Sitting of 9 November 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords],
A Verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Kelso Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of All Souls College, Oxford, on the 5th June, 1911, and sealed on the 21st July, 1911, making certain alterations in the existing Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Statistics relating to Annual Income and Expenditure, especially in relation to Salaries of Teaching Staff in certain Secondary Schools in England (excluding Wales and Monmouthshire) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUGAR CONVENTION (COMMERCIAL, No. 4, 1911).
Copy presented of Interim Report of the British Delegate to the International Sugar Commission, together with his Instructions, October, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ISLE OF MAN CONSTITUTION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee on the Constitution, etc., of the Isle of Man [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Maidstone, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CONSOLIDATED FUND.
Abstract Account presented, showing the Issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the financial year ended 31st March, 1911, for the Interest and Management of the Debt, for the Civil List, and for all other Issues in the financial year for services charged directly on the said Fund, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the functions of the Ottoman Public Debt have been suspended in Tripoli by the Italian Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The Italian authorities have taken possession of the offices of the Ottoman Debt in Tripoli, and the Turkish officials have been removed. The Italian Government have, however, expressed their readiness to respect the rights of the bondholders, