still being issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue six months since the passing of the Revenue Act, 1910–11, which draw attention to the benefits of Section 2, Sub-section (3) of the Finance Act, but ignore the Amendment contained in Section 2 of the Revenue Act, which extends such benefit; and is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to give instructions that in all cases where such documents have been issued the owners shall be informed of their legal privileges, and, if the three months during which they can apply for substituted site value has elapsed, extension of time shall be given?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The form in question has been revised, and the revised edition is in general use. If the hon. Member will inform me of any case in which the old form has recently been issued I will cause inquiry to be made. At present I see no reason for giving instructions of the nature suggested.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Inland Revenue to make inquiry?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We do not think it is the case.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed that it is the case.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will give me information to that effect I will make inquiry.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give the total number of Forms IV. issued in England, Wales, and Scotland, as on and up to the date of decision of Mr. Justice Horridge holding issue of such form to be ultra vires; whether he can give the approximate total cost of the issue, collection, and tabulation of the form, and the number of cases in which a provisional valuation has, in consequence of such issue, been served on owners of hereditaments and agreed on?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable to give the required particulars to the exact date of the decision in Dyson v. the Attorney-General. Up to 30th September,
    1466
    however, the number of Forms IV. (including a certain number of Forms III. to statutory companies) issued in England, Scotland, and Wales was 10,793,509, and the number of Provisional Valuations served was 995,854. No information is available as to the number of Provisional Valuations agreed upon. As regards the question of cost, I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 2nd instant to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras West.

    Ordnance Maps.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the cost of providing 200,000 largest scale Ordnance maps mounted on linen for the use of land valuation district offices has been noted in the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ending 31st March, and, if so, under what heading; and whether the expenses and salaries of the Ordnance Survey Department, who, for the convenience of the work of valuation, are proceeding with the revision of the 25-inch Ordnance Survey, will be charged to the Land Valuation Department and not to the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The cost incurred in connection with the provision of the maps used by the Valuation Department, so far as it fell on the Inland Revenue Vote, is included in the figures given in Column 6 of Table 5 of the Commissioners' Report. The maps in question are not precisely as described by the hon. Member. The Ordnance Survey Department is charged generally with the revision of the Ordnance Survey, and such departures from the usual practice of that Department, either by expediting the revision in particular cases or by adding to the informaton furnished, so as to meet the requirements of the Valuation Department, are not considered to require that the cost of the revision should be charged otherwise than as usual to the Board of Agriculture.

    Proposed Dairy Exhibition.
    Mr. HINDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the refusal of his Department to contribute in any way to the expenses of the contemplated dairy exhibition proposed to be held in this country; and whether, having regard to the importance of our milk supply, the increasing cost of this article of food, and, in particular, the tuberculous condition of so large a proportion of the cattle of this

    1467
    country, with its direct bearing upon infantile mortality, he will cause this decision to be reconsidered?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I understand the question to refer to the International Dairy Congress proposed to be held in Great Britain in 1913. There are many reasons of policy which make it undesirable that the Government should contribute to the finances of open congresses of an unofficial and voluntary character. The refusal of financial assistance does not imply any failure to appreciate the importance of the congress itself, or of the matters referred to in the second half of the question.

    Bahamas, Barbados and Bermuda.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the official rules and regulations for His Majesty's Colonial Civil Service, the Bahamas, Barbados, and Bermuda are now referred to as being commonly known as Crown Colonies; whether, having regard to the fact that the Colonies in question have representative institutions, he will state when this change in the Colonial regulations was made; and whether he has received any representations from the Governors of the Colonies in question regarding it?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The Colonial Regulations were last revised in 1908. The first regulation clearly recognises the difference between various types of Colonies not possessing responsible Government, which it states are "commonly known as Crown Colonies." For the purposes of the Regulations it is necessary to have some expression embracing all the Colonies whose administration is carried on by public officers under the control of the Secretary of State, and at present I do not think that any more suitable phrase could be found. The matter will doubtless be considered at the next general revision of the Regulations in 1918. I have received no representations from the Governors of the Colonies in question.

    Exports from United Kingdom.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of the exports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured from the
    1468
    United Kingdom to the United States, Germany, France, and Belgium collectively in the year 1910, and what was the total estimated population of those four countries taken together; and what was the total value of the same category of articles consigned to South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland collectively during 1910, and the total estimated population of those countries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The total value of the exports from the United Kingdom in 1910 of goods wholly or mainly manufactured (exclusive of re-exports) to the foreign countries specified, was £72,580,000; and the total estimated population of those countries was about 204 million persons. The value of the exports of goods of this class to the self-governing Dominions was £67,917,000, and the total estimated population of the Dominions about eighteen and a-half million persons.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one British subject in the British Dominions is as good a buyer of British goods as over ten foreigners in our principal competing nations?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can answer that for himself.

    Artificial Fertilisers (Railway Rates).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on German and French railways specially low rates are now charged for the consignment of artificial fertilisers with the object of enabling farmers to develop their land and increase its production at as small an outlay as possible; and whether the Board of Trade can take steps to secure the adoption of the same policy by British railway companies?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Many British railway companies grant special rates for various fertilisers included in their "packed manures list." I cannot say how these rates compare with similar rates in France and Germany, but if the hon. Member will inform me of any cases in which he considers that the charge is excessive I shall be happy to communicate with the companies concerned.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the hon. Gentleman see that his Department take steps to inquire into the recent reductions

    1469
    upon Continental railways, particularly in Germany and France, as regards fertilisers and feeding stuffs?

    Telephone Transfer.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed that an annual contribution equivalent to the amount now raised by way of rate shall be paid by the Government to local authorities in respect of property taken over from the National Telephone Company?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As I stated on 27th October, in reply to the hon. Member for North-East Lanark, the Government is prepared to authorise some contribution in lieu of rates on the National Telephone Company's undertaking after 31st December next, but the precise basis of the contribution has not yet been settled.

    Scottish Salmon Fishings.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is now the intention of the Woods and Forest Department to give preference to fishermen working the fishings for their livelihood in leasing Scottish salmon fishings from the Crown if they are prepared to offer the market rates?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The general practice of the Commissioners of Woods is to grant leases of salmon fishings in Scotland to the persons who tender the best rents, provided their references are satisfactory. In the case of two offers of the same rent being made, one by a fisherman who has worked the fishings for his livelihood and one by some other person, the fisherman would generally be given the preference, subject to satisfactory references.
    Mr. WATT: The recommendation of the Commission is to be adhered to by the Department, if I understood aright?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I said that preference had been given to the fishermen.

    Steel Dredgers.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any purchases of steel dredgers or any parts thereof have been made from foreign firms by the Admiralty during the last two years?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): As regards dredgers, the answer is in the negative. As regards dredger parts, in April last a few pins (for dredger buckets) composed of a special material were purchased from a foreign firm for trial purposes.

    Supply of Oil (Admiralty).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty oil contractors at Greenock are now in possession of the necessary equipment to oil torpedo boats with rapidity, in view of the fact that in July last they were unable to oil the torpedo boat flotilla of the third division Home Fleet until hoses had been obtained from Edinburgh?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The contractors are in a position to meet our requirements with punctuality and dispatch. It appears, however, that on the occasion in question, although the oil arrived punctually, there was some delay in its transfer to the destroyers, arising, not from any insufficiency of equipment in possession of the contractors, but from the fact that the hoses had been sent in error to Troon instead of to Greenock. Steps will be taken to ensure, as far as possible, that the incident shall not recur.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this occasion the torpedo boat flotilla of ten boats was delayed for over twenty-four hours?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the circumstances have been explained in the answer.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the Admiralty oiling station at Dundee has recently been improved; and whether he is aware that the torpedo boat flotilla of the Third Division, Home Fleet, was unable to oil rapidly in July last owing to lack of wharf space and of efficient plant?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no Admiralty oiling station at Dundee. Supplies are forwarded from Admiralty stocks held in storage by contractors. I am advised that there was no delay in supplying oil on the occasion referred to. The system of supply then made use of is considered satisfactory, and there is no present intention of altering it.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of establishing an oiling station there, as well as at the other stations?

    Rosyth Dockyard.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the slow progress that is being made with the new harbour works at Rosyth, it is still the intention of the Government to adhere to the policy of financing all Government works out of the Estimates; or whether it is proposed to revert to the system of loans?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No need has arisen at the present time which renders any change in the policy of the last few years desirable.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to say that the Government have not under consideration a change in the works?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my answer is quite complete.

    Employment of Children Act (By-Laws).
    Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the Home Office to encourage local authorities who have not yet made by-laws under the Employment of Children Act, to make such by-laws and to secure their due observance?
    Mr. McKENNA: On the passing of the Act the Home Office issued to all local authorities a circular calling their attention to the provisions of the Act, with model forms of by-laws for their assistance in preparing regulations for their districts. The responsibilty for deciding whether by-laws are required in any particular district rests, and I think must rest, on the local authority, who are acquainted with all the circumstances of the district; and while my Department is ready to give the local authorities all possible assistance in framing by-laws, no useful purpose would, in my judgment, be served by its pressing for the adoption of by-laws against the view of the local authority. I may add, however, that the revision of the model by-laws is in contemplation, and when the revised by-laws are ready I will issue them to local authorities with a fresh circular.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many local authorities have adopted by-laws?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not say without notice, but I will inquire if my hon. Friend presses it.

    Provision of Meals Act.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities administer the Provision of Meals Act through care committees as in London; how many have simply canteen committees; and how many refer cases for remedial treatment to local guilds of help or other outside institutions?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I have no information to enable me to give an exact answer to the first and third parts of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is 103, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the canteen committees vary somewhat widely in constitution.

    Haverfordwest Grammar School.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in the scheme for Haverfordwest Grammar School no provision is made by which an assistant master under notice to leave can appeal to or appear before the governors, his employers; whether he is aware that the head master, who is generally of the same or similar educational antecedents, has that right, while it is denied to his assistants; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: The provisions contained in the scheme for Haverfordwest Grammar School are the common form provisions inserted in practically every scheme now made by the Board of Education for a secondary school under the Endowed Schools or Charitable Trusts Acts. So far as dismissal upon notice is concerned, those provisions do not give any right of appeal to the governors in the case either of the head master or the assistant master. My hon. Friend, however, probably refers to the provisions relating to dismissal without notice. An assistant master can only be dismissed without notice after the governors have given their approval to the dismissal, and the Board, after very careful consideration of the question, are unwilling to give any right of appeal to the governors in this matter. This decision is not based upon grounds relating to the educational antecedents of the assistant master, but upon a general view of the proper organisation of a secondary school. I will be glad to supply my hon. Friend with a copy of the scheme if he so desires.

    Teaching Scholarships.
    Baron de FORESTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been called to the fact that the number of candidates for teaching scholarships under the London County Council had decreased from 1,181 in 1908 to 477 in 1911; whether there was a similar decrease in other parts of England and Wales; if the cause of the decrease was known; and if the Board of Education was taking any measures to prevent the dearth of qualified teachers which must result in consequence of it?
    Mr. J. PEASE: The Board have no information as to the number of candidates applying for teaching scholarships under the London County Council. I cannot trace any figures which exactly correspond to those mentioned in the question. I can give the number of persons actually recognised by the Board as pupil teachers or bursars in London for each of the years named. The number of persons so recognised was 1,158 in 1908, and 533 in 1911, showing a decrease similar to that suggested in the question, though not quite so great. The corresponding figures for England and Wales as a whole, including London, are 9,555 persons recognised in 1908, and 5,214 persons recognised in 1911. Possibly some small addition may have to be made to the 1911 figures on account of late applications. The decrease is probably due in a large measure to an impression which recently existed that there are more certificated teachers than are necessary, and it may be hoped that as the facts as to the need for more teachers becomes generally realised, the number of candidates will return to its normal level.
    Mr. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these sudden changes are due to the vacillating policy embodied in successive regulations of the Board of Education?
    Mr. J. PEASE: No, Sir.

    Farm Institutes.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the establishment of a farm institute with the help of grants from the Development Fund was contemplated in any area other than the counties of Somerset and Dorset, and, if so, where; and whether, in view of the desirability of making the farm practice at the institute
    1474
    typical of the agriculture of the district, and of the fact that peculiarities of soil, cropping, and climate are not coterminous with county boundaries and administrative county or group of counties would always be treated as the area for such institutes?
    Mr. J. PEASE: I do not yet know in what areas farm institutes will be established, as education authorities have been asked to defer making applications to the Board of Education for Grants-in-Aid of such institutes until the detailed Regulations for the distribution of such grants have been issued. These Regulations will, I hope, be issued at an early date, think that it may be desirable that an institute should, in some cases, be planned for an area determined by differences in agricultural methods rather than by administrative boundaries.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a farm institute is contemplated for the counties of Somerset and Dorset; and has the Board approved such institute?
    Mr. J. PEASE: I am aware that in these and other cases there is a movement in the direction of establishing institutes; but I have nothing to add at present to the answer I have given.

    Imperial Parliament.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether, as it was proposed to establish in Ireland a Parliament consisting of two Chambers with full representative powers and control, it was also the ultimate intention of the Government to re-constitute the Imperial Parliament upon a double-Chamber basis?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer the hon. Member to the Preamble of the Parliament Act.
    Mr. SANDYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when it is proposed to restore the balance of the Constitution by the creation of a Second Chamber with reasonable effective powers?

    His Majesty in India (Administration of Royal Functions).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister, had any provision been made for the administrations of the Royal functions during the forthcoming absence of His Majesty the King during his voyage to

    1475
    India; would that provision be made by the nomination of Lords Justices or, if not, how otherwise, and, in case it was by nomination of Lords Justices, would he state to the House whom it was proposed to nominate; and whether this House would have an opportunity of considering and pronouncing upon such nomination?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Provision will be made by Order in Council for delegating the exercise of certain of the executive functions of the Crown during the King's absence. The language of the Order will necessarily be wide, but as His Majesty will, during his absence, be in daily telegraphic communication with His Ministers here, all matters of gravity and importance will, in ordinary course, be submitted to him. The persons named in the Commission will be H.R.H. Prince Arthur of Connaught, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord President of the Council. No legislation is needed for the purpose.

    Lord Chancellor (Vote of Censure).
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that a Vote of Censure on the Lord Chancellor had been allowed to remain ever since 17th July on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons without being debated; and whether he would give an early day for its discussion unless it was withdrawn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer my right hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question.

    Army Discussion.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he could now state when the day would be given for the general discussion on the Army promised last Session on behalf of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There were two extra days, in addition to the allotted days on Supply. When this additional time was given I understand that the Opposition made no request for any further discussion on the Army.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Whip gave me a distinct undertaking that we should have another day for the general discussion of the Army?
    Lord BALCARRES: Does the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury think it fair to have answered that question until I had had an opportunity of talking to my hon. Friend?

    Secondary Schools (Salaries).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he could grant a Return of the salaries paid to assistant masters in all State-aided secondary schools, giving the minimum and maximum salaries where scale salaries are in force?
    Mr. J. PEASE: The Board of Education have for some time past been giving special attention to the question of expenditure in secondary schools, especially as regards salaries, and have been collecting information on the subject with a view to the issue of a series of statistical tables. The information, which will include figures both with regard to head masters and assistants and girls' schools as well as boys, will, it is hoped, be ready for publication in a week's time and will contain the figures asked for by the hon. Member.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the Return contain comparative figures?
    Mr. J. PEASE: I cannot say without notice. I understand that the figures will be as complete as they can possibly be made.

    School Gardens.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked how many elementary day schools possessed gardens cultivated by the children themselves; what was the total number of scholars for whom instruction in gardening grants were paid; how those figures compared with those for the school year 1902–3; and in what proportion of the above schools was the work inside the school correlated with that done in the gardens?
    Mr. J. PEASE: So far as the Board have figures on the subject, the number of school gardens has increased from 379 in 1902–3 to 1,880 in 1909–10; the number of scholars in respect of whom the special grant for gardening was paid was 5,501 in 1902–3 and 29,679 in 1909–10. Full returns for the year just elapsed are not yet available, but it is believed that the number of schools giving practical instruction in gardening must have been upwards of 2,000. As regards the last part of the question, the Board have no information which can be presented in statistical form, but they have reason to believe that many

    1477
    local education authorities are fully alive to the importance of such correlation and are doing their best to secure it.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that the latest figures available are for the school year 1909–10?
    Mr. J. PEASE: Yes.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Are any of the schools referred to within the county of London?
    Mr. J. PEASE: I must ask for notice of that question.

    Fiars Prices.
    Captain WARINGasked whether it was intended to give early legislative effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee with reference to fiars prices?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The recommendations of this Committee, which reported in June of the present year, will receive the careful consideration of the Government with a view to legislation at the earliest opportunity.

    Locomotives on Highways Act.
    Captain WARINGasked whether any administrative order had been made under Sections 9 and 10 of the Locomotives on Highways Act to vary the provisions of Section 3 of the Locomotives Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1878; and, if not, whether the issue of any such order was contemplated?
    Mr. URE: I fear I cannot add to answers given on previous occasions to my hon-Friend, to the effect that such an order as suggested can only be made for Scotland as a whole, and that the Government are not satisfied that there is sufficient agreement among those interested in the matter to justify the issue of such a general order.

    Public Vaccinators.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to the opinion of Dr. Killick Millard, medical officer of health for Leicester, that the future control of smallpox lay with the medical officer of health rather than with the public vaccinator; and whether the Board was prepared to allow the position of public vaccinator to lapse as vacancies arose?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My attention has been drawn to the opinion attributed to this particular medical officer of health. I am not at present proposing any alteration in the position of the office of public vaccinator.

    Post Office (Ex-Service Appointments).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General how many appointments as established postmen and porters have been made since the arrangement was made in 1897, under which half the places were to be offered to ex-service men; and what number of these appointments have been given to ex-service men?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am unable without much research to give the figures for as much as fourteen years: Great care is taken to assign to ex-soldiers or ex-sailors half the vacancies as postman or porter. In the calendar year 1909 ex-service candidates received 1,223 out of 2,598 vacancies, and in the calendar year 1910, 1,366 out of 2,587 vacancies; or taking the two years together, 2,589 out of 5,185 vacancies.

    Agriculture and Telephones.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of circulating, by means of notices placed in post offices, the advantages offered to agricultural areas in regard to telephones; and whether, in the case of the rural districts of Wales, they will be published in the Welsh language?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member. Amongst other expedients, I am taking advantage of the facilities afforded by the publications and notices of the Agricultural Organisation Society and its affiliated local associations and of the Board of Agriculture to bring the rural party line service directly under the notice of farmers and other rural residents; and I think that perhaps better results can be achieved in this way than by exhibiting notices in post offices.
    Mr. HINDS: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point of language will receive consideration if notices are to be exhibited in the post offices.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, of Bantry, county Cork, was granted an old age pension by the local sub-pension committee; whether such pension was refused by the Local Government Board for Ireland; and, seeing that she produced a certificate which showed that she was married fifty-three years, he will recommend that inquiry be made into her case?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Mrs. Sullivan was granted a pension of 5s. a week by the pension sub-committee, but on appeal by the pension officer the Local Government Board, on 26th September last, disallowed her claim on the ground that she had failed to show that she had attained the statutory age. She did not appear in the list of her parents' family in the Census Return of 1841, and she produced no marriage certificate or other evidence as to her age when given an opportunity by the Board of doing so. If she has now obtained a marriage certificate to the effect indicated, it is open to her to make a fresh claim.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the grounds upon which Dan Murphy, of Roughawn, Coola, county Sligo, Riverstown, Ballymote, county Sligo sub-committee, who was in receipt of an old age pension for a number of months (number in pension officer's register 34/22), has been deprived of the same by the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: So far as the Local Government Board are aware Daniel Murphy has never been in receipt of a pension. The Board have disallowed three claims made by him, the latest being refused on the 3rd July last on the ground that the evidence of age submitted was not sufficient to satisfy the Board that he had attained the statutory age.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the following estates in the union of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, still remain unsold, namely, the Beatty estate, Tullycusheen-beg, Tubbercurry, the Leitrim and Ballyglass estate, same union and county, the Tully-villa estate (owner the representatives of John Walker, deceased, Sligo), and the
    1480
    Mullaun and Doobeg estate of Charles Phibbs, Esq., J.P., Doobeg, Ballymote, county Sligo; and whether, seeing that Mr. Beatty, owner of the Beatty estate, is unable to negotiate terms of sale, he being a lunatic, and that his agent, Mr. Morrison, refuses to sell at any price, steps will be taken to bring about a sale of this and the other unpurchased estates mentioned in the question?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The lands of Leitrim North on the Nicholson estate, and Bally-glass on the Mossman estate, have been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, and will be inspected and decisions arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable. The Board communicated with the agents for the Beatty and Walker estates asking them to lodge the necessary maps and documents, if the owners desired to sell the properties through the Board, but no replies have been received. In the case of the Phibbs estate the owner has refused to sell and the matter is being specially considered by the Board.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of the Widow Nolan, of Clara, county Kilkenny; whether he is aware that Mrs. Nolan owed only a half-year's rent which, owing to almost entire failure of her crop, she was unable to pay on demand, and that, instead of granting her request of two months to enable her to make up her rent, the landlord served her with a writ under which judgment was marked and subsequently bought in at the sheriff's sale her interest for £1; whether he is aware that reasonable terms of purchase were offered to the landlord on behalf of this poor widow and three young children, and having occupied sixty-six statute acres, being two-thirds of the entire estate; and, in view of the circumstances of the case, will the Estates Commissioners consider the advisability of acquiring this estate in the interests of this woman?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the case of Mrs. Nolan does not come within the class of persons mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and they have therefore no power to acquire the lands for the purposes of her reinstatement.
    Mr. MEAGHER: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to amend the defects of the Act of 1909?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Does the hon. Gentleman ask me whether it is our intention to introduce legislation?
    Mr. MEAGHER: That is quite so.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I do not intend to do so.

    Police Regulations (Taxi-Cabs).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he will consider the advisability of altering the Metropolitan Police Regulations in respect to the charges for taxi-cabs plying on the streets, so as to eliminate and make illegal all charges whatsoever for extras other than those automatically registered, as they are entirely unwarrantable, and have been apparently the cause of much dishonesty amongst the drivers and disputes with the cab companies, whereby the public have been put to an enormous amount of inconvenience?
    Mr. McKENNA: It must be understood that I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the statement that there has been any dishonesty amongst the drivers, nor that enormous inconvenience has been caused to the public. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is: As he is no doubt aware the question of taxi-cab fares has recently been considerd by a Departmental Committee, and I would refer him to their suggestions. I can make no further statement at present.

    Troops in India (Cholera).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for India a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can give the House any further information regarding the outbreak of cholera among the Royal Scots and other troops at Benares?
    Mr. ACLAND: The following telegram was received by the Secretary of State from the Governor-General on the 4th November: "Outbreak of cholera in 1st Battalion, Royal Scots. Total cases up to date, 25; deaths, 10. It was explosive outbreak, occurring suddenly on 1st November, due to infection acquired in Benares City, where it was prevalent, and aggravated by inrush of pilgrims on account of recent eclipse. Troops moved to camp. Outbreak at once checked; now well in hand and probably over."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTERmoved,
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to an Address to His Majesty in reference to the Education (Scotland) Fund, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 101.

Division No. 373.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Alden, Percy

Chancellor, Henry George

Elverston, Sir Harold

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Armitage, Robert

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Falconer, James

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Clough, William

Farrell, James Patrick

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Barnes, George N.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ffrench, Peter

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Field, William

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

Cotton, William Francis

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bentham, George Jackson

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Booth, Frederick Handel

Crumley, Patrick

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Bowerman, Charles W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Brace, William

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Glanville, Harold James

Brunner, John F. L.

De Forest, Baron

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bryce, John Annan

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Goldstone, Frank

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dillon, John

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan, Captain A.

Greig, Colonel James William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Doris, William

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Duffy, William J.

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

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

Hackett, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Reddy, Michael

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

McGhee, Richard

Rendall, Athelstan

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Harwood, George

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

Robinson, Sidney

Haveiock-Allan, Sir Henry

Martin, Joseph

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Masterman, C. F. G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meagher, Michael

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

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Henry, Sir Charles

Menzies, Sir Walter

Scanlan, Thomas

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

Millar, James Duncan

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

Higham, John Sharp

Moiteno, Percy Alport

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Hinds, John

Mooney, John J.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hoit, Richard Durning

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Munro, Robert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Horne, Charles Sylvester (Ipswich)

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

Tennant, Harold John

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Neilson, Francis

Toulmin, Sir George

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Trevelyan, Charles Philip

Johnson, William

Nolan, Joseph

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norman, Sir Henry

Verney, Sir Harry

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Wardle, George J.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Waring, Walter

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Nuttall, Harry

Wason, Rt. Hon, E. (Clackmannan)

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. Hmts., Stepney)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Watt, Henry A.

Keating, Matthew

Ogden, Fred

Webb, H.

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Malley, William

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Kelly, Edward

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Whitehouse, John Howard

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

Wiles, Thomas

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Lundon, Thomas

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pringle, William M. R.

Mr. Gulland and Mr. G. Howard.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Raffan, Peter Wilson

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Grant, James Augustus

Mount, William Arthur

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

O'Grady, James

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Harris, Henry Percy

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baird, John Lawrence

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Hills, John Waller

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Barnston, Harry

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Horner, Andrew Long

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Ingleby, Holcombe

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Jowett, Frederick William

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stewart, Gershom

Bull, Sir William James

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Campion, W. R.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Clyde, James Avon

Lansbury, George

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

Valentia, Viscount

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

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

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

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

Wolmer, Viscount

Falle, Bertram Godfray

M'Mordie, Robert

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Malcolm, Ian

Yate, Col. C. E.

Forster, Henry William

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gilmour, Captain John

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Earl Winterton.

Goldman, Charles Sydney

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

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

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Bill further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 2nd November.—SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 36.—(Special Provisions with Regard to Persons in the Naval and Military Service of the Crown.)
  (1) There shall be deducted from the pay of every seaman and marine within the meaning of the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, and of every soldier of the regular forces (other than His Majesty's Indian forces and the Royal Malta Artillery) the sum of twopence a week, and there shall be contributed by the Admiralty and the Army Council respectively in respect of every such seaman, marine, and soldier, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Army and Navy services such sum per week as may be prescribed: Provided that this provision shall not apply to a seaman, marine, or soldier who has re-engaged for pension unless he so elects.
  (2) The sums so deducted and the contributions so made shall be paid to the Insurance Commissioners, and by them carried to a separate account, and there also shall be credited to that account—

  (a) in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier serving at the commencement of this Act (other than those who have re-engaged for pension), the reserve values of such seamen, marines, and soldiers;

  (b) in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier who has, before his entry or enlistment, been insured under this Part of this Act, and paid contributions thereunder, the amount which would have been credited to an approved society had he been transferred to such a society;

  (c) two-ninths of the amount calculated in the prescribed manner which would be payable from year to year in respect of benefits (including expenses of administration) to seamen, marines, and soldiers from whose pay deductions are made under this Section had they been members of approved societies, and had been employed within the meaning of this part of this Act.

  (3) On the discharge of a seaman, marine, or soldier, from whose pay deduc-
  1486
  tions continue to be made up to the date of his discharge there shall be debited to the said separate account and credited to the approved society of which he is or becomes a member, or if he is not and does not become a member of such a society within the prescribed time from his discharge, there shall be carried to his credit in the Post Office fund the transfer value which would have been payable in respect of him had he been a member of an approved society during his period of service and the contributions payable in respect of him during that period had been paid in full:
  Provided that if he proves to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that he has been unable to obtain admission to an approved society on account of the state of his health he shall, instead of becoming a deposit contributor, become entitled to benefits under such scheme as is hereinafter mentioned.
  (4) The Insurance Commissioners may, after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council, prepare a scheme for conferring on persons who, having been seamen, marines or soldiers, prove to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that they have been unable to obtain admission to approved societies on account of the state of their health, sickness and disablement benefit at the rate of five shillings a week, and for the administration of those benefits, and for the payment of such benefits out of the said separate account, and for carrying to that account any contributions payable under this part of this Act by or in respect of such persons, and this part of this Act shall apply to the persons to whom any such scheme applies subject to the provisions of the scheme:
  Provided that—

  (a) there shall be repaid to the account, out of moneys provided by Parliament, two-ninths of the sums expended on such benefits;

  (b) if a person who having re-engaged for pension is invalided without a pension or with a pension of less than five shillings a week, he shall (whether or not deductions have continued to be made from his pay up to the date of his discharge) be entitled to benefits under the scheme with this qualification that if he is in receipt of pension he shall be only entitled to such benefit as would with his pension amount to five shillings a week.

  (5) This Section shall, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed, apply to men belonging to the Fleet Reserve When called out on actual service, and to any men of the Army Reserve when, called out on permanent service or to men of the Territorial Force when called out on embodiment.
  (6) Where a man of the Fleet Reserve, the Army Reserve, or the Territorial Force is called out for training, he shall for the purposes of this part of this Act be deemed whilst so called out to be in the employment of the Crown.
  Mr. FORSTER: On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether it would be agreeable to you, Mr. Whitley, and to the Committee that we should pursue the same course on this Clause that we pursued on Clause 34. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's peculiar method of commending his scheme has led to such singular inconvenience to those of us who have taken part in this discussion that I think we are entitled to ask for some larger measure of latitude than would otherwise be the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has showered Amendments upon us. We had a shower on Friday last, and we have another shower to-day.
  Sir GODFREY BARING: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley, is the hon. Gentleman entitled to make a speech when raising a point of Order?
  The CHAIRMAN: It would be better that the hon. Gentleman should indicate his point of Order.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think I am right in saying that we were put to some disadvantage in being called upon to discuss this immense series of Amendments upon short notice. If I may offer one word of comment on the statement contained in the memorandum [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and "Order, order."]
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of Order on that subject?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think I have said enough to make the point clear that, if it would be agreeable to you and the Committee generally, it would be convenient to Members of the Opposition, if we had a general discussion before we come to the Amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that most of the Amendments standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1488
  are consequential upon the first one, and, therefore, it would be a matter for allowing Members on the first Amendment, which involves the consequential ones to review the field of the Amendments and also Amendments to these Amendments put down by other hon. Members. If that would meet hon. Gentlemen's views I propose to allow the discussion upon the first Amendment to proceed on these lines.
  Mr. SANDYS: Would it be in order on a general discussion to raise the question of the Territorial Forces?
  4.0 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has an Amendment on that subject, but that is not a part of the scheme of this Clause, and I am afraid when he comes to it he will not be in order on merits. It would not be possible to deal in this general discussion with the question of the position of members of the Terrtorial Force except when serving.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether you intend this latitude to be given equally to every Member of the House. I remember the first time this latitude was given it was confined to the spokesmen of four parties. I take it this latitude will be given quite fairly.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not aware of any arrangement of the kind referred to.
  Mr. BOOTH: You were not in the Chair, but during a previous discussion on the Bill it was laid down in the House that only four speeches were to be allowed, one from each party.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:—
  "For the purpose of providing seamen, marines, and soldiers with such benefits during their term of service and after their return to civil life as are hereinafter in this Secton mentioned."
  It is true what the hon. Member said that I am proposing rather a drastic series of Amendments to this Clause. It in also true that this is not the first time that I have proposed changes, and very severe changes, in some of the Clauses of the Bill, but may I remind the hon. Member that I said from the first that I would do so. My proposal was to place this Bill on the Table of the House for criticism, not merely inside but outside the House,

  1489
  and no pride of parentage would prevent me from mutilating the Bill if I thought it would improve its efficiency. I have always taken that view when in opposition, and I repeatedly pressed upon the Ministry that it would be far better if the Government took the House more into their confidence, invited suggestions, and altered their Bills much more frequently. I have persistently pursued that course, and I hope I shall be able to do it right to the end.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for amending his Bill. I want him to amend it a great deal more. What I quarrel with is that he gives us such short notice.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought the hon. Member complained that I had showered Amendments upon the Committee, and I thought he was complaining of the fact that I had showered Amendments. I regret we could not give longer notice, but I do not think the time consumed in preparing Amendments was at all lost, and although I agree that hon. Members have not had as full an opportunity of examining these proposals as I would have liked them to have had, I assure them there was not a moment lost in the preparation of the Amendments. What is the capital proposal? Let us first examine what the problem is with which we are faced. The problem is provision for soldiers and sailors after they quit the Service. During the time they are serving they get their medical attendance, hospital treatment, and their wages subject to certain stoppages, which are not a matter for this Bill, but purely a matter for discussion on the Estimates. The only subject that can be relevant to this Bill are the benefits under the Bill. What is to be done on the Army Estimates with regard to possible stoppages is a question entirely for the Army and those who control the Army and Navy, subject to the direction of this House. That is the position with regard to soldiers and sailors during the time they are in the Service.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: In speaking of service, does the right hon. Gentleman include the second term which the men undertake?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord is rather anticipating what I have to say. I was dealing with the position before this Clause comes into operation. I will deal with that subject when I come to the alterations
  1490
  I propose to make, and if I forget the point perhaps the Noble Lord will remind me. Soldiers and sailors are often stranded with practically no provision if their health has disappeared, and as hundreds leave the Service every year with their health broken down they are constantly met either in the workhouses or dependent upon the charity of their neighbours or of some institution. I think that that state of things is a perfect disgrace to a country like ours, and I thought that at any rate something ought to be done in this Bill for improving that condition of things. They suffer, especially, I think, in the Navy, a good deal from consumption, and I am not sure whether it is the same in the Army. A great many of them suffer from phthisis and other tubercular disease, and the moment tuberculosis is discovered in a soldier he is told that his services are no longer required; he is discharged, and there is no real provision for him at all. I fail to see why this country has stood that state of things so long, because the disease is very often acquired in the service of the country, and it is a very trying service indeed in the Navy.
  Rheumatism is another disease from which a good many of them suffer. That complaint practically disables them from all service and prevents them earning their livelihood after they have been discharged from the Service. As there is no provision at all in this respect we propose that some provision should be made. The provision which we made originally, after very careful consideration by our actuaries, we find can be modified as far as contributions are concerned and improvement as far as advantages are concerned. It took a long time to enter into the matter, and we were convinced, after a long examination which the actuaries were able to give to it, that an improvement might be effected. I must say here that we received very considerable assistance from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and I am sure the gratitude of the soldiers ought to be extended to him for the assistance he rendered us. I had the pleasure of discussing the matter with the hon. Member more than once, and he has evidently taken a vast amount of trouble in the matter. The proposal which I submit to the Committee is the result of the labours of the actuaries and officials and the hon. Member for Colchester.
  This is the plan. The soldier and the sailor will pay 1½d. instead of 2d. The Admiralty and the War Office, who are in

  1491
  the position of employers, will also pay 1½d. or its equivalent. I will come to that point later on. Then, of course, the State will pay two-ninths of the benefits exactly as they do in the case of any other insured person. I now propose to describe the machinery of insurance. I understand that the sailors join at the age of eighteen and a soldier joins at the age of nineteen. That means that the vast majority of the sailors and soldiers at present are not members of any society at all. That, however, will not be the case in the future, because most of them will be members of some society or other before joining the Service. What is required is that you should have some machinery to deal with the transitional period when the vast majority are not members of any society at all. This is our proposal. We propose that the soldier and the sailor shall have an option, to be exercised within three months after the commencement of the Act, to join any approved society. In the case of soldiers on foreign stations some allowance must be made for the fact that they cannot exercise their option within three months. Their contribution will then be paid to the society which they join, and then they will be just like ordinary members of any society. I will come to the benefit. If they join the Odd-fellows or the Foresters or any other society now in existence, or which will be set up after this Bill has become law, they will be just like ordinary members of that society. We suggest that the option should be exercised within three months, but I understand a suggestion will be made that it should be altered to six months, and six months' option will be given if that meets with the approval of the Committee. If the option is not exercised within six months, then the contribution will be paid to a special Navy and Army Insurance Fund, and he will remain in that during the time of service. On leaving the Service he can join any society he likes.
  Mr. W. THORNE: But they will not have him.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so. As a matter of fact, there will be competition for him. The hon. Member thinks they will not have him because he is broken in health.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Yes.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If on leaving the Service he is broken in health, then he
  1492
  goes on to the fund, and that fund has to give him 10s. or 5s. a week until he has recovered, and, when he has recovered, any society will be glad to get him.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Suppose he is a chronic invalid?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then he is on the fund as long as he lives.
  Colonel YATE: Can he join any society he likes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He can join any society he likes six months after the commencement of the Act, or six months after enlistment he can join any society he chooses. We cannot prescribe the society. We cannot force a man to join any particular society on leaving the Service. If he is a member of the Army and Navy special fund he can then, if he chooses, join an approved society, and, out of that fund, a transfer value is paid which will make it worth the while of that society to have him, because seven years of his life has gone in the Service. They could not take him at sixteen or eighteen years, and therefore we give a sum of money that ought to induce the society to accept him. That money will be paid to the society that takes him in order to induce them to accept him as a civilian member. If he fails to exercise that option after he leaves, or if any society refuses to take him for some reason or other, then he goes on to the Post Office fund, and his transfer value will be paid to that fund. Now I come to the benefits. During his term of service he receives maternity benefit and medical attendance. That is why he is only paying 1½d. per week.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: He gets hospital and medical treatment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought I had made it perfectly clear that, subject to stoppages, with which I have nothing to do in this Bill, and which are purely a matter for the Estimates when the point comes to be considered, he gets all benefits. If he is discharged through ill-health at any time he receives full benefits. If he is in a society, the benefits are paid by the society, and if he is a member of the Army and Navy special fund the benefits are paid out of that fund. He gets his pension every week during the first period of sickness, and 5s. a week for the rest of the term of his disablement right up to the time when he becomes entitled to an old age pension. He receives medical

  1493
  attendance and sanatorium treatment as well as the other benefits which are given by the society in respect of this money.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Without any reductions for old age pension.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He will receive the 5s. up to the date he becomes entitled to his pension. He receives, in fact, exactly what every civilian will receive. He is in the same category as a civilian, and gets all the benefit the moment he breaks down in health. If the society is able to give him more, he will get exactly the same advantage as the civilian, and a society well managed ought to be able to give him considerably more. As I have explained, if he is not in a society, he will receive his benefits from the Army and Navy fund. If he leaves the Army broken in health, he will go straight on to the fund. There may be a great deal of criticism on some parts of this scheme, but, broadly, I wish to point out that the soldier and sailor will pay 1½d., and the Army and Navy will pay another 1½d., while the State comes in with two-ninths of the benefit, exactly the same as in any other case. During the time he is in the Service, the only thing he will receive will be the maternity benefit, but if he breaks down during service he will go straight on to the fund. After leaving the Service the transfer value will enable him to go straight to a society, and he will get 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks, and 5s. weekly during the whole term of his disablement, together with medical benefit and sanatorium treatment. That is our new proposal. The Committee will realise that it is one of very considerable importance, and I hope it will see its way to dealing with it practically as a Second Reading proposal. Should it be desired to raise any Amendments, I trust it will not be necessary to discuss them at any great length.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the Committee is very much indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his brief description of the new plan. The right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks when he was complaining of the change. It was not the change from the old plan of the Government to a new plan that gave ground for complaint; it was rather the method and time which was chosen, though I think I may say that part of that has been inevitable, because, owing to the very heavy work of the Chancellor
  1494
  of the Exchequer in other directions, the right hon. Gentleman necessarily could not give all that attention to this Clause that he could have given if it had been the only Clause in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate how difficult it is for those Members of the Committee who have not been following the Debates very closely when the Government put down Amendments on a Saturday morning, and then produce a new Clause on Tuesday, which is not in the form of the Amendments.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The alterations are purely drafting.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the sickness benefit was to be payable for twenty-six weeks, and the Secretary to the Admiralty confirmed that view. It will be found that under the original Amendment it was only to be payable for thirteen weeks. That is not a drafting Amendment, and there may be other alterations which come within the same category. What has happened is that the day on which we are asked to consider the new Amendments we get a new Clause which very considerably varies them. It was only at noon that we got the actuaries' report, which seeks to justify this Clause. It is really of the financial part of this plan that I am going to complain, rather than of the scheme itself. I thank the Government for having accepted a great many of the Amendments which stood in my name; there are some others which I am going to move in the course of the Debate.
  Before I do that I want to remind the Committee that there are many thousands of men serving in the Army and Navy who, as they are under discipline, cannot agitate for themselves, and have not been able to take part in the deputations to and interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time. Neither have they been able to appear in the Lobby of the House of Commons or to approach Members of Parliament, for they have no organisation. It is true that one of the friendly societies, in which Service men are enrolled, has written to the right hon. Gentleman, but the majority of the Service men have had no spokesman at all in connection with this Clause. Therefore it is all the more necessary for the Committee to be, not only strictly fair, but even a little generous; and, if there is any question of doubt, it should be given on the side of the soldier or sailor, and not of the

  1495
  Treasury. There is a point of doubt in connection with the finance of this Clause, and that is proved by the attempt of the Government actuaries to show that there are no statistics available.
  I am going to assume that the Committee understand the scheme of the Government as to the manner in which soldiers and sailors will be dealt with in the future. There will be large numbers of them already members of approved societies before they enlist, and 1½d. will be deducted from their pay. That will go to the societies, so that, as far as the men are concerned, the insurance will make little or no difference, except that they will get the maternity benefit. Then there are some who will not be able to join societies—it may be because they are neglectful, or it may be for some other reason. They will remain on the hands of the Government. For them the Army and Navy special insurance fund has been created, and they will have the same deduction from their wages. On leaving the Service they will take their transfer value with them. There is a danger that in consequence of their state of health no friendly society will accept them. That risk is provided against by the Government placing them on the Special Army and Navy fund, and from that they will get the full benefits as if they belonged to an approved society. I am glad to note, in passing, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he believed that most of those who enlist in the Army will in future be already members of some society or other before they join. That is an important point for the Committee to bear in mind, because a large financial question turns upon it. I may say, at once, that the Government has in this scheme put before us something which looks quite well, and, if it were financially sound, I would readily accept it. But it is not financially sound, and no approved society will be able to take soldiers or sailors without running undue risks. And that brings me to the first real point of difference between the Government Amendments and myself. The Committee will notice that the Government proposes that the two-ninths of the benefits which the State add to the contributions made by and on behalf of the men, amounting to between £80,000 and £90,000 a year, is all to be paid into the Army and Navy special fund. No part of that is to be paid to friendly societies which take in soldiers and sailors. The effect of that will be that the £80,000 to £90,000 is spe-
  1496
  cially set aside for the purpose of taking in those men who leave the Service not having the same usual rate of health as civilians. It is admitted that there are men leaving the Army who are in a worse state of health than the average civilian, and for that purpose the whole of the two-ninths, amounting to £80,000 to £90,000, is proposed to be taken by the Government and put into the Army and Navy special fund. Let the Committee consider this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer just now said that he hoped in future the majority of the men will be members of approved societies before they join the Services. If that is the case, then the whole of that two-ninths ought to be paid to the approved societies and not to the Insurance fund, because the Insurance fund will have no claims upon it. If they are all members of the societies then the societies will have to meet the claims. If they are all members of the Insurance fund then the Insurance fund will have to meet the claims. The truth lies between the two. A large proportion will be members of friendly societies, and some small proportion will remain on the Army and Navy Insurance fund, but there can be no justification for taking the whole of the two-thirds and putting it into the Insurance fund and not giving the Insurance societies almost, if not quite, a rate able proportion. I say so because there will be some section against the Insurance fund and in favour of the friendly societies, more especially amongst those who are now in the Services and who have not yet joined the friendly societies. Those people who are in less than the average health and whom the approved societies will not take will be thrown upon the Army and Navy fund. For those people a special grant ought really to be made. As to members who belong to friendly societies before they enlist, that section against the Army and Navy fund will not exist at all. The whole of the two-ninths ought to be dealt with rateably, and I have put down an Amendment suggesting that. The Government tell us that the actuaries say there ought to be a deduction off that two-ninths of a reasonable sum, and I am quite prepared to take that into consideration. The actuaries, in their report, which came into my hands at twelve o'clock this morning, have made their figures balance, or balance within £11,000, by assuming that there will be no members of approved societies in the Army, and, assuming that the whole of these

  1497
  members will come on the Army and Navy fund, and by doing that they think they are justified in taking the two-ninths. They say, "It is impossible to estimate how many men will actually join the societies, but having considered the special effect on the fund of any large number of men so doing" (and this is really a gem which the Committee should consider), "we are of opinion that the effect of such abstention from the fund will not adversely affect it."
  It will not adversely affect it, but if they all become members of the friendly societies it will make a present to the fund of between £80,000 and £90,000. It seems to me the Government cannot let the matter stand here. As it is they have attempted a scheme which is intended to induce men to join friendly societies—the Chancellor of the Exchequer states that will in fact happen in future before enlistment—and then they take the fund which ought to be distributed amongst members of the friendly societies and appropriate the whole of it to the Army and Navy fund, which is required for the special degrees of risk. Another point in the Amendments of the Government militates against success. No reference whatever was made to friendly societies and management. If the 200,000 or 300,000 men are to go into friendly societies some sort of allowance should be made for management. The allowance for civilians is 4s. a year, equal to a penny a week contribution. So much as that will not be required, because the men will not be on benefit during the time of service. There will only be maternity benefits. The full 4s. is not therefore required, but 1s., equal to about a farthing a week, will be required. I have put down Amendments in order to meet that point. Again, the soldier and sailor is not in any direction dealt with equitably as compared with the civilian. When the civilian is ill and in receipt of sick benefit no contribution is required from him. The Service man is compelled to contribute while he is in hospital, and some deductions are even being made from his pay. It is a very small matter, but although it is small it must not be smiled at by those on the Front Bench and allowed to rest. It must be dealt with, because it is these small pin-pricking irritations which will go to harm the scheme in the Services. Then I want to know from the Government what their position now is in regard to Service pensions. In the first scheme embodied in the Bill as introduced a man was to have invalidity benefit
  1498
  of 5s., and that was to be reduced if he was in possession of a Service pension. If he had a pension of 3s. 6d. a week, earned really as a matter of deferred pay, that 3s. 6d. was to be taken off the 5s., and all he was to get out of the Insurance fund was 1s. 6d. That is one of the Clauses struck out by the Amendments, but nothing is said about whether the Service funds are to be taken into account except that it is to be left to regulations I want, in whatever regulations are made, to provide that no deductions shall be made from sickness and infirmity benefit on the ground that the man is getting a Service pension. He ought to have both, and there ought to be no doubt about it. The next important point is one on which the Government has refused to meet me, and that is the question of hospital stoppage. I want to try and put fairly before the Committee the case in regard to hospital stoppage, and in this matter the help of the Committee is wanted. The Government have improved matters up to a point, but here they will not meet us at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this is not a question of insurance, but a question that ought to come up when discussing the Army and Navy Votes. I hope to show the Committee that it is not a question which should come up on the Army and Navy Votes at all. It is a question of either sick pay for those who pay for it or something in exchange for sick pay. In the Army 7d. per day is deducted from pay when the man is in hospital, and he also loses corps pay and messing allowance. The actual amount of deductions for hospital stoppage alone in 1910–11 was £60,000. That is the gross figure. From that ought to be deducted the separation allowances, but as the War Office have no record of what the amount of separation allowance is, I cannot give the actual net figure. Taking the gross figure it amounts to this, that soldiers in hospital have to pay £60,000 a year for hospital treatment. If they are paying contributions under the Insurance Bill, it seems to me that that is an insurable risk which ought to be included. They ought to be able to insure against those deductions of £60,000 a year. That is the position as regards the Army. With regard to the Navy, 4d. to 10d. is deducted from the pay of a man in hospital after the thirtieth day and up to the ninety-first day. After the ninety-first day, if a man is still in hospital, he loses his pay altogether. Now the cost in 1910 for deductions made from pay between the thirtieth and ninety-first

  1499
  days was £3,500. The amount of pay lost after the ninety-first day is not known; there is no record. The man is struck off the pay roll. An Amendment I have put down on the Paper is to provide that the man while in the Service shall receive his sick benefit, or in lieu of sick benefit such sum as shall be equal to his hospital stoppage—equal to the actual loss of pay which occurs to him if he goes into hospital. The cost of that would be about three farthings per week. There are two arguments against it. One argument is the discipline argument, and the other the finance argument. The discipline argument amounts to this, that the man ought to be penalised because he is in hospital, for if you do not deduct something from his money he will shirk his work and go into hospital, and get medical comforts, and get other men to do his work. That argument entirely breaks down. What I am asking is that the men should now be allowed to insure at the cost of an average 4s. in the Army and Navy. There are 16,000 men who are at present members of friendly societies. If it is right to let them join societies and receive 12s. a week when in hospital, surely it is absurd to say that it is contrary to discipline to allow men in the Army and Navy to insure for 4s. a week. Then there is the malingering question. It is more easily dealt with by men in the Services than by civilians. As regards the civilian part of this Bill, you have to rely upon co-members of the friendly societies and on their doctors, and in Services you have also to rely on the other men in the Service and the doctors. The other men in the Services do not want a man to malinger, because if they let him malinger in hospital they have to do his work. Nobody will allow a man to go continually sick, when by doing so he makes another man do the work. With regard to the doctor, now that the free choice of doctors has been given, he will have little or no hold upon the civilian, but mark what his position in the Services is. A man in hospital is under discipline. The doctor has only to say, "get up and go," and the man has to get up and go, for the doctor is an officer whom he is bound to obey. Therefore, from the malingering or discipline point of view there is no case to meet.
  From the finance point of view I really marvel at our moderation in only asking for hospital stoppage, because there is a
  1500
  greater financial margin than is required to give hospital stoppage. I have a task which is not at all easy, I have to ask the Committee to follow me while I deal with some figures. The financial question is, who is to pay for the benefit if ¾d. is added to the cost of the scheme because hospital stoppage is given. Is something to be added to the 1½d. which is deducted from the Service men, or is something to be added to the contribution made by the Admiralty and the War Office (which is the employers' contribution), or is it to be divided. I say at once that it is to be added to the contribution of the Admiralty and the War Office, because they are not, as the Bill stands, even with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, paying anything like their rateable proportion as ii they were civilian employers. The soldier and the sailor is paying a great deal more than the civilian who is getting the same wages. The civilian is to pay 4d. The soldier and sailor is directly paying 1½d. But he is paying already for medical attendance, medical comforts, and medical treatment, and for what is equivalent to sick pay—namely, the continuation of his wages, board and lodging while he is sick. The medical treatment and sick pay under the Bill is worth 3½d. He is paying that because it is not already in his wages. If it were not for the fact that he got medical treatment, with board nad lodging while he is sick, he would be receiving more pay than he does. He in fact gets pay and payment in kind. If you take away the payment in kind you are reducing from his wages the cost of the payment in kind, which is 3½d. a week according to the actuaries' report. I say that the soldier under this Bill is now paying 3½d. by way of reduction from his wages. The 1½d. and the 3½d. make up a contribution of 5d. a week, which is 1d. more than the civilian is paying. The Army Council and the Admiralty, on the other hand, are paying about 1½d.; a little more because of their guarantee. The guarantee is worth nearly one-eighth of a penny. I make them a present of that one-eighth because it doese not largely alter the contribution. I suggest that the hospital stoppage is worth ¾d. You can make it a 1d. if you like. They are now paying 5d. a week, and they have a pennyworth of hospital stoppage. That will bring the Service man's contribution down to 4d. a week. Take the 1d. and put it on to the contributions to be made by the Army and Navy, and you will increase their contribution

  1501
  from 1½d. to 2½d. That will be 1d. a week less than the civilian employer pays. I say, therefore, that the soldier is paying more than the civilian, and that the soldier's employer is paying less than the civilian employer. I say that there is plenty of money to provide what is required for the hospital stoppage. In saying that, I am only applying precisely the same principle the Treasury have applied to their contribution. They are paying not two-ninths of the benefits soldiers and sailors are getting, but two-ninths of the benefits soldiers and sailors have had if they had been members of friendly societies entitled to full benefits. So that they are giving soldiers and sailors exactly the same contribution that they are giving to the civilians. If that principle were followed by the Army Council and the Navy then the 3d. and not 1½d. would be paid.
  I once more thank the Government for having gone part of the way in doing justice to the Services, and I hope that they will on consideration, see that in order to make it a real measure of justice, they must give the two-ninths rateably to the approved societies as well as to the members who are in the Army and Navy fund, and that justice also requires that they should not shelter themselves behind pleas of discipline or pleas that it will be more conveniently dealt with on the Army and Navy Votes, but that they should now deal with the question of hospital stoppage by adding the necessary ¾d. to the contribution made by the Admiralty and the War Office.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The Services will be very thankful to the Government for the new line taken in these Amendments with regard to the insurance of men in those Services. They will also be very grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), who has worked very hard on this question, which is a most intricate one, and to whom is mainly due the credit for the improvement the Government has made in the Bill. There are some further improvements we hope to get, and I should like to emphasise certain points the hon. Member has made in regard to the opinions of the men in both Services. He stated that the men are under discipline, and that they are therefore not entitled to either meet or send deputations to this House, because it is against the law, and I think rightly against the law. But at the same time those of us who know their feelings
  1502
  should represent what the men think on this question. The real point is that whatever is put into this Bill should be absolutely clear, so that the men can understand it. If you have a doubt among the men that anything they are ordered to do compulsorily is not clear, there is a chance of the men thinking that there is something unfair and that the Government are taking an advantage of them. Clause 36 says:
  "and there shall be contributed by the Admiralty and the Army Council respectively in respect of every such seaman, marine, and soldier, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Army and Navy services such sum per week as may be prescribed."
  What does "such sum as may be prescribed" mean?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is now altered.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The matter should be made definite, so that the men on the lower deck or in the barrack may not ask what is the sum, for the Government do not give any sum. It is a bad principle to leave things indefinite. The Amendments say that the Government are going to insure the solvency of the fund. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an example of that which will satisfy the men. For instance, if the fund is short by £2,000, that the Government will guarantee that amount. The men will not understand ensuring solvency as put in the Bill. The idea that men in the Services do not join the friendly societies is very erroneous. So far as the Navy is concerned, the men before 1870 never joined, but in that year we lost the ship "Captain," which resulted in the loss of something like 500 men; there being no fund for those men's relatives. The Government had to appeal to charity. The Services naturally resent anything in the nature of charity. The men themselves got together, and that is what started the Manchester Unity Lodge of the Seamen and Marines of the Fleet. That men do join these societies is well known in the Services. They have worked the military and naval lodges extremely well, to the great benefit of the men who joined them.
  I support the hon. Member for Colchester in regard to hospital stoppage. That is a matter which wants clearing up, and I hope the Government will give way, either by doing away with that altogether or by adopting the plan suggested by the hon. Member, namely, that the Govern-

  1503
  ment should pay something in proportion to what is paid now with regard to sick people when they are civilians. The proportion has no parallel at all with what is paid to civilians. The Army pay is 7d. a day from the day a man goes in, and the Navy pay is 10d. a day for thirty days, provided the pay is over 1s. 7d. a day. They pay 8d. a day after thirty days, provided the pay is under 1s. 7d. The case of the boys is particularly hard, for they are particularly liable to illnesses. They have to pay 4d. a day out of their 7d. a day. I think that is very hard on the boys. Many of them join, and do what they can for their parents at home if their people are not well off. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that the Army joined at nineteen and the Navy at eighteen.
  Colonel SEELY: He said that was the average age of men joining the Army.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I understand these are men; but what about your drummer boys?
  Colonel SEELY: They are very small.
  5.0 P.M.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: If you have only ten of them you must deal with them. In the Navy all the seamen class join as boys, and the boys have to pay 1½d., as do the men in both Services. It is hard on these boys that they should have to pay the same as men, who take much larger wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech led the Committee to understand that the men in the Army were nineteen and that the men in the Navy were eighteen. But it is the boys' case that I am taking up. The proportion of interest that he pays for insurance—that is, the 1½d.—is too high in both Services, according to the pay he gets. I differ from the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway as to the total amount of the stoppages. I make it £64,000 for the Army, and £3,400 for the Navy. But the Navy has no account of the pay that is stopped after the ninety days. After the ninety days in the Navy a man gets no pay at all, and it comes particularly heavy to his family, if he has any, under these conditions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech to-day, remarked that it was a disgrace to this country that so many men of both Services, through no fault of their own, should suffer in health and accident, to which they are particularly liable in the Navy, and up to this
  1504
  date should have never received any pay to carry them through their illness. I am sure both Services will be most grateful to see that this is at last recognised, and that these men who have done their duty to the Service and the State, and have suffered so severely, will now be recognised in this Bill. I did not quite understand whether the soldier and the sailor get for their 1½d. the right of transfer. I understand that they get maternity benefits and sanatorium benefits.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Not sanatorium benefit while in the Service, but when they leave.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Does he get medical attendance when he leaves?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: And does he get sickness and disablement benefit?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am making these points so that the men will clearly understand it all. The right hon. Gentleman's speech might have been a little more clear as to these two points. Are the men who re-engage for a second term allowed to pay the 1½d. after that?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is optional.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: That is new.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, it was always optional, but it was 2d. before and it is 1½d. now. It is compulsory for the first period of engagement and then it is optional, but it ought to be pointed out that if a sailor does not keep up his payment during the optional period and goes into the Army and Navy Insurance Fund, the period during which he might have paid, and did not pay, will be treated as in arrears in respect of the benefits.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I quite understand. The men were not clear whether they could pay what is now 1½d. and was 2d. It is quite clear now. Another point with regard to maternity benefit. A soldier or sailor may be away on foreign service. Who is going to administer these benefits? If it is to be the Army and Navy Bureau I must object strongly. The position will be this. The man will have to apply to his adjutant, colonel and general, or commander, captain and admiral, and a very long time

  1505
  would elapse before it got home to the bureau. It ought to be entirely under the friendly society, which understands the matter perfectly and would at once administer to the wants of the mother. That is a point on which the men feel very acutely in both Services. They will never trust a fund of this class to be administered by the officers of the Army and the Navy, and I think they are quite right. They would prefer to have the funds administered by the society, which has administered them for many years and would do it much more quickly and more efficiently. I think the Committee will entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point about pensions. A man who earns his pension and has worked for it, must have been a good man. It is almost impossible that he should have been a bad man. He has risked his health and his life in many cases and has earned his pension, and it ought not to count at all with regard to what he gets from these benefits. It is like anybody on shore taking on a workman and trying to get him more cheaply because he is a pensioner. It is altogether wrong, and the pension should not count at all in regard to these sick benefits. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will answer these points and make them quite clear in order that the men may understand what is proposed for their benefit.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) and the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), and I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Army, for the Amendments he has already made, and if I make any criticisms I hope they will be taken as simply a desire to help the men and not to embarrass the Government. First, with regard to pensions, it must be recollected that the pension is part of the contract under which a man joins the Service. If a man does his duty in such a manner that he is allowed to re-engage for pension, it not only shows that he is a good man, but that the State has appreciated the fact, and he has gained what he contracted for when he joined. Therefore I think anything in the shape of benefits accruing from the Insurance Fund should be entirely beyond and outside the pension he has gained. Further, there is a pension which is given for wounds received in the Service. It is calculated on the amount of disability caused by the wound and, if a man is totally disabled,
  1506
  naturally he gets a larger pension than if he gets a slight wound and is only partially disabled. That pension, too, should not be taken into account in calculating the benefits under this Bill. There are such things also as wounds breaking out afresh or rheumatism setting in, or some ailment accruing from the effect of the wound. It is manifestly unfair that, because a man has been given a certain sum of money in consequence of disability caused by a wound, supposing that wound was to increase in seriousness, or supposing some ailment should accrue afterwards in consequence of the wound, he should not be permitted to get from this Insurance Fund an increase because of the pension given him for the wound. With regard to the 1½d., I understand it has to be paid in to the friendly society. There are at present 16,000 men already insured in friendly societies. I want to know whether that 1½d. is to be paid in as a portion of the contribution which the man already pays to his society, or whether it is outside and above that contribution. If a man has to pay 4d. or 6d. to his society and is mulcted in 1½d. besides, it becomes a very severe tax. I trust that if the 1½d. is paid in in this manner it will be deducted from the sum which he already pays to the society.
  That brings me to a point which I think is worthy of consideration. A man insures in a society against hospital stoppages. If he is married on the strength it is not so important for him as if he is married off the strength. The man married off the strength is the man who is worst off in the whole Army. Under these new rules he will get maternity benefit, but that is all. I want particularly to urge that hospital stoppages should be considered by the Under-Secretary for War. I want you to understand and to take into consideration that whereas we are now making the men pay this contribution over and above what they have paid before when they contracted to serve with the benefits they get now, they will get no more benefits under this Bill than they did before with the exception of maternity benefit while serving.
  I want the Government to consider whether the hospital stoppages cannot be done away with altogether. If they cannot, let us have something else. There is an Amendment on the Paper which proposes that they should be refunded. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) that

  1507
  if we cannot secure the abolition of hospital stoppages the money should be repaid. Why not treat the soldier with a little more generosity? Remember that the Admiralty and the Army Council are in a different position to any other employer. A man goes on service and is shot. What happens to the 1½d. he has been paying? I wish the Government to be a little more generous with soldiers and sailors. A man may have been serving ten, fifteen, or twenty years, and paying the 1½d. Then he is shot, and the whole of that goes into the pocket of the employer. I think that is a very strong reason why we should do away with hospital stoppages. Then there is the case of Reserve men. I do not know what is going to happen in their case, and I should be glad to hear from the Under-Secretary for War. Reserve men are practically of two classes. There may be three. "A" gets 7s. a week, and "B" 3s. 6d. That man is expected to pay the same contribution when in the Reserve as he does when serving in the Line, and he is not to be relieved. If the employer pays him 7s. a week, you may calculate that at about one-third of the ordinary rate. Why should not the employer pay a third more towards his contribution? If he gets 3s. 6d. a week, it is one-sixth. Why should not the employer pay, say, a 1d. extra? I think that is worthy of consideration. I would also point out that the time a man serves in the Reserve is the time he is worst off in the whole of his existence. It is true that he gets a retaining fee. It is also true that if he has to keep up his contributions he may have nothing else but the retaining fee to keep them up on. I do earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into consideration, and see what can be done for the man in the Reserve. He is liable to be called out at any moment, and he consequently has difficulty in getting employment. He gets a very small retaining fee, and if he has to pay his contributions or be disqualified for not paying them, then he is likely to lose the whole of his contributions.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: There are one or two other points in regard to which I would like to ask for further information from the Under-Secretary for War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer just now took great credit for what he had done for the British soldier. It
  1508
  sounded extremely well until it came to be analysed. I do not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to do well for the soldier, but I think the benefits which he gets while in the Service are very much less than the right hon. Gentleman realises. Let us see what the benefits really are. The right hon. Gentleman said, first of all, that the soldier got maternity benefit, for which he has to pay 1½d. a week. A great deal of good maternity benefit will be to the majority of soldiers! First of all, only a certain number of men in the Army are allowed to marry. In the case, for example, of the Foot Guards, very few are allowed to marry. They go away at twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and maternity benefit is very little to them. It is only a benefit to one or two people in a regiment. So far as maternity benefit is concerned when he is abroad, he gets that already from the regimental doctor, who looks after his wife. The man has to pay for that, and that is a point which sometimes people do not appreciate. In that particular case the Government are better off than before. It is part of the doctor's duty to attend in a maternity case when the soldier is abroad, so that when you are considering maternity benefit you must remember that the Government do really very much less than a civilian employer.
  Then there is sanatorium benefit. There I think, everybody in the Army must be most grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have seen a good many boys leaving the Army, and when cast off getting no benefit. But does the right hon-Gentleman know the percentage in the Army who get consumption? I do not know. I should not say that it is over 1 per cent. Therefore, we have 99 per cent. of the men who are not going to have any benefit from this. You have, therefore, the short service men and those who do not marry who do not benefit under the Bill at all. As soldiers are a particularly healthy set of men compared with civilians, of course it becomes harder still. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the soldier gets his medical benefit, but I would point out that he pays £60,000 a year for it. I think I have anticipated the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He shook his Head a moment ago when it was said that the Government were not going to give way on the point of hospital stoppages. Therefore we may say that, although the men get this great benefit of medical relief, they pay £60,000 a year for

  1509
  it. Another point is that the Government do not pay in respect of employers' liability for soldiers. If a soldier hurts himself on parade and goes into hospital, he has to pay hospital stoppages all the same. If there is an epidemic, and he becomes ill, it is not his fault, but he has to pay hospital stoppages. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would try to get rid of him in a fever hospital.
  There are many diseases due to the conditions of service. There is, for example, rheumatism. A man gets a chill, and has to go into hospital on account of the exigencies of the Service, and he has to pay 7d. per day for it. The excuse has been made in regard to discipline, but, speaking from any small professional knowledge which. I have got, I say that that is absolute nonsense. You can keep up discipline without fining a man when he goes into hospital. Malingering is not stopped by the 7d. per day, but by the public opinion in the regiment. Therefore, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Colchester, the Government are really the worst employers in the whole lot. It has to pay a less contribution than the ordinary employer. I cannot see why they should not pay more. It is sometimes forgotten that a soldier runs a big risk. He is sent to bad climates. He has no control of his movements. He has to go there. He cannot choose his barracks, and sometimes the barracks are precious bad. He runs the risk of injury while on service, and he ought to have better treatment, if possible, and not worse treatment, than civilians. Another point to which I wish to refer is in regard to sick pensions. If soldiers and sailors in future are to get sick benefits, and so forth, are these sick benefits going to take the place of pensions? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will answer that when I reply.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: It would be very easy to say "No" now. I think we may take it that sick pensions are not to be paid in future. I think the right hon. Gentleman is going to say so. British soldiers and sailors might be treated as well as convicts and other prisoners. One person is treated free in hospital while the other has to pay.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I desire, on behalf of the Government, to thank the Members of the Committee in all parts of the House
  1510
  for the way they have approached this problem, and I am quite sure that both in the barrack-rooms of the Army and in the messes of the Fleet there will be great appreciation of the universal sympathy and solicitude shown for the soldier and sailor by hon. Members. I am sure, further, that notwithstanding one or two things which were said by the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine), when the cryptic language of Parliamentary Papers and Amendments, and the phraseology of the Clauses, are translated into popular, understandable terms, this new or altered Clause will be as popular as it ought to be in both Services. I wish further to associate myself with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in expressing his gratitude for the help rendered to him by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). I agree with one thing which was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). He said that so far as we can do so, everything must be made perfectly clear and perfectly simple. If there is anything left in any undefined form, somebody will think that the Government is "having" him. Therefore, let us by all means make it perfectly clear. There is every reason why we should do so. I do not say that this is too generous a scheme. Certainly not. But it is a generous method of providing for the soldier or sailor at the end of his service. Let me deal with the points which were put by the Noble Lord as clearly as I can. The soldier or sailor pays 1½d. a week if he is a member of an approved society or goes into an approved society, and we ought to encourage him all we can to join an approved society. It is a fact that, except in the case of boys, in a few years' time practically all the men who enlist will already be in approved societies, and we shall desire that they should continue as members. If they join an approved society then we pay 1½d. If they do not join one or cannot get in ultimately, then we pay such sum per week as may be prescribed. The Noble Lord says that that is indefinite, and that people will say, "We are paying 1½d. and the Government is not paying anything at all." I do not see how that is to be avoided. I think that the hon. Member for Colchester will agree that we have here a fluctuating obligation. What we undertake to do is to guarantee the Army and Navy fund to the men who are not in an approved society. And all those who are concerned in the matter may take

  1511
  it from me for what it is worth that we shall certainly pay into that fund, I think the hon. Gentleman agreed, more than 1½d. per week per man.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Only if you deal fairly with the two-ninths benefits. If you keep the whole two-ninths you would have £90,000, so that you will not be paying much more than ½d.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot accept that argument. We cannot do otherwise than we say. We will pay such sum per week as may be prescribed. If we could make it perfectly definite, as in the case of members of an approved society, we should do so, but in respect of these men that is all we can do. I am quite sure the Treasury will find as time goes on, leaving this question of the two-ninths for hypothetical benefit as it is, that they will be paying in respect of the men who join what I will call the Army and Navy insurance fund at least 1½d. per week.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Why not put that in the Bill or some figures, so that the men will not be thinking that the Government meant nothing?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that is practicable. What I want to insist on is that where we use these words in a general way the Government will pay certainly as much as the men. The Noble Lord asked about the secondary period of re-engagement. As the Bill originally stood with regard to the men who contributed during the first period, during the period of re-engagement for pension they could continue if they liked. The soldier or sailor who is a member of an approved society who continues his payments right down to the time of his discharge, compulsory and optional, will carry into civil life the full transfer value, as if he had been a civilian member of an approved society during the whole time of his service. The soldier or sailor in the approved society—this has not been made clear—if during the optional period he does not contribute, and is a member of an approved society, forfeits his transfer value on discharge. With regard to the maternity benefit, I rather thought that the Noble Lord disparaged its value. I am quite sure that both sailors' and soldiers' wives, particularly soldiers' wives married off the strength of the regiment—
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I meant the soldier who was not married.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No doubt the obligation to pay falls on the unmarried man. Certainly the proposal to give the maternity benefit to sailors' and soldiers' wives, whether on the strength of the regiment or not, will be a very great boon and will be much appreciated. If the soldier or sailor is in an approved society, the approved society will administer the maternity benefits. If he is not in an approved society he is therefore in the Army and Navy Society, and it would have to be administered by that society. There is no one else to administer it. Further, the maternity benefit will be paid irrespective of the domicile of the parents, whether in foreign parts or at home, whatever the circumstances. On discharge, if the soldier or sailor is a member of an approved society, and has kept up his payments, he will go out with full rights as if he had been a civilian member of the approved society. If he is not in an approved society, and has not joined and cannot join because of his health, then he goes into the Army and Navy Fund. He will only go into the Post Office deposit when on leaving the Army or Navy he cannot prove that his health is so bad that no approved society will take him. If he did not join the approved society and is in good health, then he joins the Post Office department. But if his health is such that he could not get into the approved society, then he passes on to the Army and Navy fund. Then he gets medical treatment, medicine, sanatorium benefit, maternity benefit, sickness benefit of 10s. a week for the first twenty-six weeks and 5s. disablement, those benefits being subject only to the period of optional payment, which he might have made and did not make, being counted, as I have already said, as in arrear.
  In regard to the pensions to which the Noble Lord refers I do not know why he said we are going to abate them. The benefits that were secured to a man under this will not be abated in respect of any pensions, whether for wounds, hurt, disability, or long service. In regard to the man who goes into hospital and is discharged from the Service as incurable with some form of tuberculosis contracted in the Service, I am sorry to say it is a fact that for a good many of those men there has been nothing in the past but to come on the rates and go into the workhouse infirmary. In 1908 we had 357 sailors treated for some form of tuberculosis, in 1909 there were 330, and in 1910

  1513
  there were 268. In 1908 there were 283 of those cases discharged as unfit for further service, in 1909 there were 222, and in 1910 there were 218. These men will have sanatorium treatment on discharge. With regard to the two-ninths the hon. Member for Colchester said, "You want to get the men into an approved society and keep them there." I agree with that as a general policy, and we reserve the two-ninths value of the hypothetical benefit for the Army and Navy fund. Now, he says, "If you do that, the approved societies will not take any man in. They will not find it worth their while." I think he is wrong. We consider as times go on the men who are going on the Army and Navy fund will be what I may call the residue in the matter of health, the men who cannot get into approved societies, as against the character of the lives going into approved societies. We have, therefore, thought it desirable to take the two-ninths hypothetical benefit and credit it to the Army and Navy fund. I do not think that the hon. Member is right in saying that, because we have done that the approved societies will not be anxious to get the men into the societies as time goes on. On the contrary, my impression is that there will be considerable competition for these men, both by the industrial societies and the affiliated orders. But all I can do at the moment is to explain the reasons that led us to take this two-ninths hypothetical benefit, and credit it to the Army and Navy fund instead of distributing it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the residue will appear in the age of enlistment at nineteen and a-half, or that they will not all be in sound health then?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, but at the end of their career there is a considerable number of men whose health will be largely broken and those men will find it difficult to get into approved societies. It is because we know that that we have put this two-ninths hypothetical benefit to the credit of the Army and Navy fund. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) will be glad to deal with the question of hospital staff, and, on behalf of the Government, and as one who has been associated some years with the Admiralty, and as the son of a non-commissioned officer in the British Army, I thank the Committee very much for the sympathetic way in which they have treated this problem.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I wish to add my opinion to those already expressed as to the way we have received these Amendments. We only received the first lot on Saturday, and though many of us had Amendments on the Paper, we were not even sent the amended Clause, and had to send to the House for it after twelve o'clock to-day. It is all very well for right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been working at this Bill, and also for my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). But for back-bench Members who have not had the advantage of meeting Members of the Government it is extremely hard to deal with this Bill, unless we are given better facilities and allowed to see the amended Clauses in more ample time. Everyone admits that the amended Clause is a very great improvement upon the original Clause, but that is only because the original Clause is absolutely indefensible. The Government proposed to take 2d. from the man, and the result of that would have been that the Admiralty would have paid a great deal less than 1d. Consequently this amended Clause, which will make them pay equally with the man, is a great improvement. One point which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down dealt with is the question of the two-ninths' benefit. The point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) was that if the two-ninths' benefits is not to go to the friendly societies in the same proportion as to the Navy and Army insurance fund, the friendly societies will not be glad to receive the men into their organisations, because it will not pay them to do so. The hon. Gentleman did not meet that argument at all. He said, and I think quite rightly, that perhaps the Navy and Army insurance fund will have greater liabilities at the end of the time; in other words, that they will have taken men who are bad risks, and consequently will have more expenses.
  But that is no reason at all why they should take away from the friendly societies the two-ninths. It is a reason for spending more money, or for putting on the Army and Navy Votes a greater charge to meet the heavier expenses. It is no reason at all why the friendly societies should be robbed of the two-ninths. In the actuarial report the amount of the friendly societies is 1.08d. for contribution and 28d. for maternity; that is, their liability, 1.38d., and in exchange for that liability they have the 1½d. They have to

  1515
  provide administrative cost and take almost the very risks of invalidity which are taken by the Army and Navy insurance fund. In the past the friendly societies have taken the men of the Navy and Army because, as a rule, they did not claim sick benefit, and consequently the society was able to make up out of a great many of these payments left in abeyance for the extra invalidity which soldiers and sailors incur from climatic and various other causes. The friendly societies were glad to take them, because they were able to make up out of the non-sick benefits left in abeyance. Now they will have.14d., out of which they have to pay for administration, and it is only right therefore that they should have a just proportion of the two-ninths, and an extra sum might be put on the estimates as an additional generous gift by the Government to make up to those who have fallen by the wayside while serving their country. What are the benefits which the soldier gets? He gets, we are told, maternity benefit, and he also gets sanatorium benefit. As regards sanatorium benefit, it affects very few men indeed in the Service. Those who are married on the strength already receive what is practically maternity benefit, because wives are looked after and taken into hospital, and so on. Those who are married off the strength are a very small proportion generally, therefore they have this very small benefit in return for the 1½d. The sanatorium benefit of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke is a very small benefit indeed.
  I have here the figures given in the Annual Health Report of the Army, and the number of men who are invalided on account of consumption is only 1.6 per thousand—not per cent., but per thousand. The number of men invalided from rheumatism, which was alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a great deal less—it is only.03 per thousand. I think this works out at something like 30 men invalided in 1909 out of 230,000 men serving. These are very small benefits indeed to give them in exchange for charging them 1½d. a week. The extra benefit which I should like to see given to them is that already brought forward by the hon. Member for Colchester—that is, a benefit equivalent possibly to hospital stoppage. I will not argue again the question of malingering, but if there is any section in the community in which malingering
  1516
  will not increase as a result of the Bill it is in the Army and Navy, where men are looked after closely, not only by the officers, but by the doctors, who have military command, and also by their comrades. The pay of the infantry soldier, after the cost of his mess allowance, is only 7s. a week, and if you take out of that 4s. 1d., you leave him 2s. 11d. Surely, it would be possible for the Admiralty and Army Council to give the extra ¾d. for hospital stoppage. If the man has to pay 1½d., at any rate they might very easily stand the extra cost which it will entail. Why should they get off so much easier than our railway companies and great firms? Are they paying soldiers and sailors, their employés, such a magnificent wage? We all know that soldiers and sailors are paid very low wages, comparatively speaking, and I can see no reason at all, therefore, why such great safeguards should be put against the Admiralty and the Army Council paying something more like the 3d. which the ordinary large employer has to pay, and if they give only another ¾d. they would be able to give this hospital stoppage.
  There are one or two points which I think have not been alluded to yet, in reference to the Reservists and the Territorials. By the last Sub-section of the amended Clause the Naval Reserves, the Army Reserve men, and the men of the Territorial Force, when called out on embodiment. That is that these men are called out in time of war, and in that event it means that they come back on this scheme, paying the 1½d. I do not understand why their contribution should not be maintained at the outside rate, I mean the rate outside military or naval life. These men, while they have been in the Reserve, have in all probability got married, and they want sick benefit because their pay will be reduced, in regard to hospital stoppage, and they will be unable to send their wives the money which they would otherwise have sent out of their pay. Surely it would be right for the Admiralty and Army Council to make some special arrangement by which in time of war you could make up the Reservist's contribution to a higher rate, either with the friendly societies, or through some arrangement with the Navy and Army Insurance fund, so that they would be able when sick to draw sick benefit and to provide some money for their wives and families. Another point which arises on the question of the Naval, Army and

  1517
  Territorial Reserves, has reference to the training period, and not to active service. It has been stated that these men when so engaged would be deemed to be in the employment of the Crown. As I understand, that means that the Army Council and the Admiralty would pay the employers' contribution.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Whilst they are training.
  6.0 P.M.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: The Admiralty would pay the 3d., and the Army Council in the same way would pay 3d., just as the employers pay 3d. If that be so, I presume that the men would pay 4d. In that event, we have another case where the man should be assisted to make up the 4d. One must remember that at the time the man is not receiving civil pay and is back on to the small wage again, and therefore, the Admiralty and the Army Council should assist him to make up his own contribution to 4d. There is a further question with reference to this matter. Section A of the Army Reserves consists of men who have served for over one or two years. That is a small body of men, I know, but still these men serve on the condition that they may be called out at any moment, even before all the rest of the Reserves are called out, and before the Territorial force is called out. These men receive 1s. a day, paid by the Army Council, and that amounts to 7s. a week. I put forward this proposition, that these men are partly employed by the Army Council and are paid 7s. a week as a retainer if their services are required, and also partly to make up for the fact that they find it harder to get employment, because they may be called out at any moment. These men who are being paid partly by the Army Council should, in my opinion, have something paid for them by their part employer, the Army Council. I have put down an Amendment that the Army Council should pay one-third of the contribution. Twenty-one shillings a week may be taken as the ordinary wage of a man in civil life. The reservist in section A gets 7s. a week, or one-third of that amount, and I submit that the Army Council should therefore pay one-third of the employer's contribution. Either that might be paid so as to let the outside employer have the 1d., in which case it would promote the employment of the Army Reservist belonging to section A, or it might be paid into either the friendly society or the Army and Navy insurance fund, so as to provide
  1518
  extra benefit for these men in times of unemployment, and so on. The same thing applies to men in the Army Reserve sections B and D, in which the men are getting 3s. 6d. a week. That is also a retainer, and that might be described as one day's pay, practically. As that is one day's pay, why should not the Army Council bear one-sixth of the employer's contribution, namely, ½d. per week, which in a few years—for the men in sections B and D remain as long as ten years—would form a benefit for the employés? During that ten years it would amount to quite a respectable sum, which would go towards helping him in times of extra sickness, and should he become a deposit contributor, or even if he were in a friendly society, it might be used for more benefits. I put these forward as suggestions, but I think everybody will realise that it has been very hard indeed to raise serious criticism on this Clause because we have not had sufficient time.
  Captain FABER: I was much struck by an observation which fell from the last speaker on the Front Bench that he thought this Bill would be popular in the Army when it was generally and universally understood. Why it should be popular when it is merely to take 1½d. per week from men already badly paid I cannot possibly conceive. If 90 per cent. of the men like to pay for other people's children they are quite different men from what they used to be in my day, because in my day 5 per cent. were allowed to be married on leave and 5 per cent. without leave, and I should be glad to hear from the Under-Secretary for War whether it is still the case that men without leave will be allowed the maternity benefit.
  Colonel SEELY: Maternity benefit will be given in the case of women married off the strength.
  Captain FABER: It makes very little difference when 90 per cent. of the men will have to pay for other people's children. We come to the question of malingering, and we are told that deductions have to be made for hospital because the men would malinger unless those deductions were made; or, rather, would do more liable to do so. Anybody who understands the Army, and I should hardly like to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does, never having been in it, knows that malingering in the Army is practically impossible with the Army surgeons and the

  1519
  non-commissioned officers constantly there. Any man who malingered in the Army would have such a bad time from his fellow soldiers when he came out of hospital that he would not do so twice. Every man has to be out of bed one night in seven, and he is not likely to let other men malinger. The soldier does not care to be out of bed so often as certain Members of this House. He appears to be fond of bed, and gets as much as he can of it, and therefore he is not likely to allow his fellow soldier to malinger and deprive him of it. There is then the case of the married men. I am not lucky enough to be a married man, but in the case of married men they are not surely going to malinger and lose their pay, while their wives and children would also lose the pay they would ordinarily get.
  As to maternity benefits, a point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford), may I ask in the case of the wives at home will they get the maternity benefit without having it sent from China or India or somewhere else? We are told it is to be got by transfer, ending up probably in the War Office, against which I have nothing to say when I see the Under-Secretary present. The War Office is not a perfect machine sometimes, and I have known cases that took six months to dispose of, and I have known cases that occupied eighteen months. If a woman has to wait eighteen months for maternity benefit she would almost as soon be without it. We are given to understand that the Territorials will still have to pay 4d. when they go out training, and that the Government will pay the other 3d. per week. In the past, as many of us know, the employers have paid the wages of the Territorials while they were out, but we can hardly hope they will go on doing so now that they have to pay the 3d. per week. If the Government could possibly see their way to do away with the payment of the 4d. while the Territorials were out, I think it would make that service a great deal more popular than it is at present, which should appeal to the Under-Secretary for War when he remembers how short he is of men in the Territorial Army. I trust he will see his way to answer these points, the main one of which is that the woman should get her maternity allowance as soon as she can possibly obtain it from home and not through ever so many channels in the Army.
  Mr. HOHLER: This Clause is really a new Clause, and I have to make a bitter complaint that it has not been printed so as to make it intelligible. We have got to pick it out here and there. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the close of the last adjournment, hoped that all the Amendments would be put down, I think he might have had some consideration for us when he proposed this amending Clause at the last moment. For myself, I wish to treat this from the point of view of being a sailor or a soldier. I fully appreciate the voluntary statements that are made between my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as I was never called into consultation with him, I am allowed to criticise the Bill from the standpoint of a Member of this House. It seems to me we have had enough of these settlements which have been going on outside the House. Speaking for myself, I do not appreciate this Clause, nor do I commend it. The first branch of the Clause deals with the man who is a member of an approved society when he joins the Army or becomes one within three months. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said that in future in almost every case the man joining the Army or Navy will be a member of an approved society. It is therefore of immense importance to see what this man is getting and what he is not getting. One thing is perfectly clear, and that is that there is to be a compulsory deduction from his wages of 1½d. per week. It is also clear that the only thing he can receive from the Crown is 1½d. per week, and in regard to that the Crown promptly forfeit it, because they are going to create out of that the reserve value.
  We have had no opportunity of investigating the justice of this Clause. What is really the reserve value in regard to a man who joins the Army somewhere between the ages of sixteen and twenty-two? Sixteen is the age for entering into insurance up to sixty-five for the civilian element outside, and the deduction to be made is one-five-ninths of a penny. Therefore, in regard to men medically sound, since every man has got to pass the doctor and who are under the age of thirty years and engaged for non-continuous service in the Navy of twelve years, and in the Army seven years, you are dealing with the best lives and deducting 1½d. Where the liberality comes in I fail to see. This Section is drawn up very

  1521
  much on the lines of the Ten Commandments. It begins, "Thou shalt not do this," and "Thou shalt not do that." There is not a single benefit under this Bill that he will get of the enumerated benefits, as I am not speaking of the additional benefits which may exist in a hundred years, except maternity benefit. I venture to doubt if the proportion of young men who are married in the Army who are re-engaged for a second term, that is, for pension, can be 5 per cent. In this period of seven years' service in the Army or twelve in the Navy non-continuous service, I wonder how many children they are going to have, while 6s. 8d. is paid to the Government. What they are to be thankful for I am at a loss to understand.
  I say, in my view, that this first branch of this Clause is nothing more or less than plunder of the soldier and sailor, and I say they will so understand it. You are taking 1½d. from them and giving them nothing but maternity benefit. That is the position. We are told in direct terms that he shall not be entitled to medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, or sickness or disablement benefit. Of course not, because he gets them already, until they throw him out for being in bad health, so that he is getting absolutely nothing for his 1½d. per week, except maternity benefit, which, I say with all respect, is a genial fraud. That is my view of it. Let us just see what else he is going to get. He is mulcted, and I use that word advisedly, in the sum of 1½d., and I want the Committee to bear two things in mind. First of all, he is a member of an approved society, a compulsory member in the sense that he is compulsorily called upon to contribute under the Bill. Let me assume that he is a member of a trade union or a friendly society, and we know a great many mechanics go into either branch of the Service. Let me assume further that he is paying towards his friendly society a sum of 6d. per week to get the benefits of that society. He will still have to continue that payment of 6d. per week, as well as the l½d. Where is your provision otherwise?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Clause 55.
  Mr. HOHLER: I think you are wrong, but I will look at Clause 55. That Clause has nothing to do with it. It says:—
  "Any registered friendly society or branch which provides benefits similar to these."
  That has got nothing to do with it, and I will not read it further. It is simply that
  1522
  friendly societies can provide benefits other than those under the Act out of surplus funds. I must try a better Clause than that. My point is that the men, in order to command benefits which they wanted, not because the Crown came in saying that they were compulsory, but as prudent men, insured themselves in a trade union or a friendly society. Why? These men consider that they have obligations not only to themselves, but to their wives and families, and they want to secure, in the event of sickness, that their families shall be well provided for. This is equally true in regard to hundreds of young fellows who enter the Services who have widowed mothers and sometimes families dependent upon them. They make allotments in favour of their widowed mothers, or, it may be, younger brothers, in order to maintain them, and they are entitled to be treated on that basis if they are to be insured. But they will have to continue their payments. The friendly society must keep two separate sets of accounts—one account of the man as a member of the friendly society and another of the man as a member under this Bill. I cannot see that the Bill gives a single benefit except maternity benefit. The man is mulcted in 1½d., and if he continues in the friendly society he has to continue his payment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The hon. Member is really quite in error. If the man belongs to an existing friendly society his contributions may be reduced.
  Mr. HOHLER: By what Clause?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Clause 55.
  Mr. HOHLER: Let us read it. [The hon. and learned Member read the Clause.] That does not touch the point. That is only in regard to benefits that he is to receive; if he is not to receive them you cannot make a reduction. The Under-Secretary for War is no doubt the soul of intelligence, but let me suggest to him that if by the limiting words of the proposed Amendment a man is not entitled to receive these benefits the reduction cannot be made.
  Colonel SEELY: The Amendment is on the Paper. But perhaps I had better reply to the hon. Member later.
  Mr. HOHLER: If you please; one at a time. In my judgment the men in the

  1523
  Army and in the Navy will be absolutely defeated in their desire to claim that which is their right if we allow this Clause to go through. That is my view, and I will be no party to these wonderful Amendments. The next part relates to persons other than those who are members of an approved society. Similar observations apply in reference to their 1½d. and the benefits they will receive. I will not repeat the point which has been so admirably made about stoppages. My protest against this part of the Clause is substantially that the men are only to come upon the Army and Navy fund if they prove that the state of their health is such that they cannot obtain admission to an approved society. I expect that that will be very difficult. How many of these men will there be, and what will be the position of the others? They will be simply thrown as Post Office contributors on the Post Office fund. If the Government had given the option to every man in the Army and in the Navy who was not a member of an approved society to become a member of this Army and Navy fund, I admit that they would have done great good. But the mere admission of these poor fellows who, by virtue of ill-health are stranded, is so small a matter comparatively in view of the true considerations which should operate, that in my opinion it amounts to nothing. I wish the Committee to bear in mind that there is already provision, inadequate though it may be in some respects, for disability pensions. Continuous service men in the Navy, and men who have engaged for pension in the Army, can get them for life, but men in non-continuous service in the Navy, or in the first period of engagement in the Army, can, broadly speaking, only get them based on a scale of three months per year. But they do get disability pensions. Therefore, it is no great matter that we are asking, because if you brought on to this fund the whole body of men who are not members of approved societies, you would create an insurance and get rid of that which we have always protested against, namely, the Post Office contributors' fund.
  The other evening the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) moved, and the Government accepted, an Amendment under which the Post Office contributors' scheme was to be merely temporary, and was to be reconsidered in three years' time. Let us not do that with regard to the Army and the Navy. Let us get once
  1524
  for all in the Army and the Navy something really satisfactory. I cannot see why, when you have admitted how bad your proposal is in reference to the Post Office contributor, you should not say at once in regard to men in the Army and Navy, who are all picked men, sound in body, "If you are not members of approved societies you shall all join the Army and Navy fund." A further Amendment on the Paper states:—
  "If a man is discharged for misconduct he shall not be entitled to such benefits, or he shall be entitled to benefits at such reduced rates as the Admiralty or Army Council shall determine."
  Why, I cannot for the life of me conceive. If I commit any crime short of murder, and am dismissed for misconduct, why am I not to be entitled to that for which I have paid? It seems to me an obvious injustice and wholly repugnant to the spirit of the Bill. What does it matter if I have committed a forgery, or if I have insulted my officer? If I have paid for the insurance I am entitled to it. Why am I not to get it? I ask that that proposal should be expunged, and I trust that something will be done to meet the other points that I have made.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I fully agree that the soldier and the sailor are not getting true value for their 1½d. In that view I think I shall be supported by Members of the Government themselves, because in the Actuaries' Report issued today, signed by Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, Government actuaries, I find this statement:—
  "The liability of the society will be represented by an average weekly contribution of 1·36d. per man, leaving a margin of ·14d., or about 10 per cent. of the contribution of 1½d. per week provided by the Clause."
  It might be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he could not utilise that margin in meeting some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Colchester. I refer more especially to the question of hospital stoppages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this is not the time to raise that question. By the kindness of the Chairman, however, other Members have been allowed to say something on the subject, and therefore I may follow in their wake. The question of hospital stoppages has been raised on the Estimates over and over again. Both last year and the year before the hon. Member for Portsmouth and I brought up the question, but the

  1525
  Government did not see their way to meet us on the point. Now we are asked to leave the question alone and to bring it up on the Estimates in the coming year. Hon. Members will probably agree that if the question is brought up again next year the result will be very much the same as on the last two occasions. It does seem to me—and I think it will probably seem so to the Committee—that this is a very opportune moment for introducing the question of hospital stoppages. This is a National Insurance Bill, and under this Bill various benefits are to be given to men who subscribe for them. These benefits, so far as civilians are concerned, include medical benefits and hospital treatment. Why should the civilian receive hospital benefit free, and that benefit be denied the soldier and the sailor? The Government say in respect to the soldier and the sailor that it is included in their pay. I admit that so far as the technical part of the inclusion goes. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his speech that medical benefit and hospital treatment are given to soldiers and sailors while they were in the Service. He entirely forgot that the soldier and the sailor pay for their hospital treatment.
  It used to be the case when sailors were enlisted that they were told they would receive free hospital treatment. I think I am right in saying that when they join now that phraseology is entirely omitted. Why? Because it is known that both sailor and soldier are paying for their hospital treatment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is right when he says that they receive medical benefit and hospital treatment, but they receive that medical benefit and hospital treatment as a portion of the wages which they receive. At any rate they only receive hospital treatment free for thirty days. After thirty days they have to pay for whatever hospital treatment they receive until ninety days are reached. After ninety days the money is stopped altogether. Therefore I submit that the soldier and the sailor in this respect pays himself for his hospital treatment. This is an opportunity for the Government to be generous; an opportunity which may never occur again. The hon. gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has shown the Committee very clearly that the Government will have in their hands a sum of money which will allow them to pay for the hospital stoppages. I have shown them from their own
  1526
  paper that they will have a certain margin. The margin which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester has shown is even larger than that. I make an appeal to the Government to use that margin for the benefit of paying for hospital stoppages, either by way of a refund or in some other way. It is absurd to think that in a Bill of this kind there should be no means whatsoever of dealing with the question of hospital stoppages.
  I pass on to the question of the Service pension. The Government, when they brought in their Bill, and in its original form, deducted certain sums of money from the soldiers and the sailors who were fortunate enough to receive pensions. They have found, as they know, that that Clause is most unpopular in the country. They have found that soldiers and sailors have risen in resentment against it. I am glad to say that now, whether upon their own initiative, or by it being forced upon them, they have agreed, I believe, not to deduct money from the soldiers and the sailors because of their pensions given for services for the benefit of their country. I would therefore congratulate the Government upon at last having come to a commonsense view of the matter, and of doing at least something for the soldier and the sailor who has done so much for us. I am not quite clear upon that point as to whether in all cases the soldier and the sailor will receve a full pension. I shall expect those hon. Gentlemen who represent the Government when they reply to tell me whether or not it is a fact that on no occasion and under no circumstances whatever would any deduction be made from this pension earned by the soldier and the sailor to pay for his benefits under this Bill.
  We come to the question of maternity benefits. I am not going to say that the maternity benefit is not a very useful benefit. I think it will be very well received, both in the Army and the Navy, but I must point out that it is a very small benefit indeed, and it is hardly represented in the 1½d. which is paid by the soldier and the sailor. If the soldier and the sailor, especially the latter, is compelled to pay his 1½d., as he will be compelled to do, and the hospital stoppages are not taken over by the Government, how do the Government suppose that he will be able to continue to pay—as he does pay now—to a friendly society in order that while he is in hospital his wife and children may be supported? If the

  1527
  Government are in earnest they will place it in the power of the soldier and the sailor to do away with that insurance that he now finds it necessary to enter into with the friendly societies, and they will give him the money which he now has to pay for Hospital stoppages. There is not much to add to what other hon. Members have said upon this matter of stoppages; in fact, it is perhaps a little difficult to follow after so many have spoken on it. But I have been told that a very distinguished Member of this House has said that unless a thing is stated three or four times hon. Members never understand it. Hon. Members cannot complain that the subject of hospital stoppages has not been brought to their notice on three or four previous occasions, and if I have mentioned it again I hope it will sink into the minds and the consciences of Members of the Government, and that they will find themselves in a position to grant the request made.
  Colonel BURN: We have had a great deal of discussion about this question, but there are one or two points I do not think have been brought to the notice of the Committee. As shortly as possible, may I say that this is a question which will affect recruiting for the Army. We all know that the soldier is not well paid at the present time, and if he is going to be mulcted in these hospital stoppages it will not only be no incentive to recruiting, but it will be a deterrent. A good deal might be done for recruiting, which is not too flourishing in the country at present. If soldiers and sailors were going to be treated generously I think it might have a good deal of effect in bringing the right class of men for enlistment to the Army. I think that applies not alone to recruiting, but if the soldier has something to look forward to, and if a man is going to be paid during his term of service this 1½d., it will be to the good. The soldier will know that at the end of the period of service he will get something for what he has already paid. Unemployment is rife amongst soldiers as they take their discharge, and taking that into consideration, if the Government could treat the soldier generously now he is in the Service, and would take into consideration the possibility of the man being unemployed at the end of his period of service, and the consequent difficulty he will have in keeping up his contributions, it would be well. I would ask the Under-
  1528
  Secretary for War to take the matter into consideration, because I think it would certainly affect the class of men joining the Army. All of us on both sides agree that the Army and Navy deserve generous treatment, and that it is the duty of the Government to do all they can to encourage recruiting and to get the right sort of man into the Army.
  Colonel SEELY: I think it will be perhaps convenient to the Committee if I reply on the point which is the one chief point at issue between us—the question of hospital stoppages—and also just to give a word or two in reply to the two specific points which have been raised, though, of course, we can deal with those points on the Amendments which deal with them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down thinks—and I for one agree with him—that we should endeavour to treat the soldier and the sailor generously under this Bill. I stand here to-day to say, after having given this as much thought as I am capable of, that I do honestly believe, and, I think, can prove to the Committee, that we are treating the soldier generously under this Bill. The very fact that the actuaries who originally examined this scheme thought it would be necessary to charge the soldier 2d., and that that amount has now been reduced to 1½d. a week, the very fact that in their last report the actuaries show how very narrow the margin is—if margin there be—and also the fact of inquiries that we have conducted through our officials at the War Office, show that there appears a great possibility that the margin left will be very small.
  It seems to me to show that we are treating the soldiers generously under this Bill. Seeing in what position a soldier will be in when this Bill is passed into law? Everyone, with few exceptions, in the country, under the Insurance Bill, is to be insured against the sad consequences that follow unexpected sickness and disease. The soldier is no exception to that rule. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a notable passage in the speech in which he introduced the Bill, dwelt especially upon the scandal—as he called it—to this country of the evils which befell the soldier and the sailor who left the Services before time. Broken in health, while not in a position to prove that his illness was specifically due to his service, under the Treasury ruling it means that he is helpless. Under this Bill that scandal—if scandal it be—will at last be removed, and the scandal—

  1529
  I always regard it as a scandal—of the consumptive soldier will go too. I served upon a Committee on that very question at the War Office before I had the honour of sitting on this Bench. It is therefore a subject in which I have special interest.
  Many hon. Members, notably an hon. Gentleman who sat below the Gangway on the Labour side (Mr. Summerbell), now unfortunately deceased, made it his life's work to try to get rid of what he called the scandalous treatment of the tuberculous soldier. At least that scandal is now removed. At the present time, when the soldier is found with tubercule in the lungs he is at once discharged from the Army. It is the rule that he should be instantly discharged—for obvious reasons—for there is the terrible danger of infection. The soldier is isolated in hospital for a short period, and as soon as that short period is terminated of a treatment not enough to cure him, under the rules of the Service, and for the sake of the Army, he is discharged to his home. What befalls him there I know from personal knowledge. It is indeed most distressing, but now, if this Bill becomes law, there is an end to that. It is true he has to pay 1½d. a week. It is perfectly true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Andover says, that by no means all soldiers, fortunately, get tubercular disease. A great many of them do not. They get married, or they leave on account of various disabilities at the end of a portion of their service. But this is an Insurance Bill, under which all those who are less fortunate in the community, including the soldier, is to have consideration. And what does this Insurance Bill do for the soldier who has to leave the service with tuberculin? Instead of being pushed away to his home and disregarded by the State, he will be taken charge of and assisted by the State, and will, we trust, be cured. He will be freed from all anxieties of communicating the complaint to those around him.
  If it was only for the proper treatment of the tuberculous soldier, it will be worth while to pass the Army Clauses. The same argument applies to all diseases that may befall the soldier. This is an Insurance Bill. A great many soldiers suffer from various diseases and disasters, and they will be insured from all risk of being sent back to beg their bread owing to the incidents of disease or accidents. That is the case of the broad question, with which I have only briefly dealt, put
  1530
  by the hon. Member for Colchester, whose assistance in this matter I should like to cordially acknowledge. The hon. Member says it is well that the soldier should be insured and pay for insurance. These things will be of great advantage to the soldier, but the hon. Member says, "Are you sure you are not making him pay too much, or are you sure that you are yourselves paying enough?" and it is upon that ground chiefly that the hon. Gentleman says we ought not to have hospital stoppages. In case that is opposed he says there is a margin which could be well spent in that way. I think his view is that if the hospital stoppages for any reason be not given up, then we ought to find other means of expending the money or of reducing the soldiers contribution.
  Before I deal with the latter point, may I deal with those who do not take that view, but who say that upon abstract grounds hospital stoppages ought to be stopped. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, who speaks with such authority on behalf of the Navy, seems to take that view. There are very different methods of treating this question, but I think I can give good reason to show that this is not a desirable time for dealing with the question of hospital stoppages. Supposing it were a desirable time, and I do not admit it, I have found a great many soldiers strongly opposed to the abolition of hospital stoppages. See what it would mean. It would mean that the soldier who finds himself in hospital would receive full wages as well as all the extra comforts of the hospital. That does not happen to the civilian workmen, and the working classes of this country, of whom the soldiers are part, would not view with peculiar favour a system under which you take public money in order to use it for the benefit of one particular class, so that the soldier should be as well off and better off in hospital than when he is not in hospital, for whatever cause, because such a thing does not happen to any other class of the community. Let me take another point. I am not going to deal with the question of malingering, because, as a matter of fact, that is a matter to be dealt with on the Army Estimates. It is a matter of Army policy whether that policy is wise or unwise. The Insurance Bill is a measure intended to see that a man does not suffer unduly under sickness.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: We never claim that we want the whole of the hospital

  1531
  stoppages removed. The hospital stoppages brought about by men through their own fault should be paid, but about half the men in the Services go to hospital not through their own fault.
  Colonel SEELY: That is most interesting. The Noble Lord says we do not want to abolish hospital stoppages altogether, but we will use some of the funds in this Bill for hospital stoppages. Can we, in an Insurance Bill, go into the whole complicated question of hospital stoppages in the Army and Navy? I frankly say no.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Surely the question of hospital stoppages has been frequently mentioned. It is mentioned in the actuarial report on the Amendment Clauses.
  Colonel SEELY: If the Committee decided to abolish hospital charges altogether, no doubt it would be perfectly competent for them to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, with great truth, this is not an attempt to do it, and this is not the mode of dealing with disciplinary matters like that. Let me tell the House what the position is. Sometimes there are full remissions, and the whole of a man's pay is paid in cases where he suffers from injury received in the actual performance of his military duties. A soldier on parade may be thrown off a gun carriage, and the carriage may run over his leg. In that case the whole of the hospital charges are remitted. Then there is a very large class of half remissions; such, for instance, as where a man suffers from sickness caused by military exigencies, including diseases such as are common to tropical climates—pneumonia, due to exposure, or other things beyond a soldier's control. In some of these cases he will get the whole remission of the hospital stoppages; in some he will get half. I submit, if it can be shown that the soldier from the actuarial point of view, is not paying too much, you ought not to complicate this Insurance Bill by dealing in it with Army and Navy matters of this kind, and if it is admitted that the soldier is paying too much, which I deny, then the last way you ought to deal with it is this way, by putting complications into this Insurance Bill. In regard to the case of whole remissions and half remissions, there are cases of half stoppages where the illness is due to the man himself. Sometimes a man goes from one category to another, or from one ailment
  1532
  to another. Is this the moment to deal with such immensely complicated matters as these?
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this is not the moment when should we get another opportunity. I understand that a man in the Army is to pay 1½d. per week more than he had to pay before. If that is the case, and if the only benefit during his service is something which 90 per cent. will not receive, why should we take something from the man who receives nothing?
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has anticpated what I was going to make my second point. He says why not include hospital stoppages, because they should be directly part of your scheme. Outsiders are insured against sickness, why should not the soldier be. I shall endeavour to show that that is the worst way of redressing the balance, if there be a balance, in favour of the soldier because of the immense complication. I think most people, if they consider the remarks I have addressed to the Committee, will agree that this is matter of complication which we do not wish to commit. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, "Are we to have a chance on the Army Estimates." If you think all this system should be stopped it is only necessary that it should be pressed, and it would be done. If no technical difficulty should arise, I give a pledge on behalf of the Government that those wishing to raise this question will have an opportunity for adequate debate and decision on this question of hospital stoppages upon the Army and Navy Votes. I think that shows that we are not afraid of meeting the case. Now it is said, is it fair that the soldier should pay 1½d. per week and yet should not get full benefit, if he is in hospital. The answer is, he is not paying this 1½d. in respect of sick benefit at all. Not in the least. If he was paying one 1½d. in respect of sick benefit and disablement benefit it would be wholly inadequate. If he was paying for that, he would, of course, have to pay an amount like 4d. which the civilian pays. He only pays 1½d. in order to be entitled to a transfer value and to become an insured person at a certain time. If at any moment in his career he gets pneumonia, tuberculosis, or falls sick in any other way, instead of being thrown upon the streets he is ensured for the rest of his life and by paying that 1½d. he obtains his benefits. The maternity benefit is a small though valuable matter. The

  1533
  soldier is paying for the enormous advantage of becoming an insured person afterwards. If he is lucky enough, and passes through the Service and never gets ill and comes to the end of his time, of course he will be paying more or less for nothing. But so will everyone else who pays 4d. for sickness and disability and other benefits. He is paying 1½d. in respect of deferred benefit and the immediate advantage of being an insured person. He pays for that 1½d. If he paid less it would not pay for him on the scheme.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Might I interrupt once more?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had his opportunity. If I were to allow him to interrupt in this manner, everybody in the House would be getting up.
  7.0 P.M.
  Colonel SEELY: I shall be glad to have a further conversation in private with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am convinced that I can really make him see this point—at least, I shall try it. It is said we are not paying a sufficiently large proportion of this insurance. To that there are two very simple answers. In the case of the civilian the employé pays 4d., the employer 3d.—in other words, the employer takes three-sevenths of the cost. In the case of the soldier and the sailor, the employer, which is in their case the Army Council and the Admiralty, pays not three-sevenths but three and a-half, and pro tanto the soldiers and sailors are better off. There is another argument. It may be said, "It is all very well, but you are only giving reduced benefits." At any rate, the soldier is a man paying on a reduced scale, as are others under this Bill, and if he is paying under a reduced scale you ought to pay him on a reduced scale as well. May I point out that the soldier is better off than the agricultural labourer, because in the case of soldiers and sailors the abatement is at the normal rate of 1½d., and the abatement of the employer is only 1½d., instead of 3d., so that in these two particulars it is fair to say that the soldier and the sailor are better off than anybody else under the Insurance Bill.
  I come to the final question, on which I fear we cannot come to an agreement, in regard to stoppages, upon which the hon. Member for Colchester thinks we are wrong. After the most careful consideration we have convinced ourselves that, far from making the soldier pay too much
  1534
  from a strictly actuarial point of view, we are probably making him pay rather too little. The view of those specially responsible for the Army—I do not think my hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) who sits near me will deny what I am going to say—is that a terrible loss will fall upon the Army funds. My hon. Friend has protested tome in almost violent language about the loss to Army funds, which, he says, will be very considerable, and when he comes to present the Army Estimates they will say, "We do not care what this money is for, it is all very well to say it is because we have been generous to the soldier, but we have to look to the total amount." My hon. Friend tells me that there can be no doubt that there must be a large addition to the Army Estimates on this head, but I must leave it to my hon. Friend and his excellent advisers to fight it out with the hon. and learned Member for Colchester. I adhere to the course taken by the Government, and I am glad that we have seen our way to be generous to the soldier and the sailor, because I am sure they deserve it. I believe this proposal will be a great boon to the soldier and the sailor, and I think it will help recruiting. That we have been generous there is no doubt, and it is impossible for us to add further to the burden without greatly adding to Army and Navy funds.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am sure everyone welcomes the advent of the right hon. Gentleman in the discussions on this Bill for he has spoken with a knowledge of the subject which is denied to many of us. I think I shall have to traverse some of the statements he has made and advance some argument which I hope will induce the Committee to take a different view to that which the right hon. Gentleman advanced. I should like to add one word to the general expression of congratulations which have been given to the hon. Member for Colchester in connection with the redrafting of this Clause. I know from practical experience, with what tireless energy and unbounded enthusiasm my hon. Friend has worked at this particular branch of the subject. He has made the question of the treatment of the soldiers and the sailors under this Bill especially his own care, and he may reflect with great pride upon the success which has attended his efforts, and upon the impress which he will leave upon the Bill. In the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to the generous treatment dealt out to soldiers and sailors by

  1535
  this Bill, and he called as a witness the narrowness of the margin which the actuaries' estimates allowed, and he advanced an argument to show that the Government were devoting practically the whole of the money realised by the contributions to the benefit of all the soldiers and the sailors. He said "Look how the actuaries have altered their original figures." May I point out that the actuaries had only to deal with the figures of the Bill as it was presented to them in the first instance. It was never suggested that the soldier or the sailor ought to pay 2d. The actuaries had to deal with the 2d. as it stood in the Bill, and they had to base their calculations upon the Bill as it stood. I think that goes a very long way to prove the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that, when the actuaries are enabled to revise the value of the contribution they are able to give larger benefits for a reduced subscription.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the question of hospital stoppages, and on that point I confess that he did not convince me in the least. I say that with regret, but it is none the less true. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the impossibility and propriety of dealing with the question in this Bill. He said, "This is not a matter for the Insurance Bill at all, but it is a question to some extent of Army discipline, and the proper place to deal with it is on the Army Estimates." But you are dealing with soldiers and sailors in the Insurance Bill, and it is because you are dealing with them in this Bill that the question arises. To my mind it arises in this way: we are bound to see that we give to the soldiers and the sailors fair value for the contributions we take from them. We have been careful to do that in respect of all classes of the community which this Bill affects. Rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—we take the view that the soldier is already making some payment towards the cost of medical and hospital treatment in the reduced pay which he gets. That is the position before this Bill affects him. My hon. Friend has estimated the amount necessary to cover medical and hospital treatment the soldier now gets at 3½d. per week. The Committee is bound to bear that in mind when fixing their contribution for the small benefits which you give them so long as they are serving. I think you are bound to bear that in mind. The right hon. Gentleman says if you compare the general scale of contributions as a
  1536
  whole with the scale you are inviting the soldiers and sailors to contribute upon you must be driven to the conclusion that the soldier and the sailor are being most generously dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman very conveniently left out the contribution which the soldier and the sailor already make to hospital treatment, and it is on that account that my hon. Friend laid so great a stress upon the necessity for dealing with the question of hospital stoppages. I should like just to remind the Committee what it was my hon. Friend suggested. As far as I understood him, he did not suggest that this should be done in all cases.
  Colonel SEELY: In which cases?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am going to tell the Committee. What he suggested was that you should give the benefit of so much of the contribution as would be realised by the payment of 1d. per week. I think the Committee probably are not bearing in mind the figures on which my hon. Friend based his case. I will put the matter very briefly. The value of the contribution which the soldier makes for medical and hospital treatment is put by the actuary at 3½d.; therefore the actual payment which you call upon the soldier to make under this Bill is 1½d., or a total of 5d. The amount the Navy and Army contribute is 1½d., and it will be obvious to the Committee that the relation between 1½d. and 5d. is very different from the relation between the 3d. which the ordinary employer pays to the 4d. which the ordinary employé pays. It is on that ground that my hon. Friend says that presumably the State is as good but not a better employer. I think the State ought to bear the same proportion, or something like the same proportion, as the ordinary employer. If you admit that there is any justice in that argument—and I cannot see how you can deny it—then the State is not paying its proper proportion under the present proposal. My hon. Friend says, "Let the State assume the burden of another penny and let it insure the soldier for so much as a penny will secure him, and let that amount go to reduce the hospital stoppages." I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in other portions of the Bill sickness due to misconduct is taken out of the sickness benefit, and sickness benefit is not given in respect to a sickness due to a man's own misconduct. That is so in the Clauses relating to the Army.

  1537
  I do not think there is the extraordinary complication about dealing with the soldier and the sailor which the right hon. Gentleman fears. The whole Bill is extraordinarily complicated, and I do not in the least envy the people who will have to administer it. I do not think the proposals my hon. Friend has made will add to the complications of the Bill in the slightest degree. I am sorry I was not in the House when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty dealt with the question of the administration of the fund when a soldier or sailor is abroad. I want to raise a point on that in connection with India. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. I do not believe it has been mentioned at all. I suppose I am right in saying that when men in the Regular Army are serving in India they are paid by the Indian Government, and, therefore, the Indian Government will necessarily deduct 1½d. from their pay. I apologise to the Committee for my ignorance on this point. But are our men paid in Indian or English currency? I take it that when the 1½d. is to be sent home, as it, must be in the case of these soldiers who wish to continue members of a friendly society, it will be subject to the fluctuations of exchange. Or will it always be 1½d.? It will be obvious to the Committee that friendly societies will have a very legitimate grievance if when they are led to expect 1½d. they get it subject to a deduction. I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with that point on an Amendment by one of my hon. Friends, but I thought it right to mention it now, because, although it may have been provided for, I have not yet heard any explanation. The Committee will, I think, feel satisfied that a very great improvement in the Bill has taken place as a result of the Amendment which I am now suggesting. We believe there is room for still further improvement and we hope we shall be able to make some impression on the Government by some of our proposals.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I only want to say one word in answer to the question with regard to the position of the Army in India. I am informed that the value of the rupee does not fluctuate now. It is a fixed sum. But in any case the sum fixed in the Bill will remain what it is—1½d. I should like to correct an impression to which the hon. Member for Chatham has alluded. He spoke of this Bill as if it were the Tenth Commandment. I do
  1538
  not feel that any defence of that Commandment is required by me. The hon. Gentleman's difficulty was not so much with regard to the reduction, which he said could not be made, as in regard to the position of the man who is now contributing his 6d. to his society or trade union. I can assure the hon. Member I have been informed by my right hon. Friend that an Amendment in regard to that is already on the Paper on Section (4) of Clause 65, so that under that Clause a man already contributing 6d. will be able to deduct 1½d., and will only pay 4½d. to his approved society while continuing his membership.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I understand the right hon. Gentleman thinks that under this Bill the soldier will be better treated than the civilian. I believe 4d. a week for twenty-six weeks entitles the civilian to the full benefit. But the soldier pays 1½d. a week for six years, which, I believe, is stated by the actuaries to be the average of a soldier's service. I calculate that 4d. a week for twenty-six weeks amounts to 8s 8d., whereas 1½d. a week for six years comes to much more than double that sum. Is that treating the soldier better than you are treating a civilian? It seems to me you are making a soldier pay more than double before you give him the benefit which accrues to the civilian after twenty-six weeks' payment.
  Colonel SEELY: Although it is quite true that the soldier is to pay 1½d. a week for six years, it is equally true that he may only pay it for one year and yet get all the benefits under this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Colonel SEELY: I propose, in lieu of the Amendment, which it was intended to move at this point, to substitute the following:—
  "In Sub-section (1) leave out the words, "other than His Majesty's Indian Forces and the Royal Malta Artillery," and to insert instead thereof the words "soldiers of His Majesty's Indian forces who are natives of India, the Royal Malta Artillery, and native soldiers of any regiment raided outside the United Kingdom."
  Mr. FORSTER: I will take the form of words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose there is no complication likely to arise from the inclusion of the words, but it seems rather a peculiar thing to limit the exemption to those members

  1539
  of the forces who are natives of India. I should have thought it was rather hazardous to limit it in that way.
  Colonel SEELY: We considered this point very carefully in the Adjutant-General's Department, and tried to devise a form of words which would be watertight. There might be a half-dozen other forms, but I think these are probably the best to insure that we shall not exclude anyone from the scope of the Bill who wants to come in.
  Mr. FALLE: What about Australians and Canadians?
  Colonel SEELY: They will not want to come in. This only proposes to deal with the case of soldiers in India.
  Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "two-pence" ["sum of twopence a week"], and insert instead thereof the words "three halfpence."
  Leave out the words "in respect of every such seaman, marine, and soldier."
  After the word "Services" ["Army and Navy Services"], insert the words "in respect of every such seaman, marine, and soldier who has joined an approved society in the manner hereafter mentioned the sum of one penny half-penny per week and in respect of every other such seaman, marine, and soldier."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment deals with the case of the Territorial forces.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I should like to move my Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should like the hon. and gallant Member to address me on the question of whether that involves a charge on a Money Resolution.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: This involves a charge upon the Army Council and upon the Admiralty. It is not one which will prejudice a Financial Resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN: Is not this bringing in a new party altogether? It deals with the Army Reserve called up in a civil capacity.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: This affects men who are paid by the Army Council
  1540
  and are serving in the Army Reserve, A, C, and D. The men are mentioned in the Clause, but only in the last two paragraphs. They are mentioned where they are called up for training and where they are embodied, but they are not mentioned in a civil capacity. It will be quite in order will it not to move this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: I confess I am not quite clear on the point. But subject to anything that may arise later I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "prescribed" ["as may be prescribed"], to insert the words "and for every man serving in the Army Reserve whilst not called out on permanent service, the sum of one halfpenny per week, to be carried to his personal credit in his own society."
  The men now in the Army Reserve are paid a sum of 3s. 6d. a week when they are in sections B and D. That is practically one day's pay. That is paid by the Army Council to the man when he is serving outside the Army and as a retainer for his services. Under the circumstances, as the Army Council are paying this sum, I am asking that they should contribute one half-penny per week to be carried to the man's personal credit in his society.
  Colonel SEELY: I would ask the Chairman's ruling why an Amendment of this character is not out of order as adding to the public charge. I rise, not for the purpose of in any way burking discussion, but because it might affect other Amendments of a similar character. Under the scope of the Bill there must be two-ninths payable out of the Insurance fund itself.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think my right hon. Friend is wrong when he says two-ninths are affected in any way. Two-ninths are two-ninths of hypothetical benefits. The Government's two-ninths is a hypothetical sum equalling the benefits these people would get out of the residue. This ½d., if it is allowed, would come entirely out of the residue. There are three funds that go into the insurance account. There is the fixed contribution of the man; there is the fixed contribution representing the two-ninths (that is not affected by anything we do in the way of altering this Bill); and there is the Army and Navy fund and balance to approved societies.
  Colonel SEELY: Surely it is clearly laid down in Sub-section (3) of this Clause that two-ninths shall be paid. Two-ninths of what? Two-ninths of certain contributions. What else can it be?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I am not clearly convinced that it does come within a Money Resolution, and, therefore, I must allow the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
  Colonel SEELY: I am very glad, because I hate to have discussion baulked on a technical point. I feel we cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although we must sympathise with the object he has in view. It would
  place a charge upon the Army and Navy, which, in our judgment, they cannot bear.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry the Government cannot accept this Amendment. It is a clearly reasonable one, and one which would not cost the Government much. It is one of which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted the justice. He has refused it, but he has not refused it by argument. I suggest that my hon. Friend should press his Amendment to a Division, and I will support him.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 204.

  Division No. 374.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Malcolm, Ian

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Ashley, W. W.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, H.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Boyton, J.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Norman, (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major

  Falle, B. G.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Archer-Shee and Mr. W. Peel.

  Fell, Arthur

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Adamson, William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Armitage, R.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dawes, J. A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Dillon, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Donelan, Anthony Charles

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cameron, Robert

  Doris, William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Boland, John Plus

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Brace, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cotton, William Francis

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  France, G. A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Geider, Sir W. A.

  Logan, John William

  Radford, George Heynes

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lundon, T.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Reddy, M.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hackett, J.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, James

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Meeham, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheeny, David

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Harwood, George

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire, N.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Snowden, Philip

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Munro, R.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hoit, Richard Durning

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wadsworth, John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ogden, Fred

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Grady, James

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Malley, William

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Keating, M.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "this provision shall not apply to" ["Provided that this provision shall not apply to a seaman"], and insert instead thereof the words "no such deduction shall be made from the pay of."
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "has" ["a seaman, marine, or soldier who has re-engaged"], insert the words "completed the period of his first engagement, and has."
  At the end of Sub-section (1), add the words "within the prescribed time, and that no contribution shall be made by the Admiralty or Army Council in respect of any week in respect of which such a deduction is not made."—[Colonel Seely.]
  Amendment proposed: To leave out Subsection (2), and to insert instead thereof:
  (2) A seaman, marine, or soldier—

  (a) who was at the date of his entry or enlistment an insured person and had joined and was at that date a member of an approved society; or,

  1544

  (b) who within six months from the date of his entry or enlistment, or, in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier serving at the commencement of this Act, within six months after the commencement of this Act or within such longer period as may be prescribed, joins an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act;

  shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as if he were an employed contributor, subject until his discharge to the following modifications:—

  (i) The employed rate shall be three-pence, and the deductions made from his pay and the contributions made in respect of him by the Admiralty or Army Council shall be treated as the contributions paid in respect of him;

  (ii) He shall not be entitled to medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, sickness benefit, or disablement benefit;

  1545

  (iii) Maternity benefit shall be payable notwithstanding that both he and his wife are resident outside the United Kingdom at the date of the confinement, and the society may arrange with the Admiralty or Army Council for the administration of the benefit through the Admiralty or Army Council;

  (iv) The sum to be retained out of each weekly contribution by the Insurance Commissioners towards the discharge of their liabilities in respect of reserve value shall be one penny half-penny, instead of one penny and five-ninths."

  "(3) With respect to seamen, marines, and soldiers who have not joined an approved society as aforesaid the following provisions shall have effect:—

  (a) The sums so deducted and the contributions so made as aforesaid in respect of such men shall be paid into the national health insurance fund, and out of such sums there shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioner towards discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created under this part of this Act the like amount as if such men were members of approved societies, and the balance shall be credited to a special fund to be called the Navy and Army insurance fund,

  (b) There shall also be paid into the Navy and Army insurance fund in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament a sum equal to two-ninths of the amount, calculated in the prescribed manner, which would have been payable in that year in respect of medical sanatorium, sickness and disablement benefit (including expenses of administration) had all seamen, marines, and soldiers from whose pay deductions are made under this Section been members of approved societies and entitled to such benefits as employed contributors;

  (c) The weekly contributions to be made by the Admiralty and Army Council in respect of such men shall be such as may from time to time be required to keep the Navy and Army insurance fund solvent;

  (d) If any such man was at the date of his entry or enlistment a deposit contributor he shall, for the purpose of dealings with the sum standing to
  1546
  his credit in the Post Office fund be treated as if the Navy and Army insurance fund had been an approved society, and he had at the date of his entry or enlistment become a member of that society;

  (e) In the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier serving at the commencement of this Act there shall be credited to the Navy and Army insurance fund such reserve value as would have been credited to an approved society had he at that date become a member of the society as an employed contributor. Provided that no such reserve value shall be credited to that fund if at the date aforesaid he had re-engaged for pension, unless he elects to have deductions made from his pay or unless, not having so elected, he becomes on discharge entitled to benefits payable out of that fund as hereinafter mentioned.

  (f) Every such man shall, until discharged, be entitled to maternity benefit payable out of the Navy and Army insurance fund, and shall be entitled to such benefit notwithstanding that both he and his wife are at the date of the confinement resident outside the United Kingdom, and the benefit shall be administered by the Admiralty and Army Council either directly or through local health committees."—[Colonel Seely.]

  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Sub-section at the end of paragraph (i.), to add the words:—
  "There shall also be paid to his society in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament a sum equal to two-ninths of the amount calculated in the prescribed manner which would have been payable in that year in respect of medical, sanatorium, sickness, and disablement benefits (including expenses of administration) had he been a member of an approved society and been entitled to benefits as an employed contributor."
  I do not want to reargue the financial proposition, which I have already dealt with to some extent, but I should like the Committee, as this Amendment seems to be of extreme importance, to understand what they are asked to vote for. The Government is rightly trying to make it worth

  1547
  while to approved societies to take in Service men, and they are trying to induce Service men to join approved societies. Unless this two-ninths of the benefits to be contributed to by Parliament is given to those members who join the approved societies, as well as given to those who join the Army and Navy fund, then they will fail to accomplish their object, because it will be impossible for the societies to take these men in. There has been an attempt to answer this argument. The Under-Secretary of State for War said that I challenged the actuaries' calculations. I did not do that at all. The actuaries do not advise that the approved societies can afford to take men in for the contribution that is given to them. You cannot find a single statement in the actuaries' report which leads the House to suppose that they think that the approved societies are getting enough to induce them to take these men in. If the right hon. Gentleman puts it to them they will admit that at the age of nineteen and a-half, the average age of enlisting, there is no selection possible. A man may join a friendly society, or the Army and Navy insurance fund, at that age, and no one can say whether one man is a better life than another. At nineteen and a-half they are examined for health, and they are equally healthy whether they join an approved society or the Army and Navy fund. At that time there is no selection in the insurance sense at all.
  8.0 P.M.
  The more men who join the approved societies the more the approved societies will have to look after the special invalidity which falls to the lot of the soldier. The more you get into the societies the more insolvent they will become unless you give them two-ninths of the benefit. Why do you want this sum of two-ninths for the Army and Navy Insurance fund? It is because you think there is some special invalidity attached to the soldier and sailor. There can be no other reason for paying this £80,000 or £90,000 over and above the level rat eof contributions into the Army and Navy fund, I think it was admitted from the Treasury Bench that if you pay that sum into the Army and Navy Insurance fund it is because you think there is a greater degree of invalidity for the soldier and sailor. If that is the case, bear in mind the point that at nineteen and a-half, more men would be going into the approved societies than into the Army and Navy Insurance fund. These societies will require their share of the two-
  1548
  ninths just as much as the Army and Navy fund. I agree there is a selection as regards men now in the Services, because those who go out in the next year or two will, of course, be good lives, and be able to join approved societies. Those who are not will have to join the Army and Navy Insurance fund. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of insisting upon the Amendment, will say that if you make a sufficient allowance for the admitted selection which occurs to-day, but as regards the future they will have the two-ninths, he will be meeting us fairly, and meeting approved societies fairly, and he will make it possible for them to take in these lives. Unless he does that he is making a show of putting people into approved societies, and he is making it impossible for them to go there. I am not saying that on my own authority. I have asked a well-known actuary, who has been advising me in several matters, and who has also been consulted by the Government—there is no secret about the matter, it is Mr. Watson. He is certainly of opinion that there is an extra invalidity risk, and that it will be something like 1d. a week. This two-ninths is almost exactly 1d. a week. So I move here that two-ninths should be given in the words of my Amendment. I do not think there has been any sort of answer to this point. It must be admitted that this friendly society will have a large number of men with an extra invalidity risk, and no extra allowance whatever is made to them on account of this. It is not as if the Government offered us ¾d. or ¼d. or a ½d. They are offering nothing. In these friendly societies there will be a large number of people with an extra invalidity risk, and we cannot point to a thing in the Bill which will provide the funds which will enable them to meet the risk which is being put on them.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I strongly urge the Government to make some concession on this point, because it is really one which will very materially affect the success of their Amendment in trying to get men to go into friendly societies. There is only a margin of.14 of a 1d. on their own actuarial report. That must be totally insufficient to provide, first, for administration, for which there is no allowance made whatever, and also for this extra invalidity. I am quite sure the Government must want as many men as possible to go into the friendly societies while they are in the Service to give them

  1549
  a good start in life. If they do not succeed in meeting the friendly societies it is quite certain that the scheme must be a failure.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit that this is an extremely complicated matter, and one which it is not very easy for the amateur to grasp fully in all its bearings and all its details. If I should go astray, having not been very long in my present position, I ask the hon. Gentleman's forgiveness. I think there is some misconception as to the origin of this two-ninths. The two-ninths is a hypothetical benefit which would have been given to a man if he had been something other than that which he is. The healthy lives will go out as soon as they leave the Service to the approved society, which will be encouraged to take them. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if the approved societies were being badly treated. That is not so at all. The approved societies will have a large selection of good lives, whereas the fund of which we are the custodians and the guardians, for the solvency of which we are responsible, will have to protect the sick and those who have lost their good health and are really the lame ducks. That being so, I would appeal to the Committee not to insist upon this being given all round, because it will have a most deleterious effect upon the funds for which we are responsible. If it were done I feel confident myself that we should be saddled with nothing but the lame ducks, and we should have consequently thrust upon us a position which must make us insolvent. If that should happen, we should have no other course before us but to ask the House to increase the Army Estimates, and that would be a position I should deprecate very much, because people are not very nice in their discrimination as to the causes which have led to the Government asking for an increase in the Vote to keep up the Army. They merely point to the fact that the Government are increasing the Army Estimates. The hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) made an admission. At any rate the whole of the two-ninths was not in his view applicable to the approved societies. He did not suggest that the whole of it was deserved or desired. I suggest to him that none of it ought to be given inasmuch as it is only a counterpoise which has been given for the very bad cases we have to provide for. I do not say this is the last word upon the subject. I should like to know whether
  1550
  there may be other arguments brought forward in the course of the Debate, and therefore I am not going to pose as being absolutely adamantine, but I am very anxious that pressure should not be put upon the fund for which we shall be responsible, and that it may not be a bankrupt fund, therefore I should hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. AMERY: As the hon. Gentleman has promised not to be adamantine I hope he will consider certain further arguments on this point. I think he missed the point made by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans), because in the case of men at this moment in the Army there will be a certain number of lame ducks. The official average age of entry into the Army is 19½, but all who know anything about recruiting know that it is a good many months younger, and you cannot say for a great many years what proportion of lame ducks there will be. At 18 you cannot say what their state of health will be afterwards. There is no selection. Further, there is a strong argument in favour of the men getting this two-ninths. Under the particular form of this Clause, men in the Service who belong to an approved society are the only people insured in this country who get no contribution whatever from any source except their own 1½d. The 1½d. which is supposed to be given them by their employer, the State, is never given them at all. It goes straight towards the redemption of reserve values. The reserve values only are a benefit to men of thirty-three or thereabouts. The whole of this class of men who enter the Service are between the ages of sixteen or seventeen and twenty-five. To all of them that reserve value subtraction does not represent any benefit they get, but a benefit given to an entirely different class of people, except as regards the infinitesimal fraction of reserve value accruing over sixteen years of age, some ten, twelve, or fifteen shillings altogether. I submit, therefore, that these men are in the position of getting no addition whatever to their contribution, which is forced from them, and the full value of it I do not believe they get. So I submit there is a very strong case indeed on behalf of these men. This hypothetical two-ninths brings out very clearly the unsatisfactory character of the whole two-ninths method instead of a flat contribution, and in fact if the Bill did contain a flat contribution of 1d. or 2d. a week towards each man, I do

  1551
  not think anyone can deny the right of these men just as much as any other class of insured persons who get the full value of their money. It is only because of this dodging and muddling about the two-ninths that the point is obscure and these men are not going to get the justice to which they are entitled. They are compelled to contribute, and they are the only class of people compelled to contribute in the whole country who do not get a single addition from any source whatever to the amount of their contribution.
  The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the generosity of the Government in redressing the old scandal about tuberculosis. That scandal is common to the whole of industrial society. The men who suffered from such disease and were discharged were left to chance, but it is only setting the matter even to give them redress like everyone else. It would be monstrous if soldiers should not get it. These men are getting nothing whatever from any outside source. That is a disadvantage to them, and personally I think it may be a serious disadvantage to their societies, inasmuch as they are more liable to specific diseases than other persons. This is an Amendment which, I hope, will be pressed to a Division, but I hope, before that happens, the hon. Gentleman will show himself reasonable and will consider it. I know the intentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite are generous. I am sure they mean to be generous to the soldiers, but in this case, though there has been a very substantial and real advance on the original form of the Bill, even now the soldier has not been done justice to. The great thing is that the men in the Service should be in substantially the same position as the farm labourer or the ordinary employed worker.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I hope that the words proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) will be considered in a sympathetic spirit. It seems to me that the proposals of the Government cannot carry out the object they themselves have in view. They desire, I understand, that there should be an opportunity for Service men to join approved societies. While I do not profess to identify myself with every argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the fact is put before the House that the largest friendly society, the Odd-fellows, have rightly stated that under present circumstances they could not take these men. Therefore, while I do not
  1552
  press for the exact words of the Amendment, I join in pressing the Government to consider this question with a view to making some concession which will get rid of the grievance.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I never heard such an extraordinary argument in my life as that which came from the Front Bench. I do not know what office the hon. Gentleman holds, but his argument was not whether the men were well treated or not, or whether my hon. Friends were stating the facts, but whether the Army Estimates were to be increased or not. That has nothing whatever to do with it. These men are compelled to pay their 1½d., and they have no right to approach this House or to combine or to ask whether they are right or wrong, and to bring out such a lamentable argument as the Army Estimates is ludicrous. I have never heard such an argument in my life, and I shall be very glad if another hon. Gentleman will get up and let us have some sort of argument with some commonsense in it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The question whether sailors have any right to come here to have justice done to them is not the question before the Committee. The question is whether, having made the provision which we make for them in this Bill, approved societies will be able to take them. It is a question whether we have treated approved societies fairly, and whether this Amendment is made or not will not affect the benefits we are bound to give them. The hon. Member for Colchester understands the position. I say we will have to deal with the residue of lives in the Army and Navy fund, and for that reason we have taken the whole of the two-ninths. My hon. Friend says that 1½d. is not enought to induce approved societies to take our men. We want the men in the approved societies. We would rather have them there than in the special fund, and I confess that I view with some misgiving the expressions of some authorities like the hon. Gentleman. I think they will be very glad to have them. I am sure that the competition between the industrial societies to get these men will secure that there will be considerable desire on the part of the various approved societies to get these men in. I do not want to entertain the idea of the possibility of the men not getting into approved societies in any way, and I am therefore prepared to make a concession. I am prepared to propose an

  1553
  amendment of paragraph (iv.) of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, the effect of which will be to give to approved societies an additional halfpenny. That will bring up the sinking fund of sailors and soldiers to a penny and five-ninths. We are willing to meet the hon. Member for Colchester and his Friends half-way. I think that is as far as we can go. It would be very much worth the approved societies' while to take these men.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What the right hon. Gentleman says is quite true. He has met us half-way, but I do not know whether half-way is far enough. I would point out to the Government that it is in their interest, as they well know, to get the members of the Services to go into friendly societies, because they relieve themselves of any future claims, while the friendly societies have to take these claims. If the right hon. Gentleman is advised that a ½d. is enough I will not press my Amendment. Personally, I do not think it is. If the Government take the responsibility for it, and find later on that a ½d. is not enough, because the friendly societies are not doing anything practical for the soldier and sailor, and are putting on a strict and severe life test, the responsibility must be on them. I have given what care I could to the calculations, and so far as I can guess it is not ½d. but 1d. that is required. The right hon. Gentleman has now taken a certain ¼d. that I was looking out for by taking the 1d. and five-ninths down to 1d. The sum I was going to reduce it to was 1¼d. I want that ¼d., and some time or other I will put in a claim for it. I will do it, perhaps, on the maternity benefit. It is quite ridiculous to suppose that a series of friendly societies are going to form themselves more or less specially for the purpose of carrying out this Bill. I believe they will do it if they can run it without loss. I believe that a friendly society will be formed in connection with every regiment, and if that is done there must be some cost for administration. Under the provisions which the Government propose there is no provision whatever for cost. I want a shilling per man per annum, and that is represented by the ¼d. I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the figure to 1¼d. in order to get that ¼d. If he will put it on the Army and Navy insurance fund it will meet the point I have in view. Leaving the responsibility on the Government, I do not propose to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (ii) of the proposed Amendment, after the word "entitled," insert the words "under this Part of this Act."—[Mr. Worthington-Evans.]
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to propose, at the end of paragraph (ii.), in the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "and no deductions under this part of this Act shall be made from the pay of any seaman, marine, or soldier while he is in hospital."
  The contributions would cease to be payable while a man was sick and in hospital. It is not a case of hospital stoppages at all. The 1½d. should not be deducted from his pay. If that is done automatically the Army Council and the Admiralty have not to make contributions during that period, and that must be a matter of consideration to the Front Bench when they are so carefully guarding that fund.
  Colonel SEELY: I would like to accept this because, as the hon. Member has pointed out, it would be a saving to Army and Navy funds, but my advisers inform me that it would be unwise to accept it.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give us some reason? We do not see why these men should pay while they are sick any more than people outside.
  Colonel SEELY: Good or bad, the principle of the Bill is that a man receiving a wage should have a sum deducted. The soldier or sailor is always receiving some wages. In the case of a great number of them in hospital they receive full wages, but in the case of all they receive some.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not think there is any minor deduction in the case of farm labourers and other classes of people whose wages does go on. In that case the parallel falls to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned how many complications as to hospital stoppages there are, but this would not add much to the complications.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 375.]

  AYES.

  [8.30 p.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Falle, B. G.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baird, J. L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Grady, James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomy B'ghs)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Grant, J. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyton, J.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dixon, Charles H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampion, G. (Salisbury)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  R. Pole-Carew and Mr. Amery.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Logan, John William

  Adamson, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lundon, T.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Falconer, J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Armitage, R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  McGhee, Richard

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

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

  Barnes G. N.

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Bentham, G. J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boland, John Plus

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Brace, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Munro, R.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Harvey, A. G. C.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Buckmastsr, Stanley O.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Burke, E. Haviland

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harwood, George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Clough, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Crawshay Williams, Eliot

  Johnson, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  De Forest, Baron

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Keating, M.

  Richards, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Doris, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Duncan, J. Hastngs (Yorks, Otley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, James

  1556

  1557

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sheehy, David

  Wadsworth, John

  Winfrey, Richard

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Waring, Walter

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Webb, H.

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iii.) of the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "There shall be repaid from time to time to such society out of the Navy and Army insurance fund hereafter mentioned the amounts so paid."
  The effect of this Amendment is that the maternity benefit, which costs.28d., which is a shade over a farthing a week, would be repaid to the societies by the Army and Navy insurance fund, and the object of that is to provide the societies with a management fund. At present they have no margin in the 1½d. which is allowed them to carry on the registration of their members, the registration of clearances or transfers from one society to the other, the investment of their funds, the secretary's salary, and all the various other small expenses of administration. I admit that they would not be as large as the ordinary society's expenses, but they must be something, and there is nothing provided by the Bill for the purpose of paying these expenses. If the Government want, as they obviously must want, Service men to join the friendly societies, then at least they should give the friendly societies the possibility of forming funds for administration. Therefore I suggest that the maternity benefit should be repaid by the Army and Navy insurance fund, which would have the effect of giving the friendly societies a shilling a year per member, out of which they could pay for administration.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot accept the proposal. The hon. Gentleman said that there is nothing in the 1½d. for management. My hon. Friend is not often wrong, but I think he is wrong on this occasion.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is the.14d.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I understood my hon. Friend to say there was nothing.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I said there was nothing, but my hon. Friends on this side have several times referred to the.14d. Literally, I said there was nothing, but I ought to have said there is this.14d., which is next to nothing.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In my opinion the.14d. amounts to half the value of the maternity benefit, and if that is next to nothing I should like to know from what point of view the hon. Member regards the maternity benefit. He must have a very small idea of the value of the maternity benefit. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am very disappointed that the representative of the Government who has just spoken cannot assent to this Amendment, because there is not the slightest doubt that the cost of the administration of this particular fund is not going to be light. The actual charge is not going to be so easy as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, and in actual practice the burden of the work thrown on the secretaries of the societies will be far larger than he has any idea of at the present time. It is only right and reasonable to make ample provision for the cost of administration, and I do not at all agree that.14d. will really suffice for management.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 376.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Barrie, Hugh T.

  Campion, W. R.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Cassel, Felix

  Baird, John Laurence

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Cave, George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Boyton, James

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Dixon, C. H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hills, J. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

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

  Hume-Williams William Ellis

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Forster, Henry William

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Touche, George Alexander

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gretton, John

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Mr. Shirley Benn and Major Archer-Shee.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nuttall, Harry

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Armitage, Robert

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hackett, John

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnes, George N.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Harwood, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Radford, George Heynes

  Boland, John Plus

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, Michael

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Richards, Thomas

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Johnson, William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowlands, James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Keating, Matthew

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Cotton, William Francis

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Snowden, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Logan, John William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Tennant, Harold John

  De Forest, Baron

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dillon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wadsworth, John

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Waring, Walter

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

  Webb, H.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Falconer, James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Munro, Robert

  Winfrey, Richard

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

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

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

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Amendment made to proposed Amendment, leave out, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (iv.), the words "halfpenny, instead of one penny and five-ninths," and insert instead thereof, "And the remaining five-ninths of the penny shall be paid out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund hereinafter constituted."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. FORSTER: There is an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and I understand unless the words he suggests are put in there is nothing really to provide that the payment shall be made through the society.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is covered by a general provision in the Bill.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Mr. FORSTER: As long as I am assured the case is covered—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think so.
  Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to insert:
  (g) Every man, whether he has joined an approved society or not, shall, until discharged, be entitled to receive a weekly sum payable out of the Navy and Army insurance fund equal to the amount, if any, deducted from his pay as hospital stoppage less any separation allowance.
  We have already argued the merits of this question, but I must express my disappointment that the Government cannot see their way to meet us on this. We must hope that they will consider the question between now and the next time we have the opportunity of raising it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: On this Bill?
  Mr. FORSTER: The mere fact that we are dealing with soldiers and sailors may possibly affect the question between now and next Easter before the Bill comes into operation, and we shall have the opportunity of rediscussing this question, I hope when we come to the Estimates, or the Army (Annual) Bill, or whenever we deal with this particular problem, that we shall be able to persuade the Government to take the view we now hold and which they do not hold.
  Colonel SEELY: In response to the suggestion by the hon. Gentleman opposite I gladly renew the pledge that an opportunity shall be given on the Army Estimates or on some other suitable occasion—I
  1562
  assume that the Army Estimates would be the most convenient opportunity—fully to discuss this question. I have already given reasons why the Government do not view the proposal on its merits with favour; therefore I cannot give any pledge of reconsideration, but it will be in the hands of the Committee to decide the matter when the time comes. I give an undertaking that the Government will see to it that an adequate opportunity is given should any technical difficulty arise, not only fully to discuss this question, but to decide it.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be persuaded to reconsider his decision. I know perfectly well that there is a great deal in what he says. He has told us that if a soldier falls sick after the payment of one week, and has to leave the Service he may draw all the benefits of the Bill.
  Colonel SEELY: That is if he is a member of an approved society.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: How ofter does that happen? The actuaries tell us that six years is the average. I think the right hon. Gentleman might reasonably reconsider the point. You are not treating soldiers and sailors in the same way that you are treating civilians. I am sure that the Committee desire that fair play should be given to soldiers and sailors, and I sincerely hope that if the Government refuse to listen to us we shall get the support of the Committee in the Division.
  Mr. AMERY: I am sure the Committee is satisfied that this question of stoppages will be raised on the Estimates at some future time. As a question of military discipline and procedure there may be, and I think probably is, a very strong case in favour of continuing the system. On the other hand, as a question of insurance, I submit that it is a particular kind of stoppage against which it is natural and proper to insure, and against which men do insure at the present time. Therefore, if you are compelling men to enter into an insurance, thus diminishing the money that they have free, you ought to consider whether in whole or in part this is not a desirable benefit to give them. I do not want to argue the case in general, but take one instance—the case of men married off the strength. Their wives, in any case, have a very hard time even when the men have full pay. But if such a man falls ill and goes to hospital

  1563
  the amount of money that the wife has available is cut down to 3s. or 4s. I hope that the question of giving hospital stoppages, not universally but in certain cases, will really be considered. They are already subject to all sorts of variations and gradations, so that the mere ground of complication is not sufficient to justify the rejection of a perfectly proper and desirable form of insurance.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I am not at all satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this question on the Estimates: It is not a matter for the Estimates at all. We are not asking for the system of hospital stoppages to be discontinued. What we are asking for is that
  some equivalent to hospital stoppages shall be paid to insured men. That is an entirely different matter. If the question is raised on the Estimates, we know perfectly well that the War Office will never dream of giving up £60,000. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, as it raises an extremely important point. One thing I am certain of is that, if the Government do not agree to the proposal now they will be obliged to deal with it later on if they are still in power, in that Amending Bill which is absolutely certain to follow this Insurance Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 189.

  Division No. 377.]

  AYES.

  [9.5 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Perkins Walter Frank

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Barrie, H. T.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Campion, W. R.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, J. Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  R. Pole-Carew and Major Archer-Shee.

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, John Annan

  De Forest, Baron

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dillon, John

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Doris, William

  Armitage, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Barnes, George N.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Falconer, James

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Boland, John Plus

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Ffrench, Peter

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crumley, Patrick

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Brace, William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Reddy, Michael

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Gulland, John William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Hackett, John

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Rowlands, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Harwood, George

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehy, David

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Munro, Robert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hoit, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Walter Russell

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wadsworth, John

  Johnson, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, James

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Webb, H.

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kelly, Edward

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, George Heynes

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Logan, John William

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Mr. W. Jones and Captain Guest.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "deductions" ["from whose pay deductions continue to be made"], insert the words "have been made and."
  Leave out the words "said separate account and credited to the approved society of which he is, or becomes a member, or if he is not and," and insert instead thereof the words, "Navy and Army insurance fund and if he becomes a member of an approved society within the prescribed time from his discharge there shall be credited to that society, or if he."
  After the word "shall" ["shall be carried to his credit"] insert the words, "unless he becomes entitled to benefits out of the Navy and Army insurance fund as hereinafter mentioned."
  After the word "service" ["during his period of service"] insert the words, "and in the latter case the reserve value, if any, credited to the Navy and Army investment fund in respect of him shall be cancelled."
  Leave out the words, "and the contributions payable in respect of him during that period had been paid in full:
  Provided that if he proves to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that he has been unable to obtain admission to an approved society on account of the state of his health he shall, instead of becoming a deposit contributor, become entitled to benefits under such scheme as is hereinafter mentioned."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Amendment proposed: To leave out Sub-section (4) and to insert instead thereof,
  (h) A man discharged from service as a seaman, marine, or soldier who proves that the state of his health is such that he cannot obtain admission to an approved society may, if he so elects, on making applications to the Insurance Commissioners in the prescribed manner and within three months of his discharge, or such longer time as may be prescribed, become, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council,

  1567
  entitled to benefits (other than additional benefits) provided under this Part of this Act at the full rate, the cost of which benefits shall be payable out of the Navy and Army insurance fund, and such benefits shall be administered by local health committees or otherwise in such manner as may be prescribed by such regulations as aforesaid, and any contributions paid under this Part of this Act by or in respect of him shall be paid into that fund; Provided that—

  (i) the rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced, in the case of a man who entered into insurance after the age of sixteen or who is in arrears, to the like extent as it would be reduced in the case of an employed contributor who is a member of an approved society who entered into insurance at the like age or who is in arrears to the like extent, so however that the rate of sickness benefit shall in no case be reduced below five shillings a week;

  (ii) there shall in each year be repaid to the special fund, out of moneys provided by Parliament, a sum equal to two-ninths of the amount expended out of the fund on such benefits as aforesaid, including the expenses of administration;

  (iii) if the man was discharged for misconduct he shall not be entitled to such benefits, or shall be entitled to benefits at such reduced rates only as the Admiralty or Army Council may determine.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed Amendment, to add, at the end of paragraph (h),
  "(i) no deduction from benefits shall be made on account of any pension to which a man may be entitled."
  I hope I shall have better luck with this Amendment than I had in some of my former attempts. I think it is admitted by the Government that they do not intend that there shall be any deduction for payment on account of pensions to which men may be entitled. If so they can have no objection to putting in the form of words which I move, which make it quite clear upon the face of the Bill that that is the intention of the Government, the Committee, and everybody taking an interest
  1568
  in this matter. I hope the Government will accept these words.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I take it the policy is agreed.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government agree to that policy, but I do not understand him to say that they agree to accept the Amendment. If they agree to accept the Amendment I should be happy, and I will tell the Committee why it is necessary to put in these words. These pensions are payable subject to regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners. If the Government assent to the course I recommend that there should be no deduction on account of pensions, and if that is made clear upon the face of the Bill, the regulations made by the Commissioners will be subject to that proviso. If the matter is left open, and if there is nothing in the Bill to show that pensions may be left out on account, then I am afraid the Insurance Commissioners and other people might have powers to do what this Committee do not want them to do. That is the reason why I want these words put in so as to make it perfectly plain that there is to be no deduction on account of pensions. A man has earned his pension; he joined the Service before this Bill saw the light of day at all. He is entitled to his pension by service given, and I do not think it ought to be left in the power of anybody to make such deductions as might be made if these words were not inserted in the Bill. This Amendment can do no harm; it only carries out the policy as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, in paragraph (i.) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "who entered into insurance after the age of sixteen or."
  If these words are left in, the effect will be that men will be charged a rate of contribution, to use the language of the Bill, appropriate to their aid. That is to say, that the older a man is when discharged from the Service, the higher will be the contribution he will have to make to the fund. My hon. Friends and I have formed the opinion that when this Army and Navy fund was established there was going to be a flat rate contribution for all men in the Service of 1½d. We did not in the

  1569
  least appreciate the fact that when a man had been discharged the contribution he was to make from the fund was to vary according to his age. Of course, in the case of men who entered into insurance at the age of sixteen, the Government may say that would not affect a very large number of persons, because immediately after the Bill becomes law it will be the business of everybody to become insured at the age of sixteen. That is perfectly true as regards persons who have reached the age of sixteen, but it is going to throw very great hardships upon the 300,000 odd men who are in the Service now if, when they are discharged, they have to pay instead of 1½d., 3d. or 4d., or some other indeterminate figure, which varies with their age. I should like to hear some justification for the retention of these words. So far as I am advised at present, I should ask the Committee to divide against their retention.
  Mr. HOHLER: This is a matter which I am sure will receive some answer from those responsible for the interest of the Army and Navy. A juster case I do not think was ever advocated. Under the Clause with which we have already dealt there is a deduction made from every soldier and sailor in regard to service value, and that deduction is 1½d. per head per week. Having got your reserve value, what do you propose to do in reference to our sailors and soldiers? Having got that reserve value, you say that ultimately these men, now upon the Army and Navy fund, are only to get a rate of sickness benefit which shall be reduced in the case of men who enter into insurance after sixteen. The bulk of the men in the Service, in fact, the whole of them, except the buglers and drummer boys, are now over sixteen. You are taking reserve values from them, yet when they fall upon this fund for the purpose of benefits you refuse to give them their rights. In other words, you are going to take this deduction twice into account. That point must be clear to hon. Members opposite and to those now in charge of this Bill, and I ask the Government to amend this Clause by omitting those words. You are saying to these men, "I am not going to give you the benefits credited to you in the reserve values for which you have paid, and I am only treating you as if you had insured after sixteen without regard to your reserve value." I never heard of a greater injustice, and I ask the Government to amend this provision.
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe my hon. Friend is in error when he says that this man who comes in at sixteen has a reserve value. I am informed that that is not so, and that he has no reserve value. The fund could not bear the charge, and it is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: We have to deal with the whole of these questions at such short notice that I am not very clear upon this point. Surely the 1½d. to be deducted from the pay of every man and to be paid by the State should create a reserve value. If not, what are reserve values for?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is from the moment of enlistment.
  Mr. FORSTER: You are going to deduct 1½d. per week from the wages of the men who are now serving, and you are not going to give them the benefit of the reserve value. This is a very extraordinary thing. The Committee generally understood that the result of what we were doing was to deduct so much from the wages of every man, and in return you are going to create a reserve value for him, so that if he left the Service after his period was ended he could join a friendly society, remain a member, draw full benefits, and get every advantage given to the other members. It now appears that these advantages are only to be given to the people who join in the future, who have entered into the Service at the age of sixteen, or not later. That throws a totally different light upon the proposal, and it means that no man who is now serving is going to get full benefit, although you take from him exactly as much as you take from the man who enters at the age of sixteen, who is going to get full benefit. I think that is a very curious state of things. I know very well that we cannot blame the hon. Gentleman opposite, for he has only lately been appointed to his office, and I do not doubt that he has been put to as much trouble and inconvenience as we have been put to by the sudden changes which have been made in this Bill. We cannot, therefore, blame him for not appreciating our point. I am not satisfied with the answer the Government have given us, and unless we get some better answer I must press this Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. HOHLER: I would like to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to the Clause itself, and then

  1571
  I think he may give the go-by to his advisers and follow common-sense. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment on the Amendment Paper the hon. Member will find in Sub-section (3) the following provision:—
  "(3) With respect to seamen, marines, and soldiers who have not joined an approved society as aforesaid the following provisions shall have effect":—
  Therefore, I am dealing with the case of a man who is not a member of an approved society. Sub-section (a) of the same Clause provides as follows:—
  "(a) The sum so deducted and the contributions so made as aforesaid in respect of such men shall be paid into the national health insurance fund, and out of such sums there shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created under this part of this Act the like amount as if such men were members of approved societies, and the balance shall be credited to a special fund to be called the Navy and Army insurance fund;"
  I need not read further because the meaning of those words is perfectly clear, and it is not open to doubt. It means that you are deducting 1½d. in regard to those men, and the Clause requires amendment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It may do.
  Mr. HOHLER: There is a deduction of 1½d. made for the reserve value. You are making precisely the same deduction in regard to the men who are not members of an approved society, and under the Sub-Clause I have just read it is laid down that out of such sums there shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners a sum towards discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created under this part of the Act. That is why we are proposing this Amendment. Sub-Clause (h), which is the guiding and directing part of the Clause and makes operative what follows, says:
  "(h) A man discharged from service as a seaman, marine, or soldier who proves that the state of his health is such that he cannot obtain admission to an approved society may, if he so elects, on making application to the Insurance Commissioners in the prescribed manner and within
  1572
  three months of his discharge, or such longer time as may be prescribed, become, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council, entitled to benefits (other than additional benefits) provided under this part of this Act at the full rate, the cost of which benefits shall be payable out of the Navy and Army insurance fund."
  Therefore you have got the case which I am dealing with of a man not a member of an approved society, in regard to whom deductions for reserve values have been made who is unable to join an approved society. I think that is perfectly clear. I think I have made my argument good from the language of your own Bill. That being so, what happens? After being discharged, he comes upon the Navy and Army fund, and what do you propose to do? The proviso cuts down his rights. It says:
  "Provided that—
  "(i) the rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced, in the case of a man who entered into insurance after the age of sixteen."
  Where is the justice of that proposal? You have already made the man make provision for the fact that he has entered over sixteen years of age. You have already deducted his reserve value, and having deducted that you are going to deduct it again by treating him as if he had not entered at sixteen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has often told us that everybody is to be rejuvenated, but this man does not want to be treated as sixteen twice over. He has paid for his reserve value, and it is clear those words ought to come out. I hope that from the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty I shall have the kindest consideration of the arguments I have advanced. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty is always most sympathetic in these matters, and I am sure he will give this matter his attention.
  Mr. AMERY: The difficulty is really one of drafting. The hon. Gentleman opposite simply desires to put these men in the same position as members of an approved society. They may enter the society at any age. I hope the intention of the Government is to apply the same rule to soldiers and sailors, and I trust that that will be made quite clear.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to this matter. It may require a verbal Amendment. This is not intended to apply to men in the Service at the commencement of this Act; it is intended to apply to men who, at some future time, may come in at, say, the age of nineteen and may not be insured. I think this point can be dealt with on Report.
  Mr. FORSTER: That is satisfactory not only to myself but to the Committee as a whole. I am very glad to find that this is a mere misunderstanding, and not in any sense of the term a deliberate misunderstanding.
  Mr. CASSEL: Would the hon. Gentleman take account of the case of a man who after sixteen has continued to be at college or school. That case is specially provided for by approved societies, and I think it should be equally applicable to the soldier or sailor. I think in regard to this Sub-section (4) of Section 9 will require to be amended on the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I beg to move, in Sub-section (iii.) of the proposed new Clause to leave out the words, "he shall not be entitled to such benefits." It will then read, "If the man was discharged for misconduct he shall be entitled to benefits at such rates only as the Admiralty or Army Council may determine."
  I feel very little is necessary to be said on this subject. The hon. Member for Chatham has already raised the point. It seems to me that the words of the Clause as framed are almost vindictive in their character. If a man has paid in 1½d. a week for a number of years he has earned his benefit, and it is not fair that, because he misconducts himself towards the end of his service he should forfeit all he has paid in. I have known cases of men of almost exemplary character in the Army who, through some loss of temper at the end of their service, have committed the offence of striking a non-commissioned officer and have been discharged from the Service, losing all the benefits to which their service would otherwise have entitled them. I feel sure when the right hon. Gentleman considers this question he will see the advisability of accepting this Amendment.
  Major GUEST: It seems to me a great hardship that a man who is guilty of misconduct should forfeit all the money he
  1574
  has subscribed out of his weekly wage. It may be that an act of misconduct which, in military life, is deemed to be very serious, is not in civil life considered to be of the same gravity, and unless a man is deprived of the benefits in civil life it seems to me a soldier ought also to be deprived. I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to take out this Clause altogether. I do not think there is any fairness in it. A man's own subscription for insurance purposes should stand to his credit in any case. Whether or not the War Office or Admiralty subscriptions should also stand to his credit is another matter.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I very much sympathise with the view of those who say that a man, having bought his benefit, should not be deprived of it for any offence which can be dealt with by any other machinery. His insurance benefit ought not in such a case to be prejudiced by his conduct. The Amendment supposes that if a man is discharged for misconduct he should only be entitled to such benefits as the War Office or Admiralty may decide. I am very much disposed to think that the best plan is to knock this out altogether. So long as a man can be punished in other ways it is undesirable as a matter of equity and fair play that the insurance which he has bought should be modified in any way.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am very glad to hear the announcement which the hon. Gentleman has just made. As the hon. and gallant Member pointed out, offences and the punishment for them may vary in degree so far as civil and military life is concerned. Friendly societies now have their own rules, which enable them to expel members who contravene them, but in no case does its expulsion carry with it the very terrible calamity imposed by this Clause. Expulsion from a friendly society does not deprive the man of all benefits. He may join another friendly society or may pass into the ranks of Post Office contributors. Therefore it seems to me exceedingly hard and unjust that we should deprive him of the benefits he has paid for because of his misconduct. It would be much better to take the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and remove this provision altogether.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment and move the deletion of the Clause.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and do move to leave out paragraph (iii.)
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (iii.) of the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert:
  (4) In the application of this part of this Act to a man who is or has been a seaman, marine, or soldier, and to whom this Section applies—

  (i.) the date of his entry or enlistment as a seaman, marine, or soldier, or, if he was serving at the commencement of this Act, the date of that commencement shall, unless he was an insured person at the date of his entry or enlistment, be treated as the date of his entry into insurance;

  (ii.) deductions from pay, with the corresponding contributions made by the Admiralty and Army Council, shall be treated as payments of contributions at the employed rate for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions made in respect of him, arrears, and transfer value, and for the purpose of qualifications for becoming a voluntary contributor.

  (5) Discharge shall in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier who on the completion of any term of service is transferred to a reserve include such transfer."
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEmoved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the proposed Amendment—
  "(6) The marriage of a soldier without leave shall not be deemed a cause of forfeiture of maternity benefit."
  I hope the Government will accept this slight modification. It cannot apply to very many people, and it seems very hard the benefit should be lost by a man marrying without leave.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We do not intend that a woman not on the strength should lose her maternity benefit. The Amendment is unnecessary. The point is covered.
  Mr. FORSTER: The only doubt present in my mind is whether or not under the regulations governing marriage on the strength there might be an opportunity for the Insurance Commissioners to make regulations.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think not.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am very anxious there should not be any power given to the Insurance Commissioners to make regulations to do what this Committee does not want to be done. We do not want maternity benefit to be denied to people who marry off the strength, and I cannot see, for the life of me, why you should not say so It does not complicate the matter, and it does not throw any burden on the fund. It is very much better to have the words in in order to make our intention perfectly clear.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into this, but I do not think the words are necessary. I am afraid there would be some conflict if we put the words in here. I desire that this maternity benefit should be given to such women married off the strength of the regiment. If necessary, words will be put in to carry out what is desired by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think the words come in Sub-section (2) (c), "be payable," means that it is payable to everybody.
  Mr. FORSTER: That applies to people only who are members of trade societies.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. Look at Clause 8.
  Mr. FORSTER: It is a special provision. We do not wish to leave it to any one to deprive a person marrying without leave of the maternity benefit.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Look at Clause 8, paragraph (e). Whether the woman lives on the strength or not she is the wife of an insured person, and she is eligible for maternity benefit. I have no doubt about it, but I will look into the matter. I do not want these words, because they conflict with the phraseology of the other parts of the Bill.
  Mr. FORSTER: If you look at the general provisions of the Act you will see in Clause 8 that every insured person gets medical benefit, maternity benefit, and so on. Under this Clause they do not. Under this Clause there is a special

  1577
  paragraph saying that they are not to be deprived of sanatorium benefit, sickness benefit, or disablement benefit.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: May I call the attention of the hon. Member to the paragraph with regard to members who are not members of approved societies, which says that every such man shall until his discharge be entitled to his maternity benefit out of the Army and Navy Insurance Fund. Does not that meet the case put forward by the hon. Member?
  Mr. CASSEL: It is clear that a soldier is not an insured person. If you look at Clause 1 an insured person is defined in such a way as to exclude soldiers and sailors. It says "insured persons are persons employed within the meaning of this Act." If you look at the definition of employment, you will see that soldiers and sailors are specially excluded.
  Mr. TENNANT: We have been spending the whole of this afternoon trying to make soldiers and sailors employed persons. Clause 36 entirely settles that.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: Paragraph (iii) says that a seaman, marine or soldier shall for the purposes of the Act be treated as if he were an insured person.
  Mr. HOHLER: That only refers to those soldiers who within six months become members of approved societies. That does not, in my opinion, cover the point. I think the point is covered by the language of Sub-section (2) (iii). That covers a man who is a member of an approved society, and then Sub-section (3) (e) seems to cover the case of a man who is not a member of a society.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Inverness Burghs desire to withdraw?
  Mr. BRYCE: Yes, on the understanding that the Government will look into the point before Report and make it right if there is anything wrong.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: At the beginning of Sub-section (5) insert the words, "The foregoing provisions of."
  In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "Fleet Reserve when called on actual service," and insert the words "Naval Reserves when employed on service during war or any emergency."
  In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "any" ["and to any men of the Army Reserve."].
  In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "or" ["or to men of the Territorial Force"] and insert instead, thereof the word "and."
  At the end of Sub-section (5), add the words "but, except as aforesaid, shall not apply to any such men."
  In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "Fleet Reserve," and insert instead thereof the words "Naval Reserves."
  In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "called out for training," and insert the words "being trained and is in receipt of pay out of the moneys provided by Parliament for Navy or Army services."
  In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "called out" ["deemed whilst so called out"], and insert the word "engaged."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

  CLAUSE 37.—(Application to other Persons in the Service of the Crown.)
  This part of this Act shall apply to persons employed by or under the Crown, other than those with respect to whom special provision is made by this Part of this Act, in like manner as if the employer were a private person:
  Provided that in the case of a person employed in the private service of the Crown, the head of the department of the Royal Household in which he is employed shall be deemed to be his employer.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. FORSTER: I wish to ask the Government if they bear in mind a promise made to the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) when we were discussing the Clause in August, that regulations should be made under this Clause for regulating the advantages which persons at the Small Arms Factory, and other persons in Government employ in places of that kind, should enjoy in connection with the medical associations and organisations which obtain at the present time. My hon. Friend was concerned to see that these organisations should be maintained, if it were the wish of the employés in the factories and works that that should be done. The Government—it was the present Home Secretary—promised that the

  1579
  matter should be considered, and that, when we came to Clause 37, regulations would be suggested, or something of the kind, dealing with this point.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Will you state the point?
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member for Enfield raised the question of medical associations which were taken advantage of by persons in the Government employ in places like the Small Arms Factory and factories of a similar character. The then First Lord of the Admiralty said the Government were alive to the point and that regulations would be brought up when we came to Clause 37. I only want to know whether the Government have kept the matter in mind, and whether they have prepared to make any statement or whether we must wait till some later stage.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very sorry, but this matter has not been brought to my attention.
  Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will represent what I have said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Mr. TENNANT: It is evidently a matter affecting the Small Arms Factory and that kind of factory in the Government service. I shall be very glad to bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will look up the Debates.

  CLAUSE 38.—(Application to Young Persons under Sixteen.)
  In the case of an insured person under the age of sixteen no part of the contributions payable by or in respect of him above the sum of four shillings and eight-pence (or in the case of a girl four shillings and sixpence a year) shall be credited to the society of which he is a member, or if he is a deposit contributor, carried to his credit in the Post Office fund, and in the latter case that sum alone shall be payable out of his account to the local health committee towards the expenses of the benefits to which he is entitled and the cost of the administration thereof.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
  Mr. FORSTER: I have one or two questons to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Motion to leave out this Clause. I am bound to say I think it will be a great improvement if the Clause is deleted, but the elimination of it has certain effects on the financial part of the scheme, and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what they are going to be. When the Bill was introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in the explanatory memorandum he circulated that boys and girls under the age of sixteen were only to be entitled to medical attendance and to sanatorium treatment, and that the balance of their contributions was going to swell the reserve fund created under Clause 40. That balance amounted to a very handsome sum. The Committee will remember they were to pay the full contribution of 4d. and their employers were to pay the full contribution of 3d. This handsome balance was to be accumulated in order to enable the whole scheme to be extended at an earlier date than would otherwise be possible. The actuaries estimated there would be something like 800,000 boys and girls brought into insurance.
  If full contributions were paid in respect of those 800,000 individuals, they would amount to a sum approximately of £800,000 a year. Out of this sum you were to pay only medical and sanatorium benefit, and the rest was to go practically to providing a sinking fund for the liquidation of your initial debt of sixty odd millions. Probably you would be able to employ something like half a millian a year in the extinction of debt, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer counted upon this money in order to extinguish his debt in fifteen and a-half years. When you strike out Clause 38, you remove the limit which you have placed upon the benefits that can be given to persons under sixteen, and, unless you limit them somewhere else, you are going to give them practically full benefits. If you give them full benefits there will be no balance to carry towards the extinction of the debt. This means that you will add at least three, if not four, years to the period during which this debt is to be current. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me to what extent this will prolong the period, and what other effects, if any, it will have upon the finance of the scheme.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The analogy of the hon. Gentleman is not quite complete. When we had a Debate earlier in the course of the proceedings on the question of young persons under sixteen, there was a general feeling expressed that if they were retained at all there must be benefits on a reduced scale. The question the Government then submitted to the Committee was whether they should be retained at all or, if they were, whether the money should be allocated for the purpose of wiping out this deficiency in order to accelerate the date when they get additional benefits. We had no clear indication of opinion from the Committee, but as far as I have been able to gather from the opinion of individual Members and representations which have been made to the Government from outside, I think the general feeling is rather in favour of leaving them out altogether. In Germany I think the age is sixteen. Our present purpose is to leave them out altogether—not to bring them in at all, but to start at sixteen, as you do in Germany. In this country friendly societies do not take them into the adult branch before they are sixteen years of age. They are only introduced into juvenile branches.
  There was an alternative which we considered, and I should rather like the Committee to think about it between this and the new Clauses, when it might be introduced. It was that you should treat them as a kind of juvenile branch and that, instead of charging them 4d. and the employer 3d., you should charge them 1½d. and the employer 1½d. and the State should contribute something in addition and that you should give them reduced benefits. These would be medical attendance, sanatorium, and I think 3s. a week in the event of their falling sick. These are the two proposals which you have to consider. For the present we are inclined to leave them out altogether and that would undoubtedly be the effect of omitting Clause 38. But if between this and the time when we arrive at the Clauses Members of the Committee have other views I should very much like to hear them and to know what the general feeling of the Committee is upon that subject. Most of the pressure which we have had, I am not sure whether from both sides of the House, but certainly from outside, has been in favour of leaving them out altogether, charging them nothing until they are sixteen years of age and starting them as members of these societies at sixteen. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly
  1582
  right in stating that this will have the effect of postponing the date of additional benefits, because a considerable sum of money which we had reckoned upon as being available for the winding up of this initial deficiency will then have disappeared out of the fund. As we had already promised benefits to these children under sixteen we are really no worse off now than we should have been if we had not given them benefits. The hon. Gentleman asks me by how many years or months, as the case may be, the period is prolonged. It is not a very serious matter. I was asked the other day whether it would be possible later on to have a sort of revised estimate up to date, showing the position of the deficiency fund after all these Amendments have been incorporated. I think it would be a mistake now to do it piecemeal. We are getting it prepared, but we have another fortnight before we will have to deal with the matter. There may be other Amendments which will affect the fund, and I think it will be advisable not to give a sort of estimate to-day. I think it would be very difficult to do that accurately.
  Mr. FORSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state to what extent it affects this Clause?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very difficult to do it apart from the effect of other Amendments. There may be other Amendments which will affect the calculation. Standing absolutely alone, it would mean I think two years. That is my recollection, speaking purely from memory. I will give the actual figures later on. That is the position, and therefore we move the excision of the Clause, and if between now and the time we arrive at the new Clauses any Members of the Committee feel that it is better to bring in all these young persons and make them contribute a small sum of money, that a small sum of money should also be obtained from employers, and that we should give reduced benefits, they will be able to present their proposals later on. There are two alternatives which present themselves to the Government, and we have decided upon excision. We are open to conviction upon this as upon other matters.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I only rise to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what is going to be done in regard to those young people who are now members of friendly societies.

  1583
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are a large number of juvenile lodges, and that they have been used in the past as recruiting agencies for the friendly societies. They are contributing now. Are they to be allowed to contribute in future, and have the employers' contribution and a share of the State's contribution, or does the excision of this Clause mean that they are not in future to be allowed to be members of friendly societies at all? While the right hon. Gentleman is considering the point as to how length is postponement of redemption will extend and the question of the additional reserve, will he also consider how much the alteration made on the Women's Clause affects the reserve. Certainly that does affect the reserve. If the 1 5–9d. were reduced to 1½d. that would affect the redemption, but that, I understand, is abandoned. It would be interesting to the Committee if some estimate could be given of the effect of the alterations which were made on the Women's Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in stating that the alterations on the Women's Clause would undoubtedly affect that question. The hon. Gentleman wants to know what the effect would be on friendly societies if young persons are left out altogether. Juvenile societies would not be affected at all, but there would be no employers' contribution or State contribution, because we are leaving these young people out of the scheme altogether. Therefore the juvenile societies would be purely voluntary associations as at the present moment.
  Mr. HOHLER: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question? I quite follow his alternative proposal. Assuming that young persons under sixteen are entirely excluded, would the employers also be excluded from making a contribution?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.

  CLAUSE 39.—(National Health Insurance Fund.)
  (1) All sums received in respect of contributions under this Part of this Act and all sums paid out of moneys provided by
  1584
  Parliament under this Part of this Act in respect of the benefits thereunder and the expenses of administration of such benefits shall be paid into a fund, to be called the National Health Insurance Fund, under the control and management of the Insurance Commissioners, and the sums required to meet expenditure properly incurred by approved societies and local health committees for the purposes of the benefits administered by them and the administration of such benefits shall be paid out of that fund.
  (2) The sums payable to the said fund out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be paid in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine.
  (3) Any moneys forming part of the said fund may be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and by them invested in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury in any securities which are for the time being authorised by Parliament as investments for Savings Banks funds, but those Commissioners shall in making the investment give preference to stock or bonds issued under the provisions of the Acts relating to borrowing for raising capital for the purposes of the local loans fund where the purposes for which such capital is required is the making of advances for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1909.
  (4) The accounts of the National Health Insurance Fund shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
  (5) The National Debt Commissioners shall present to Parliament annually an account of the securities in which moneys forming part of the said fund are for the time being invested.
  Mr. HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "fund" ["paid into a fund"], to insert the words "divide into two parts which shall be kept separate, one in respect of men and the other in respect of women."
  With reference to the proviso in Clause 34, I do not think it is enough to see that the men's and women's funds are kept separate. I want to see how the thing works out in practice. Are the funds in the hands of the friendly societies to be separated? I believe that as far as you start a separate fund the friendly societies may be compelled to separate their funds too. This has a rather important bearing, and is really a big question, because it is generally felt that the

  1585
  figures for invalidity in reference to women are placed much too low, and if you compel the separation of men's and women's funds you will drive women into separate societies or separate branches of men's societies, and as a result there will be a selection against those societies, or they will get worse risks than the men's lives. The point is really extremely important, for there are no figures now of women's benefit and women's invalidity to compare with men's sickness and men's invalidity. So we are working in the dark, and I am rather afraid that the Government scheme will mean that no men's society will take women personally, and the effect of separation will be to segregate all the women's risks in certain societies, and that in the end these societies, through no fault of their own, will become bankrupt, and the result will be either increased contributions or reduced benefits. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can reassure us as to this. Separation sounds very simple. When we asked for it—I am afraid I pressed for it too—I am not sure that we all saw how far it went, and it was accepted in the first instance to benefit the grievances of women. We felt that there was an unexpended balance in the fund of which they ought to get the benefit; but we do not want the effect of separation to be to drive all the worst risks into women's societies, and therefore lessen the stability of those societies.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member for Durham has moved an Amendment in favour of dividing the funds and keeping the women's fund separate from the men's, but he has made a speech which in every particular is opposed to that Amendment. I am not sure really what he wishes us to do. His view on the Paper is that it should be divided into two parts. He is perfectly right, historically, when he says they started this first. They were very insistent, as they generally are. They all wished that we should divide the fund so that women should get the full benefit of their own contributions and the contributions of employers and of the State. Now, when they quite realise what that means, they are beginning to change their minds. Their first view was that there was some advantage in keeping the funds separate. They were under the impression that the Bill would enable the men to draw some advantages and benefits from the women's fund.
  Mr. HILLS: I think it did.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Now they are beginning to see that is not the case, and they are all for the other point of view.
  Mr. HILLS: The real position is this: In the first place, I moved the Amendment with the express object of ascertaining the intentions of the Government. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must remember that the position is changed by the Amendments to Clause 34. Before those Amendments were inserted, I think there was an unexpended balance of the women's fund, and that would have gone to the general fund. It is to secure that balance for the benefit of the women that we insisted on separation. I want to know now what are the intentions of the Government, and how they are going to provide for the separation of the funds in order to meet the difficulties to which I have called attention?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the unexpended balance on the women's side, but now they want to get the unexpended balance on the men's side. Yet they say they have no votes, and have no friends in this House. I should like to see this argued on the merits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Remove the Closure."] My next observation was going to be, if the hon. Member had waited, that this is not relevant to the Clause. If we are to divide the men's and women's funds, it is not in this Clause you can do it, and it is out of civility to the hon. Gentleman that I am addressing these observations to the Committee. This is not the point at which it can be done, and the hon. Member knows that perfectly well. That is the real position. We shall put down an Amendment, but first of all we have decided not to do so until the Women Workers Association have come to a decision on the point. They first decided to divide the funds, and now I believe they are coming this week to press us not to divide them. I promised not to indicate our views until we heard the reason why they had changed their minds. For the moment I think it better that we should not indicate our views until we have heard what their views are.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been as economical of his views as he has been of the time which he allows us to discuss this matter. After all we are entitled to look to the Government to say what is intended with regard to the

  1587
  division of the funds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, time after time, has told us that it was intended to divide the funds into two branches, the men's fund and the women's fund. He has, at times when it was convenient to the Government, said that that was an advantage to the women, and to-night he seems to suggest, sheltering behind the few moments there are to discuss this matter, that it is not an advantage to the women to divide the funds, and that the women are now trying to grab part of the men's fund. Small blame to them if they were, in fact, trying to do that, because, even with the Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the women's fund, they are, in my view at any rate, extremely badly treated. But this is a point of real importance, a most serious point, which goes to the whole question of the solvency of the women's fund. You are either going to have good and solvent societies for the women, as good and as solvent as the men's societies, which will really be the friendly societies for the women, bringing not only solvency, but the ordinary friendly society aspect, or else you are not; and unless the Government make up their minds whether they are going to divide these funds, or what they are going to do with these funds, whether they are going to centralise the funds, at least as regards a large portion of the benefits, it is impossible to fairly and properly consider this Clause. Of course the guillotine—
  And, it being Half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th October successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made, in Sub-section (3), leave out the words "Any moneys forming part of the said fund may," and insert the words "The Insurance Commissioners shall ascertain periodically what sums standing in the Insurance fund to the credit of the several societies and of the Post Office fund and of the Navy and Army insurance fund are available for invest-
  1588
  ment and the amount so ascertained shall, so far as not required under the provisions of this Part of this Act to be paid over to societies for investment, or to be retained for investment on their behalf, or for the discharge of liabilities of societies, be carried to a separate account, called the Investment Account, and shall."
  At the end of Sub-section (3), insert,
  (4) There shall be credited to the Post Office fund and to the Navy and Army insurance fund interest at the prescribed rate per annum on the sums from time to time standing to the credit of those funds in the investment account.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  CLAUSE 40.—(Reserve Values.)
  (1) The Insurance Commissioners shall cause tables to be prepared showing, in cases in which such provision is necessary, the capital sums (in this part of the Act referred to as "reserve values") which it is necessary to provide in respect of members entering into insurance at ages above the age of sixteen to meet the estimated loss (if any) arising through the acceptance of such persons as members upon the terms and conditions as regards contributions and benefits prescribed by this Act.
  (2) On a person above the age of sixteen joining an approved society there shall be credited to the society the reserve value (if any) appropriate to such persons in accordance with such tables.
  The sums so credited to a society in respect of reserve values shall carry interest at the rate of three per centum per annum.
  (3) Out of each weekly contribution payable by or in respect of an insured person who is a member of an approved society there shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners the sum of one penny and five-ninths (or in the case of women one penny halfpenny), and the amounts so retained shall, together with any other moneys available for the purpose, be accumulated so as to provide the funds necessary for meeting the liabilities of the Insurance Commissioners to approved societies in respect of the reserve values created by this Section, and the balance of such contributions shall be credited to the approved society.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "payable" ["contribution payable by"], and insert instead thereof the word "paid."
  After the word "society" ["an approved society"], insert the words "in the preceding three months."
  Leave out the words "accumulated so as to provide the funds necessary for meeting," and insert instead thereof the words "applied in manner provided by this Act towards discharging."
  Leave out the words, "and the balance of such contributions shall be credited to the approved society."
  At the end of the Clause insert:—
  (4) The Insurance Commissioners shall periodically apportion amongst the several societies the sums retained by them and the sums, if any, otherwise available for the discharge of such liabilities as aforesaid in proportion to the amount of reserve values for the time being credited to the several societies, and shall credit to each society the amount so apportioned, and any balance of the sums so credited to a society, after providing for interest on the reserve values for the time being credited to the society, shall be written off the amount of the reserve values so credited.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS: ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

  CLAUSE 41.—(Constitution of Insurance Commissioners, Appointment of Inspectors, etc.)
  (1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted for the purposes of this Part of this Act Commissioners (to be called the Insurance Commissioners), with a central office in London, and with such branch offices as the Treasury may think fit, and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the Treasury.
  (2) The Insurance Commissioners may appoint such officers, inspectors, referees, and servants, for the purposes of this Part of this Act as the Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Treasury as to number, may determine, and there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Commissioners and to such officers, inspectors, referees, and servants, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine; and any expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Commissioners in carrying this Part of this Act into effect, to such extent as the Treasury may sanction, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  (3) The Insurance Commissioners may empower any such inspector to exercise
  1590
  in respect of any approved society or any branch of an approved society all or any of the powers given by Section seventy-six of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, to an inspector appointed thereunder:
  Provided, that any complaint or report as to any such branch as aforesaid made by an inspector under this Sub-section shall be communicated to the central body or other central authority of the society.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1), insert the words "and of the Commissioners so appointed one at least shall be a duly qualified medical practitioner who has had personal experience of general practice."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  CLAUSE 42.—(Appointment of Advisory Committee.)
  The Insurance Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in connection with the making and altering of regulations under this Part of this Act, consisting of representatives of associations of employers and approved societies, and of such other persons as the Commissioners may appoint.
  Amendments made: After the word "societies," insert the words "of duly qualified medical practitioners who have personal experience of general practice."
  After the word "appoint" ["as the Commissioners may appoint"], insert the words "of whom two at least shall be women."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday), 8th November.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Sir WALTER MENZIES: I rise to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to withhold his assent to the scheme of allocation of the balance of the Education (Scotland) Fund for 1911–12, contained in a Minute of the Committee in Council on Education in Scotland, dated the 1st day of August, and laid upon the Table of this House on the 7th day of August, 1911."

1591
I consider the scheme of allocation of the balance of the Scottish Education Fund, which was laid on the Table on 1st August, to be unjust in its incidence and contrary to the Act of 1908. Upon every possible occasion I have objected to this allocation. I have objected to it upon the Scottish Estimates; I have objected to it when a Minute or scheme has been laid on the Table; and I shall continue to object to it until, I trust, it is finally altered. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in the minds of my colleagues from Scotland, I wish it to be understood that I lay no blame personally at the door of the Secretary for Scotland. The evil, if evil it was, of the unjust distribution of this Scottish Fund commenced before he came into office. What, if anything, I complain of, is that he has not been strong enough to stop the injustice. Nor do I lay any personal blame whatever upon Sir John Struthers, the courteous head of the Department. I assume, on the contrary, that Clauses 15 and 16 were his work or that he was chiefly instrumental in framing them. The plain language of this Act should have made the injustice cease. I complain that even he has not been strong enough to cause the injustice to cease.
Mr. FALCONER: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the question of this Minute? As I read it, the Clause in the Act that deals with the question of the Minute has already become, so far as the Act is concerned, final. Sub-section (2) of Section (16) of the Act of 1908 provides that if within one month—exclusive of any period of prorogation—from the date that the Minute is laid on the Table and an Address is not presented to the Crown, against it, it shall be lawful for the King in Council by Order to approve the Minute.
As a matter of fact, the Minute was laid on the Table on "7th August. More than a month elapsed, and there has been no prorogation of the House; therefore the period prescribed by the Act has expired. So far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, they do not provide for an address being now presented or consent being withheld. Personally, I have no desire to prevent discussion; indeed, I say quite frankly that I would rather welcome it, but it seems to me that it would be undesirable that the House should be
1592
kept sitting for a discussion at this hour unless some practical effect should come out of it.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: Before, Mr. Speaker, you give your ruling, may I put this point: That if a Department puts a Minute upon the Table of the House at such a time and under such circumstances as we were under on 7th August, when it was utterly impossible to conduct any discussion, is not that an evasion of the principle that a Minute of this kind should be laid so that it may be discussed?
Mr. SPEAKER: I would not like to give a reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. He can take the opportunity of putting his views when the Scottish Estimates are before the House. I think it is quite clear, under the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, that this address, if carried, will not be in time. The proviso of the Clause quoted, Section 16, Sub-section (2), reads:—
"Provided that such scheme shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament, is sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the commencement of the next ensuing Session of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within one month, exclusive of any period of prorogation, after a scheme has been laid before it, presents an address praying the King to withhold his consent from such scheme or any part thereof, it shall be lawful for the King in Council by Order to approve the same or any part thereof to which such address does not relate."
This scheme was laid on 7th August. There had been no prorogation. Therefore on 7th September it was lawful for the King in Council by Order to approve the same. Therefore the address, if carried, would be out of time. On the other hand, I do not think it is any function of mine to step in and prevent hon. Members presenting an address if they feel a desire to address the Crown. It is always open to them to address the Crown. What effect such address would have I cannot say.
Sir W. MENZIES: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your decision in this matter. The fact that this Prayer to His Majesty may not have effect now as the time has elapsed was brought to my knowledge and was within the knowledge of the Government when they gave me the time. I therefore, have to thank the Government

1593
for giving me this opportunity for bringing on what is felt by a large and increasing number of people in Scotland to be a very considerable injustice. I was saying I lay no blame whatever upon the head of the Education Department. I should also like to say I lay no blame whatever upon the Lord Advocate. We in Scotland are too much indebted to the Lord Advocate for his speeches upon many occasions. It would be with no light heart that I should offend him in any shape or form. Nevertheless, I trust I shall have a conciliatory reply to what I am about to say to-night. I consider this scheme of allocation to be unjust. I do not intend to give the House a multitude of figures; I have done that on many occasions. I think this is the fourth or fifth time in which I have objected to this allocation. It is not necessary to say, as the Secretary for Scotland did the other night at a conference, that if our wishes were carried, and if the statute was administered according to the first scheme, that the people of Berwickshire and Kirkcudbrightshire would have nothing for bursaries, and that there would be a deficit in their education fund, and that they would require to increase the rates. To me it is no argument whatever to say that these and other counties in Scotland have spent the money which they got and regulated their expenditure according to the money they received. Berwickshire, for example, gets 19s. for every scholar in average attendance under this allocation, and Lanarkshire only 9s. If Berwickshire got double that amount, 38s. per scholar in average attendance, they would have spent their money, increased the number of bursaries and scholars, and the rates would be even lower than they are, and if they got that 38s. at the expense of Lanarkshire, then Lanarkshire would get only 4s. 6d., instead of 9s., and Lanarkshire would require to have fewer bursaries and would require a greater education rate than at present. No form of words, and the Secretary for Scotland was very eloquent the other night, can defend this allocation, because it is unjust. Let me give one other case. I remember being at a meeting in my Constituency at Biggar, and after that at a meeting at Skerling, in Peebleshire. There is only a distance of four or five miles between these two places. In Skerling they get 21s. 1d. out of this allocation grant for every scholar in average attendance at the school, whereas at this other place, five miles distant, they
1594
get 8s. 10d. There does not appear to me to be any reason why that should be so. There is no scientific frontier, and there are no rivers to cross or mountains to climb. It is a quiet country place. There is no reason whatever for this discrepancy. The Act says that the purpose of the Subsection was to give greater aid to those districts in which the burden of educational expenditure was excessive. If that Clause of the Act were fulfilled, Biggar, in my Constituency, would receive double the amount. The school rate in Peebleshire averages 6d., and in Lanarkshire it averages 11d. The valuation in Peebles is £12 per head of the inhabitants, and in Lanarkshire it is £6. This is directly contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act of Parliament. The Secretary for Scotland said the Clause did not say the aid was to be in exact proportion to these factors. I do not know what he means by "in exact proportion." I suppose two and two make four. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are told what it does do. The Act states what is to be done in places with a low valuation and a high school rate. The Secretary for Scotland says:—
"Nor do we exclude oilier considerations from the distribution so long as the general result is secured of getting more aid for districts with high expenditure."
The general results have not been gained, and so far as the principal counties of Scotland and the School Boards are concerned the result has been diametrically opposed to the spirit and intention of those words. If the Act said it was intended to give less aid to those districts in which the burden of educational expenditure was excessive as compared with valuation, and to give greater aid to those districts where it was low as compared with the valuation, then, so far as Lanarkshire is concerned, it has been fulfilled. May I ask one or two questions about the statement that nowhere was it stated that the distribution was to be in exact proportion to these factors. What is the use of us saying anything at all about allocation? Do the Government think it right that the exact proportion should not be stated, and that the Act allows the Education Department to give 20s. or 30s. per child in average attendance in one county and 8s. or 10s. in another county? We have no control over this. With reference to what the hon. Member for Forfarshire said, I wish it to be understood that I am quite aware that this allocation has been passed. The loss to the country of Lanark is estimated at £14,000. That loss is

1595
irretrievable. It has been suggested to me once or twice that the Scottish Members might meet together and arrange this amongst themselves. A more ridiculous proposition was never made. We are all careful enough about our own farthings: we would not keep a single farthing in our pockets which did not belong to us, but no Scottish Member would give up to another Scottish Member the advantage of this allocation: to ask us to arrange it mutually and amicably is simply ridiculous and preposterous. An hon. Member would consider he was betraying his constituents if he were to give way to the extent of a single farthing.
Suppose I went to an M.P. whose school board constituents are receiving a grant out of this allocation to the extent of 20s., whereas the school board in my own Constituency is receiving only 10s. Suppose I said to him, "We will divide this thing up by arrangement." He would naturally say it is ridiculous to think he would give away a single farthing belonging to his own constituency. A similar suggestion has been made to the school board authorities but no one could think that that could be of any effect. The Secretary for Scotland said that if a conference between the school board authorities were unsuccessful the Government would have to act on its own responsibility. But it seems to me that that is the only course open for a responsible and self-respecting Government, and it is absurd to ask hon. Members to arrange this matter among themselves.
11.0 P.M.
I was deeply disappointed with the letter I received from the Secretary for Scotland, in which he suggested that on the completion of this year's working of the scheme of allocation its permanent effects would be more clear, and when that time came the Government would make such adjustments as the figures warranted in the proposals for the year ending 1913. I would suggest there are certain facts and figures connected with the Lanark County Council which are eminently worthy of the best consideration of the Government. These facts and figures have never been for one moment questioned. They have been before the Education Committee for three years. Every time this allocation comes up they point out exactly what they have lost and what other districts have gained. Their loss this year is £14,000. It has been £10,000 and £12,000 in previous years.
1596
These facts prove, and I ask the attention of the Government to the fact that £37,309 have been given to certain districts to the disadvantage of others and directly contrary to the intent and meaning of the Act of Parliament. I think the first duty of the Secretary for Scotland for his own credit is to make up that sum to those disadvantaged districts. If he is not strong enough to do it now, if he would undertake, out of the first new grant for any pupose which he gets from the Imperial Treasury, to make these presently penalised districts equal to the other districts, then, so far as I am concerned, I should allow this matter to drop. It would in reality become equal to a per capita grant to every district. I would like to make clear this is an offer which I am making myself, and not after consultation with the county, but I should like it to be understood no new grant of money from the Treasury will be satisfactory unless the relative position is altered. If he allocated that grant according to the unaltered scheme it would only accentuate the agitation which is going on now. I am a man of peace, but I am not for peace at any price. This agitation will never drop in the west of Scotland. A considerable amount of the gain has been in the cast of Scotland. This is no flash in the pan. I would be betraying my own Constituency if I allowed it to drop for a moment. The Secretary for Scotland when he was in this House was so impressed two or three years ago with what I said about South Lanark that he suggested he would see if it were possible to make a new education district out of my part of the country. I need hardly say nothing has been done. I make this renewed protest. I consider this allocation not only unjust, but contrary to the Statutes passed by the Government.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I beg to second the Motion. I will give all the support that can be obtained from the East to this Motion. In the first place, the acknowledgments of the provinces that have been disinherited are due to the Government for having given us this discussion. In view of the ruling of Mr. Speaker—and the ground for it seemed sufficiently plain—I do not see what advantage can be gained by taking a division upon this occasion. I agree that a better case could not be taken to a division than the one we have to submit to the House, and I trust that before the allocation is again made the Government will give us

1597
an opportunity, when our votes would be effective, of urging our support, because the opposition that we have hitherto maintained to this proposal we always shall maintain until the Act of Parliament is rectified by the Department. Our acknowledgments are not due to the Department. To have to put down a motion of this kind, at a time of the year when discussion is absolutely impossible, is an evasion of the Act and of the Standing Orders of the House, by which opportunity is offered to the representatives of Scotland to have some control over the legislative independence of the Scottish Education Department. Last year the Lord Advocate was good enough to say that he did not dispute the figures which I put forward. I think that those figures have never been disputed yet, and cannot be disputed. I contend that they show that the Scottish Education Department is practically legislating by Minute, and that when it finds an Act of Parliament in its way it does not scruple to go outside the Act of Parliament.
I admit that the allocation of this money is only a part of the whole question, for what is really needed is more money if the educational policy of the Department is to be carried out. As the Department cuts the coat it ought to find the cloth. If there is one way more than another in which the Department has failed, it has been in the finding of the money which is necessary in order to carry out its policy. As a member of the County Committee of Fife I feel that if our resources were diminished, the work we are endeavouring to carry out would be seriously hampered, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the disadvantaged or disinherited communities suffering from this Act have been absolutely crippled and rendered unable to carry out the necessary work of these county committees. It must be recognised further that a fixed basis for these contributions is not less needed. Nothing could be more irregular than a scheme under which the work of education in Scotland should depend upon whether Scotland is drunk or whether she is sober. The policy of the Education Department may have been often extravagant, arbitrary, and ill-considered, but that policy is its own policy, and I contend that that policy can never be satisfactorily carried out until it is properly financed. Here, at any rate, we have a policy. It is not a policy which has been sanctioned by the Act of Parliament. It is a policy which can only be
1598
carried out by making a considerable addition to the Education (Scotland) Fund.
What was the Act of Parliament which has been evaded and which still holds good in this House if it does not outside? The allocation made by the Department, instead of being based upon present educational needs in Scotland as Parliament had determined, is based largely on past practice and past payments, £140,000 out of the £400,000 has been allotted to various districts as before the Act, whilst only £88,000 is allocated under the principle of the Act. Of that £140,000, £62,000 is distributed upon a valuation basis. The £30,000 formerly given to the secondary schools is stereotyped, and so is the £48.000 granted for the starting of small schools, a very doubtful policy which has encouraged the pernicious side-school system throughout the country instead of developing the transport of children to better and more central schools. This policy of side schools and the starting of unnecessary small schools would have been checked if the burden of that policy had been left upon the rates, whilst by stereotyping £30,000 a year to the secondary schools several counties doing exactly the same work get nothing, and Leith gets nothing. The comparison between Leith and Edinburgh is highly instructive. The Lord Advocate may say, no doubt, that it would be a hardship to have withdrawn that £30,000 a year for the secondary schools, but the secondary schools have been placed on an entirely new foundation. They have been put upon the rates, and the children who attend the schools in the surrounding district are charged for their education in those schools, whilst if there are special circumstances, which, I admit, may attach to small schools or to poor districts, those special circumstances ought to be met by a special grant, and not by upsetting the Education (Scotland) Fund policy as it is sanctioned by this House. I said the comparison between Leith and Edinburgh was interesting. The contention of the Department is that the distribution of the Scottish Education Fund in the Minute of this year is according to the Act of 1908, inasmuch as it gives the larger amounts to necessitous districts. One thing showing the necessity is the amount paid per head from the balance of the Education Fund in lieu of the General Aid Grant. How do the figures for Edinburgh and Leith work out for the past two years? In Edinburgh in 1909 there was 8s. 9d. per scholar in average attendance, and in 1910

1599
6s. 9d. In Leith in 1909 there was 6s. 9d., and in 1910 2s. 9d. Yet Edinburgh gets an extra sum of £5,000 and is a necessitous district. Leith is a non-necessitous district. Edinburgh's school rate is a shade under 1s. 2d. The school rate of Leith is 1s. 9¾d.
Yet, with these figures before the Scottish Education Department, we are told by the head of it that Leith and Edinburgh are advantaged by the Minute. To say that is an abuse of the English language. I invite a reply to my contention that this example alone proves that the Act is over-ridden. No attempt has been made to answer any argument advanced by the deputations at Dover House. Two points were made. It was stated first that the advantaged districts were better off than they were before. In the pre-fund days the General Aid Grant amounted to 3s. 6d. per scholar in average attendance, and went up to 4s. 4d. Last year, after payment of the secondary education account, it was 2s. 9d. in Leith. This year it will probably be 1s. 9d., and very shortly it will be nothing at all. Secondly, it was stated that the disinherited districts got most of the excess grants; but these excess grants are a mere fraction of the fund—a matter of £30,000 or £40,000. Suppose you have £1 to divide between two men, and you give one 14s. and the other 6s. Another 6d. turns up, and you give the 14s. man 2d. and the 6s. man 4d., then I suppose you would be able to say that there had been a fair distribution. That is what the argument of the Department amounts to.
Reference has been made by my hon. Friend to the figures admirably prepared by the clerk to the Lanarkshire County Council. What are those figures? They show that under the arbitrary allocation of the Department a scheme has been devised which is contrary to the Act, which is indefensible in debate, and which is unfair in its application. In the disinherited districts the valuation per head is £6.23, the rates 1s. 0½d. on the average, and the grant is 9s. 8½d. In the favoured districts the valuation per head is £8.05, the rates are 10d., and the grant 13s. 3d. The Lord Advocate may look these figures firmly in the face and pass by on the other side, but they are figures which have never been answered and never will be answered. That is a simple rough outline of our case in this matter, and I do not know that a stronger case has ever been
1600
presented, or presented under more extraordinary circumstances. The circumstances are these: Under an Act of Parliament passed by this House we had an allocation. It may possibly not have been the only allocation that could have been made, but it was one which was in consonance with the spirit of the Act. We have had an allocation over-riding the Act, the product of the Department. That allocation has given us these extraordinary and unjust results. Those who oppose the allocation will never cease to oppose it until the evils which it has created are redressed.
Mr. CLYDE: It is impossible not to have some sympathy with the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Sir W. Menzies) in his frequent attempts to get rectified what I am sure he imagines is a grievance, but I cannot help thinking that he resembles the widow in respect that he hopes by indomitable perseverance to accomplish what hitherto at least the strength of his case has not been able to bring him. He and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Leith Burghs want to get a little more money out of this fund for their constituencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "We want equity."] The hon. Member for Lanarkshire says that we would all like to get something for our own constituencies. So we would. But underlying all these merely selfish motives there must after all prevail the real question whether fairness and justice have been done. From the point of view of those who attack the scheme, the constituency which I represent is one of the advantaged districts. We do not think so. We do not think we get more than fair treatment. There are only two points on which these objections turn. One point is the statement sometimes made that the existing scheme of allocation is illegal, and sometimes made that it is contrary to the spirit of the Act; and the other is the allegation that by a comparison of figures which are said to be irrefragable, inequity can be shown to exist in the application of the present scheme. On the first question it would be odd indeed if the Department committed an illegality under the Statute of 1908.
The supposed illegality is that what was known as the first scheme was abandoned and the second scheme was adopted. It is said that the Department did not apply the mathematical formula of expenditure multiplied by population and divided by valuation. To those

1601
Members who say that that formula is prescribed by the Act I do not say that they have not read the Act, but I do say that they are reading something into it which the Act does not say. All that the Act says is that the Department is to frame a Minute for the division of this fund, and to frame it so as to give greater aid—not greater in proportion—to those districts where the burden is greater as compared with the valuation. If the intention of Parliament had been to regulate the allocation of this money as the basis of a precise, rigid, mathematical formula nothing would have been easier than to say so in the Act. It does not say anything of the kind. Therefore if you want to make a charge against the Department in this matter you must say that the Department is not succeeding in framing a scheme which will give greater assistance to those districts where the burden is great as compared with the valuation. Nobody has attempted to say that except in general terms, and nobody can say that. It would be wholly untrue to say it. The Department has framed such a scheme.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: No, no.
Mr. CLYDE: I was going particularly to challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith, who says not only that is not so, but that the first scheme was before Parliament in 1908. The Bill was before Parliament in 1908, and the first scheme was shown to be so inapplicable, so certain to defeat precisely the spirit and intention of the Act, that, while the Bill was still before Parliament, it was withdrawn, and what is known as the second scheme, of which all these complaints are made, was put before Parliament—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO."]—Yes, indeed—as showing what the Department thought would be a fair model for working this thing in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Act. I go this far, and say, in view of that having been done, and, what is more, of that scheme having been accepted by the Parliament of the day as reasonably working within the intention of the Act, that the Department would be doing something which was not its duty if it made a change without strong reason for making an alteration. But when one looks at the other side of the facts one finds them based on figures. First of all, I do not believe the wit of man could devise a scheme for allocation which would not be open to some attack by picking out individual instances which seem unfair
1602
compared with other instances. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.
Sir W. MENZIES: I certainly disagree. The way to do it is by per capita grant.
Mr. CLYDE: We cannot have it both ways, and I very respectfully suggest that a per capita grant would not be a solution at all. It does not meet the case of the district which has incurred large expenditure on the faith of the grant. It is not business, but above all it is not the Act. To go to the figures, you can always make some kind of a case on the figures of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs very fairly put himself on more substantial ground; but Edinburgh and Leith are singularly unhappy instances to quote. Under the second scheme adopted in 1908, and at present in operation, Leith was improved as compared with its former condition a great deal more than Edinburgh. Leith was improved between 25 and 30 per cent. and Edinburgh was not improved much more than 20 per cent. Leith came a great deal better out, under the scheme, than did Edinburgh, and I, for my part, am not in the least sorry that it did. Observe what the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) method is. He says: "I will ignore the past. I will not consider what the liabilities have been. I do not want to consider how Edinburgh and Leith stood before the second scheme was brought into operation." Taking the second scheme, he makes tabula rasa of all the work, and says you can find inequalties. Of course you can find inequalities and injustices when you select inequalities without reference to the conditions to which the scheme applies. The honest truth is there is no argument which will hold water in this matter. They are based on unrealities and imaginations to begin with, and are only consistent with the fact that you can ignore the state of facts to which the allocation was applied, in which case, no doubt, you could construct a dozen imaginary injustices and inequalities. It seems to me that the only way in which any change in this scheme can hope to receive favourable acceptance would be to show that a change can legitimately be made in favour of one set of localities, it may be, as against another, consistently with respecting their existing obligations, and consistently with respecting the natural expectations on which those obligations were actually conferred. Those grants, which would be completely upset by the scheme, which the hon.

1603
Member for Lanarkshire and the right hon. Gentleman are disposed to support, have been in operation for periods of between six and twenty years. Some were made twenty years before the scheme was brought in, and are you going suddenly to upset them? Then the answer is, the thing is impossible.
Sir W. MENZIES: There is Clause 15.
Mr. CLYDE: We are back to the old question, that the Act says so. The Act says nothing of the kind. Will somebody who follows me say where the Act requires the Department to upset the whole settled course of development up to the date of the Act of 1908? I cannot find it in the Act, and I do not think it is to be found in it. It seems to me that this is just one of those cases in which, when there are funds to be divided, there is apt to be dispute as to the exact amount of the division, and nothing more. The whole dispute is that all of us would like a little more money. So would I like a little more money.
Mr. MACPHERSON: But there is a way of dividing it under the Act.
Mr. CLYDE: The hon. Member is still persuaded that the Act prescribes a method of division. The Act does not prescribe so.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The Act prescribes a formula for dividing the funds.
Mr. CLYDE: If the hon. Member would allow me to say so, nothing could more completely exhibit his ignorance of the terms of the Section than that interruption. Absolutely no formula is prescribed in the Section whatsoever, and the Lord Advocate will tell you, I have no doubt, whether that is so or not. It seems to me that the discussion is not only futile for any immediate object, but as regards the merits that underlie it, that it is devoid of all foundation.
Mr. BARNES: I happen to be a Member from the West of Scotland, unlike the hon. Member, who comes from the East. I much regret that that element has been imported into the Debate at all. I rise to associate myself with the Prayer to His Majesty the King that he shall withhold assent from this scheme, because, with all respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I think the scheme is directly contrary to the clear instructions of the Act of 1908. So far as I can read the Act it prescribes that a certain sum of money, called the
1604
Scottish Education Fund, shall be allocated in a certain manner, after certain provision has been made for other things that are not to come under the allocation of the Fund. Up to the passing of that Act there had been grants made under certain Acts of Parliament and Minutes of the Department for a great many objects, and they came out of a certain fund there specified. Therefore our quarrel is not that the allocation of this Fund has not been in accordance with this or that provision, but that it has not been allocated at all in accordance with the clear instructions of the Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged those who object to the scheme to adduce some evidence on this point. In Section 15 (2) he will find that the residue grant was not part of the Scotland Education Fund, and therefore that money should have been provided out of moneys altogether outside of this Fund. But instead of the £405,000, which is available this year for the Scottish Education Fund, being distributed as it ought to have been, the first thing that strikes one in reading the Minute of this year is that there shall be allocated to each secondary committee district a fixed sum, "consisting of the following items," of which the first is:—
"the average amount of the Residue Grant under Section 2 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, allotted to the various local authorities within such district for the five years preceding 1st April, 1909."
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find in Section 15 (2) a direct instruction that that money shall not be included in the Fund in question.
Mr. CLYDE: Section 14 (2), which relates to the money in question, after describing the money, says:—
"… shall no longer be applied or distributed as provided in these Acts, but, on the contrary, shall be paid into one fund hereby constituted."
Mr. BARNES: Quite so. Therefore it shall be applied in certain ways, one of the ways directing the Department to spend the money before we reach the Residue Grant question. That, I think, is the clear reading of the Act. Certain things are there enumerated. These moneys have to be provided for purposes for which fixed grants were made prior to 1908, and they have to be provided before we reach the Scotland Education Fund in regard to which this matter arises. The second item was—
"the amount of the grant receivable by secondary schools under a Minute of the Department dated 27th April, 1899."

1605
That was cancelled by a Minute five or six years ago under the Act of 1905, and special provision is made for it under the Act of 1908. Again—
"The amount which the districts received under a Minute of the Department dated 25th February, 1908."
All these things, it seems to me, are or should be outside the £405,000 now in question. My complaint is that certain moneys are being taken out of the £405,000 for purposes otherwise provided for under the Act of 1908, and moreover are being spent, although the conditions under which they were spent before no longer exist, as, for instance, the fixed amounts prior to 1908 were given in regard to payments for individual schools—for the staffing of the school in a certain way as approved by the Department, and various things of that sort. These moneys are now being paid out of the £405,000, and the conditions that used to apply to the granting of these moneys no longer apply. The moneys that come out of the £405,000 need not be spent by any Committee in the way of special grants to individual schools. They will come out of the Scottish Education Fund, and can be spent in the ordinary way for the general purposes of education. Those bodies that get the money will be under no obligation to spend it in the manner usual before the Act of 1908.
I do not like to introduce comparisons, for the question ought to be dealt with in a general way. My right hon. Friend behind me has pointed out that these three items deducted from the £405,000 that ought to be available this year amount to no less a figure than £140,000. That only leaves £255,000, and even this is not spent according to the clear instructions of the Act of 1908. There has been a good deal of talk about formula. I do not think that there can be any mistake as to the formula under which this money was to be divided, which was according to the burden of education, as to the population of the district, the available resources of the district in regard to valuation, and so on. It ought to go to the poor districts, and advantage them as compared with richer districts. As will doubtless be admitted by the Lord Advocate when he replies, even when we reach the £255,000 that principle does not apply. It is clearly laid down in the Minute of the Department that two-thirds of the money is to be allocated, I believe, on the principle of population. Only about £88,000 is left to be allocated according to the Act of 1908. That produces some curious results. It is
1606
noticeable that the richer districts gain and the poorer districts lose. Aberdeen City loses £4,825, and I believe it is the highest rated placed in Scotland. Dundee, which is also a very highly rated place, loses £2,300. Glasgow city loses the paltry sum of £230 this year. It will lose more in future, because the City is extending its boundaries all the time, and it will be taking in a considerable population now outside of its boundaries, which population is a poor one. Glasgow will not gain by any of this money which is to be devoted towards the staffing of schools or in the way of individual schools as under the old system, because these grants were only made in respect of existing schools. It so happens that on the joining of Glasgow later on by annexation or otherwise there were none of these schools existing, and when they are set up Glasgow will get no share of these moneys out of the Education Grant this year. Therefore, although Glasgow only loses this sum this year it will lose more in the near future in the event of her population increasing, as it will. The Act lays down in Section 17 (11) the balance of the Fund shall be applied for the school boards and for the voluntary schools. That has a very important bearing upon the poorer districts.
It is said if a district is disadvantaged under this it can raise money in rates. That is a serious matter for the poorer districts, and it is a more serious matter still for the voluntary schools, and which have no rates to fall back on, a large number of which are in Glasgow. It seems to me when these sums are taken out of the moneys and conserved for other purposes there will be very little left for voluntary schools or for poorer schools, and that will be an injustice and hardship in regard to these schools in Glasgow. In the poorer districts struggling with adversity and catering for the poorest classes of the population, there will be nothing left for these poor people, whereas if the whole amount was applied, as I think it ought to have been applied, there might have been a considerable sum left for these poor districts. I am glad to associate myself with those who have raised this question. I think they have a good case. I remember the Act of 1908 passing through this House, and with all respect I beg to differ with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the circumstances under which these schedules were drawn up. The first one was drawn up concurrently with the Act, but it raised such a

1607
storm from those that were to be disadvantaged by it that the second scheme was hurriedly drawn up, but unfortunately the Act was not altered when the second scheme was drawn up, and the second scheme was altogether inconsistent with the Act of Parliament. We have to press the Department to draw up another scheme consistent with the Act of Parliament and consistent with the instructions laid down, and for my part, so long as the hon. Member (Sir W. Menzies) brings this matter forward, he will have my whole-hearted support.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: My hon. Friend seems to have forgotten the history of 1908. I remember the first scheme being put forward in Committee and the trouble there was about that scheme. The Committee stage, Report and Third Reading of that Act were passed with the full knowledge of every hon. Member that the second scheme was the one involved in the Bill. The Rt. Hon. James Caldwell was so strongly impressed upon that occasion that he made a speech of one hour's duration in Committee. The Act simply says that the Minute has to be so framed as to give greater aid to those districts in which per head of the population the burden of expenditure for educational purposes is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district. What do you mean by valuation? There is no such thing as a county valuation for school board rates in Scotland. You find a rich parish with very few people and a small rate, but that does not come to the relief of the poor parish in the Highlands with a heavy rate. I admire the courage of my hon. Friend who gets up time after time and asks the House to give Lanarkshire an enormous sum compared with anybody else. I am sure when I have given the figures you will see what it is my hon. Friends are driving at. Up to 1908 a certain sum was allocated to twenty-nine committees of councils amounting to £371,000, and that was practically 3s. 6d. per head of the scholars throughout the county. That is a simple fact and figures. What is the amount divided this time in excess of the 3s. 6d. The amount to be divided totals £405,000, which is £33,700 more than was paid in 1908. My hon. Friend wants £17,349 of that amount, and Banffshire, Lanarkshire, Dundee, and Govan take £24,000 out of the £33,000. Let us see how the figures run in some other localities. I will take Argyllshire and Aberdeenshire.
1608
Argyllshire up to the time of the Act had £7,422. According to my hon. Friend's scheme poor Argyllshire has £5,900, or a loss of £1,500. The thing is ridiculous. Aberdeenshire prior to 1908 got £15,437. The allocation now is £14,439, or a loss of £1,000 less than we got in 1908. Although the Act throws upon us all the secondary education and the inspection of children, yet we are going to get £1,000 less, while Lanark gets £17,000 more. It has nothing to do with population, but mark that you have a widespread district, and the cost per scholar must be greater than in a populous district. I could take you to schools in these constituencies where the scholars only number five or ten. There are no schools better than those in these two counties, who do their very best and have lived up to the Act so far as they can. If this allocation of my hon. Friend's were to obtain it would be absolutely ruinous, and in many cases they could not carry out the Act by several thousand pounds.
12.0 M.
Let us see how these various places have been benefited by these grants. In the case of Leith the 3s. 6d. is reduced to 2s. 9d. That is to say, they are 9d. worse off than they were. In Govan they have 3s. 8d., which is 2d. better. Dundee has 3s. 11d., or 5d. better. Aberdeen City has 3s. 11d., or 5d. better. Edinburgh has 6s. 5d., or 2s. 11d. better. Aberdeenshire is 2s. 7d. worse, and Argyle is 2s. 7d. worse. They were getting 3s. 6d. before; they are only getting 11d. now. Dumfries has 3s. 3d.; Lanark has 3s. 3d. They have dropped 3d., while Aberdeenshire has dropped 2s. 7d. Glasgow gets 9s. According to the proposal of my hon. Friend, Forfar would lose £3,805. The claim of the hon. Member for Lanark would deprive the great bulk of the committees of what they actually had in 1908. It would make them poorer to-day than they were then, with all the additional work which the Act calls upon them to perform. I have no hesitation in saying that this second Minute was before the Committee and the House on the Report stage and upon the Third Reading. When you talk about it being illegal you are putting a slur upon the Committee and the House for passing it. The first Minute, I admit, was first of all put forward in a perfunctory manner, upon a wrong basis of calculation. The moment it was seen to be so absurd as to be untenable it was put right. My hon. Friend has ever since struggled to get this large share, this impossible share, of the extra money, and so long as he has breath in

1609
him and represents Lanark, I suppose he will struggle to get the best for Lanark. I think he has struggled to get a little too much, and this House would be doing a very wrong thing if they countenanced such a wrong distribution of the money as the scheme proposed.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I associate myself with the protest made by the Member for South Lanark (Sir W. Menzies) and others as regards the present Minute of allocation. It is a matter of great importance to Scotland. Educational authorities in Scotland who represent 64 per cent. of the population are opposed to the Minute, which they maintain will not only seriously prejudice their interests, but is contrary to the policy laid down in the Education Act of 1908. The question has been treated to-night by the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh as a struggle which has taken place between the different authorities to secure certain advantages at the expense one of the other—but I should like to say that the point of view this question ought to be regarded from is not from that of seeking to take money from other authorities, whom we desire to see get what I think they are entitled to get, but from the point of view of securing an equitable scheme of distribution of grants throughout the whole of Scotland. We want to see that the scheme is carried out in such a way as to not unfairly deprive other authorities of what they ought to get under the principle laid down in the Act itself. As to the abolition altogether of the old fixed grants we made a very strong case. Section 15 of the Act of 1908 does distinctly say that these sums should no longer be applied or distributed under the former Acts, but should be paid into one fund, and our whole contention is that being paid into that one fund they are no longer to be distributed as they were before. But we find that the Residue grant, the Secondary Schools grant, and the General Aid grant, are being distributed exactly as they were before, and on that matter I do not think we have had any answer to our argument submitted this evening.
As to the second point, we cannot carry out the principle of Section 16 (2) by means of any cut-and-dry code or formula. I think the Education Department is entitled to say there are other considerations to be taken into account, but we say the principle which is embodied in Section 16 (2) is one which ought to be
1610
carried out having regard to certain particular factors—the factors of population, burden of expenditure on educational purposes per head of population, and the valuation of the district. With regard to the principle involved there has not been any doubt whatever that it was intended to introduce a new principle altogether to that which regulated the distribution of the moneys at an earlier stage. The Secretary for Scotland, in introducing the Bill, made that perfectly clear. We say the present scheme does not give effect to that which it was intended to do, and I think we are very much justified in opposing the Minute by what took place at the recent deputation to the Scottish Office, when a great number of educational authorities were present, and when we did get a very clear admission that the scheme as outlined in the present Minute was not considered altogether satisfactory by the Department itself. It was made perfectly clear to the deputation that there were certain modifications of the existing scheme, notably in the matter of the stereotyped grants, which were worthy of consideration, and it was suggested that two Members from either side should meet the Secretary for Scotland and examine possible modifications, with a view to arriving at a permanent mode of distribution. That proves our case, that we have here an admitted grievance which still demands a remedy. It is because that remedy has been so long delayed that we are anxious that further pressure should be put upon the Department, in order that an arrangement should be arrived at which would meet the views of those who are justly criticising the scheme.
I represent one of the very populous districts in the West of Scotland, where considerable hardship has been incurred under the present method of distribution. I will take one illustration, which will show how the district I have the honour to represent compares with the figures given for Aberdeen county. Aberdeen county, with a population of leas than one-third of Lanarkshire, and with an education rate of 9½d., receives in stereotyped grants under the Minute £7,549, while Lanarkshire only receives £8,428, with an education rate of 1s. 1d. That makes it clear that under these stereotyped grants great injustice is being done to certain districts and notably in Lanarkshire, a very populous industrial district, where the element of

1611
population is one of the factors referred to in Section 16 (2), and ought to be taken into account. Figures have been given with regard to valuation which have not been successfully challenged. I do not desire to dwell upon them, but I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should seek to accelerate, if possible, the reconsideration of this scheme, with a view to meeting the views of those who have some legitimate criticism to offer as to its effect in Lanarkshire and other populous districts in Scotland. We are not speaking for the minority, but for the majority. We are speaking for 64 per cent. of the population of Scotland. I think our criticism is worthy of attention. In this matter we only ask for a modification of the existing scheme, at least, speaking for myself, I think we ought to ask for a modification of the existing scheme to bring it into line with the suggestions which have been thrown out. I should welcome the opportunity of having this matter discussed by those who are well fitted to make suggestions to the Scottish Education Department, although the responsibility must rest upon the Department. I would desire that those districts which are aggrieved should have an opportunity of submitting their case, and getting an immediate answer to it in the form of some immediate modification of the present scheme. I hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance on that head.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Government has been charged to-night with having deliberately attempted to evade discussion of this scheme by laying it upon the Table of the House at a date when an effective challenge was impossible. The charge is baseless. It is impossible to tell before the end of July what moneys will be available, and accordingly a scheme never can be laid on the Table before the commencement of August. The scheme was laid on the Table at the earliest possible date, and at a date when the idea of an Autumn Session had not entered into the mind of any of us. But although effective discussion is at present impossible, the Government welcomes this opportunity of treading once more the well-known and familiar path. The Statute to which reference has been made constitutes a Scottish Education Fund, into which all the money is poured which is devoted to education in Scotland. The Statute specifically directs that that
1612
money should be devoted to six separate and distinct purposes and the balance is to be distributed amongst those districts in Scotland in which secondary education committees have been set up. Wide discretionary powers are given to the Department in the allocation of that money in various districts subject to the criticism, examination, and Challenge of this House.
One direction only is given to guide whoever allocates the money. Greater aid is to be given to those districts where the burden of education is per head of the population excessive in relation to valuation. That means that the needy districts are to get a greater aid than the less needy districts. Greater than what? Greater than what would be given to them if the distribution were per head of the population. There are two factors entering into consideration when you come to allocate, first the weight of the burden, and secondly, the ability of the shoulders to bear it. The weight of the burden is estimated, of course, by the cost of education per scholar. That is the only means by which you could estimate the weight of the burden and the Statute selects, as a rough and ready test of ability to pay, valuation. I do not offer any criticism upon that. The needy district is a district where the weight is great and the ability to bear the weight is small. A needy district is not a district where the weight is heavy and the ability to carry the weight is great, nor is it one in which the weight is light and the ability to bear it is not great, and accordingly what the Department has to do is to consider whether or no the weight in any particular district is excessive in relation to the ability to bear it. The House will not be astonished to know that the cost of education per scholar varies greatly in the various districts in Scotland. That is an element which has never from beginning to end of this controversy been taken into account by those who have challenged the Minute. I have read every speech that has been made on this subject and heard most of them, and I have not noticed that a single hon. Member has taken into account the fact which lies at the very root of this calculation—what is the weight of the burden?
Let me give an instance, for the purpose of showing that that is vital and goes absolutely to the very root—is the pith and marrow of the whole case. In Peebles it costs 120s. per head to educate the scholars. In Argyllshire it costs 114s. per head. In Berwick, Roxburgh, Sutherland,

1613
and Wigton the cost is over 100s. per head, Lanarkshire 89s., Banff 83s., Orkney 80s., and Linlithgowshire 78s. The House will see at once that this is a vital factor in the calculation—the weight of the burden. When you approach the Statute you see that you are entirely outside the region of formula and cut and dry tests. The Statute prescribes no formula and lays down no hard and fast rules. It is a question of what is excessive, and obviously you are there in the region of estimates and opinions on which honest and intelligent men might quite reasonably differ.
It is out of the question to suppose that there could be any formula laid down. Look at the Act of Parliament itself. You are simply to give greater aid to needy districts than to the less needy. That shows at once that the Minute is needed and that you require to allocate the fund from time to time, otherwise the office boy could have made the calculation merely by multiplying the expenditure and dividing by the valuation. The Minute is absolutely necessary because you have in framing the allocation to take into account so many elements besides the mere elements of population, expenditure, and valuation. Those who assail the scheme may do so on two distinct grounds. They may say that it is contrary to the Statute, or that it is quite inequitable though in harmony with the Statute. If they make out the one proposition or the other they succeed. On the other hand the defence of the scheme obviously rests upon establishing that it is legal, and, secondly, that it is equitable. I have shown that it is legal. At all events, nobody denies that we give under this scheme greater aid to the needy districts. I am aware that those who challenge the scheme do so on the ground that it is inequitable, but it is now apparent that it is not challenged as illegal.
Instantly you abandon scheme number one, all that becomes wholly inapplicable to our discussion. It becomes now apparent that the sole ground of challenge by those who dissent is that the scheme is itself inequitable. I undertake to show that it is not only legal but equitable. It was framed on the 3rd of June, 1908, and was before the Committee which considered the Bill, and every hon. Member who voted for the Bill did so knowing that that scheme of allocation was the scheme which would be considered in harmony with the provisions of the Bill. There have been three distributions of money under that scheme. In the first year, 1909–10,
1614
there was available under this Fund something like £50,000 more than was distributed the year before the Act came into operation. How was it distributed between the twenty-one authorities who support the scheme and the seventeen who oppose it? The non-contents, who were only 64 per cent. of the population, received 69 per cent. of the money, and the contents, who were 36 per cent. of the population, received only the remaining 31 per cent. of the money. So hon. Members will see that not only was the statutory direction followed, but that the result was not inequitable. In the next year there was more money available—£75,000. The non-contents got 66.5 and the contents 33.5 per cent., the population remaining the same. In the third year there was only £34,000 available, and the non-contents, still only 64 per cent. of the population, received 73 per cent. of the money, while the contents received only 27 per cent. That shows plainly that the result was not inequitable, and was certainly in consonance with the spirit and the letter of the Statute. I go further, and point out that every one of the thirty-eight districts of Scotland which are entitled to a share of this money receives more than formerly. Certainly the non-contents receive considerably more than they received before. Eight of the seventeen receive over 13 per cent. more, while Orkney receives 35 per cent. and Shetland 31 per cent. more.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
The House was adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Twelve of the clock a.m., 8th November.

  Medical Certificate for Superannuation.
  Medical Certificate for Superannuation.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Customs Statistical Office.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  SICKNESS BENEFITS.
  SICKNESS BENEFITS.
  AMALGAMATED SOCIETIES.
  AMALGAMATED SOCIETIES.
  ORTHODOX MEDICAL TREATMENT.
  ORTHODOX MEDICAL TREATMENT.
  LAUNDRY TRADE.
  LAUNDRY TRADE.
  DISPENSARY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DISPENSARY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  COUNTRY DISPENSARIES.
  COUNTRY DISPENSARIES.
  Division of Bog (County Longford).
  Division of Bog (County Longford).
  Labourers Acts (Ireland).
  Labourers Acts (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant, County Waterford.
  Evicted Tenant, County Waterford.
  Reinstatement Application, County Cavan.
  Reinstatement Application, County Cavan.
  2nd Dragoon Guards (Confidential Report).
  2nd Dragoon Guards (Confidential Report).
  Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
  Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
  Metropolitan Police Rate.
  Metropolitan Police Rate.
  Political Officers (India).
  Political Officers (India).
  Sweden and Great Britain.
  Sweden and Great Britain.
  Midwives.
  Midwives.
  Rural Parishes (Population).
  Rural Parishes (Population).
  Vaccination (Conscientious Objections).
  Vaccination (Conscientious Objections).
  Local Government Board (Annual Report).
  Local Government Board (Annual Report).
  Census of Production.
  Census of Production.
  Rural Postman (Granard and Finea).
  Rural Postman (Granard and Finea).
EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received (by post) from John David Sym, Esquire, Sheriff Substitute of the County of Perth, the Report of the Commission ordered by this House on the 8th day of August last, to take the examination upon oath, viva voce, of Amelia Georgiana Murray Macgregor: The Commission and Report of the Evidence to be printed and referred to the Committee for Privileges. (No. 203.)

STONEHAVEN HARBOUR ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
COMMONS REGULATION (BURRINGTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
COMMONS REGULATION (WINTON AND KABER) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

KELSO WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): I have an Amendment in subsection (6) of Clause 11 of the Schedule—
(6) Nothing in this Order contained shall interfere with the right of the district committee to alter the level of or divert or improve in any Manner they think fit any county highway in or along which any aqueduct conduit or line of pipes of the Town Council shall have been laid and the Town Council shall forthwith on receiving notice in writing under the hand of the clerk of the district committee alter the position of any such aqueduct conduit or line of pipes in the manner and to the extent prescribed by such notice or as in the case of difference shall be determined by arbitration in the manner hereinafter prescribed.
I move to leave out the last word of the subsection—namely, "prescribed"—and to insert "in this section provided."
Amendment moved—
Schedule, Clause 11, page 13, line 2, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("in this section provided").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (STEVEDORES AND TRIMMERS) (No. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships for Second Reading to-day is a very simple one, its object being to remove hardships which at present exist in regard to a certain section of the maritime population of this country—namely, stevedores and trimmers. As the law at present stands, these persons have no way of arresting a ship in the event of their claims for wages not having been paid. It has been laid down by the Court that stevedores and trimmers have only to do with the cargo, and have nothing whatever to do with the ship. They cannot, therefore, arrest a ship, as can be done by tradesmen supplying goods or by members of the crew. Cases of hardship have been brought to the notice of the Government, especially in the case of foreign owned vessels the owners of which have no offices in this country and consequently cannot be sued in a British Court of law. It is to remove this difficulty that the Bill now before your Lordships has been framed it enables any person of the class I have mentioned to apply to a Judge for the arrest of the ship. I understand that Lord Gorell takes exception to the procedure under the Bill, and is anxious that the procedure should be through the Admiralty Courts. If the noble and learned Lord will formulate an Amendment on those lines I can assure him that it will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more in regard to the Bill, and it is with confidence that I submit it to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, the Amendment which I have suggested, and which has been referred to by the noble Earl, would afford some assistance in addition to that given by this Bill. The point is this. The Bill enables a Judge to order the arrest of a vessel, and that arrest can then—I believe I am correct—be enforced by means of the officers of the Board of Trade or in some such form as that. But it is not always possible to find the Judge

95
at the moment that it is necessary to make the order for arrest, and therefore those who desire to proceed—and this is really the point of the Bill—against foreign vessels are not, perhaps, able to effect the arrest because of the difficulty in finding the person to make the order. Then, again, when a vessel has been arrested she can only, as I read the Bill, be released by an order of the Judge, and that may be difficult to get owing to the absence of the Judge. In the high Court, however, the Judge of the Admiralty Court is always accessible, and even in vacation time his duties are taken by one of the other Judges. This Bill, as I understand it, will enable proceedings to be taken, within proper limits, in the County Court, but the Judge of that particular County Court might not necessarily be in the town or place where the vessel was arrested, and the procedure might cause some little delay. Demurrage on a very large vessel is so serious that promptitude in releasing a ship arrested in respect of small claims, as they might be, for stowing and trimming cargo is of great importance. I therefore venture to suggest, and I have made the suggestion to the Department from which this Bill emanates, that it might be desirable to give a power to proceed also in the Admiralty Court. In the present state of things the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to arrest a vessel in respect of necessaries. The noble Earl has pointed out that that does not include the right of persons in the position of stevedores and trimmers to proceed for work done on the cargo; but this is so analogous to necessaries that the suggestion occurs to one that the procedure of the Admiralty Court might be allowed to be put in force in support of these claims. The difficulties in regard to delay to which I have referred might then be overcome, as a warrant of arrest can always be obtained at the office without going to the Judge, and release effected in the same way. Therefore the kind of Amendment which I would venture to propose when the Bill goes into Committee would simply be that power should be given to enable persons who have claims of the character mentioned in the Bill to proceed, if they choose, in exactly the same way as anyone would proceed who was arresting a ship for necessaries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I need hardly state that any suggestion coming from
96
my noble and learned friend is sure to be very carefully considered. I may say that I am in sympathy with a good deal of what he says, and if he will kindly put down his Amendment for the Committee stage I think he may anticipate a very friendly consideration of it on the part of the Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Provisions as to Collisions, etc.
1.—(1) Where by the fault of two or more vessels, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those vessels, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault:
Provided that—

(a) if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally; and

(b) nothing in this section shall operate so as to render any vessel liable for any loss or damage to which her fault has not contributed; and

(c) nothing in this section shall affect the liability of any person under a contract of carriage or any other contract, or shall be construed as imposing any liability upon any person from which he is exempted by any such contract or by any provision of law, or as affecting the right of any person to limit his liability in the manner provided by law.

(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression "freight" includes passage money and chartered hire.
LORD HERSCHELL: My first Amendment is in proviso (c) of Clause 1, to leave out the word "other" ["under a contract of carriage or any other contract"], and the second Amendment is to omit from the same proviso the word "such" ["exempted by any such contract"]. These Amendments are suggested in order to do away with a possible implication of ejusdem generis construction.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out ("other")
Clause 1, line 5, leave out ("such").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to,
LORD HERSCHELL: I now move to omit from subsection (2) of Clause 1 the word "chartered." Certain contracts of hire are not charters, and the word "hire" by itself is considered sufficient.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out ("chartered").—(Lord Herschell).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: After the word "hire" at the end of subsection (2) it is proposed to insert the words contained in the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. The Amendment explains itself, and is really of a drafting nature.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, after ("hire") insert ("and references to damage or loss caused by the fault of a vessel shall be construed as including references to any salvage or other expenses, consequent upon that fault, recoverable at law by way of damages").—(Lord Herscell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: After Clause 4 it is proposed to insert a new clause providing that any enactment which confers on any Court Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damage shall have effect as though references to such damage included references to damages for loss of life or personal injury, and accordingly proceedings in respect of such damages may be brought in rem or in personam. Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Gorell) moved to insert a new subsection which now appears as subsection (5) of Clause 8, and that Amendment was accepted on the understanding that the drafting might need consideration. The new clause which I am now proposing is merely subsection (5) of Clause 8 in a slightly different form. It expressly confers jurisdiction in cases of loss of life or personal injury, and this is, I believe, in accordance with the views of the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
. Any enactment which confers on any Court Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damage shall have effect as though references to such damage included references to damages for loss of life or personal injury, and accordingly proceedings in respect of such damages may be brought in rem or in personam.—(Lord Herschell).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
General Provisions.
7. No action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or her owners in respect. of any damage or loss to another vessel, her cargo or freight, or any property on board her, or damages fur loss of life or personal injuries suffered by any person on board her, caused by the fault of the former vessel, whether such vessel be wholly or partly in fault, or in respect of any salvage services, unless proceedings therein are commenced within two years from the date when the damage or loss or injury was caused or the salvage services were rendered, and an action shall not be maintainable under this Act to enforce any contribution in respect of an overpaid proportion of any damages for loss of life or personal injuries unless proceedings therein are commenced within one year front the date of payment:
Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to deal with an action so which this section relates may extend any such period, to such extent and on such conditions as it thinks fit, and shall, if satisfied that there has not during such period been any reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant vessel within the jurisdiction of the Court, or within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff's ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business, extend any such period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity.
LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to propose an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but as it is really or a drafting nature I hope your Lordships may be disposed to accept it. It is in the proviso in Clause 7, after the word "may" ["Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to deal with an action to which this section relates may"], to insert the words "on application in accordance with rules of Court." This is merely designed to give facilities for taking ex parte proceedings.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 4, after ("may") insert ("on application in accordance with rules of Court").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Application of Act.
8.—(1) This Act shall extend throughout His Majesty's dominions and to any territories under his protection, and to Cyprus:
Provided that it shall not extend to the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland.
(2) This Act shall not apply in any case in which proceedings have been taken before the passing thereof and all such cases shall be determined as though this Act had not been passed.
(3) The provisions of this Act shall be applied in all cases heard and determined in any Court having jurisdiction to deal with the case and in whatever waters the damage or loss in question

99
was caused or the salvage services in question were rendered, and subsection (9) of section twenty-five of the Judicature Act, 1873, shall cease to have effect.
(4) This Act shall apply to any persons other than the owners responsible for the fault of the vessel as though the expression "owners" included such persons, and in any case where, by virtue of any charter or demise, or for any other reason, the owners are not responsible for the navigation and management of the vessel, this Act shall be read as though for references to the owners there were substituted references to the charterers or other persons for the time being so responsible.
(5) Proceedings in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries may be brought in rem or in personam.
LORD HERSCHELL: My last Amendment is to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 8. This Amendment is consequential on the insertion of the new clause after Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, lines 36 and 37, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, this Bill provides for the laying by the Pacific Cable Board of a direct cable between Sydney and New Zealand. At present communication between Australia and New Zealand has to go either by the Eastern Telegraph Company's line or via the Pacific Cable line which goes from Brisbane to Norfolk Island and south to Doubtless Bay in the north of New Zealand. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill the proposed line would protect the Pacific Cable Company's revenue from the inroads due to the competition of the Eastern Telegraph Company, and would complete the triangle of Norfolk Island, Australia, and New Zealand. It would also have the effect of saving the company about £6,000 a year in staff, in addition to any gain in revenue. The question of possible competition by wireless has been considered, but the risk is not regarded as serious. I should add that, though there was no obligation upon them to do so by the Act of 1901, the company, like all great
100
commercial companies, have made provision for a reserve fund and have put by annually a sum of £30,000. At present their reserve fund stands at between £250,000 and £300,000, and the sum of £155,000 would suffice to cover the cost of the new cable. All the Governments concerned in this undertaking—namely, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand—are most anxious that this scheme should be undertaken as soon as possible, and the question was raised at the Imperial Conference this year. The Government of this country are responsible for five-eighteenths of any sum which may be required for the repayment of the cost and other expenses of the original cable which was laid as the result of the Act of 1901, and a Vote is taken annually which comes to approximately £54,000 for these purposes, of which we receive back from the other Governments I have mentioned about £39,000, leaving us to pay about £15,000 per annum. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 20th instant.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): With your Lordships' permission I propose to postpone this stage of the Bill till next week. I find that there is a member of your Lordships' House interested in this measure who wishes to propose an Amendment, and as Tuesday next will suit him I beg to postpone the consideration of the Bill in Committee until that day.
Committee of the Whole House put off to Tuesday next accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.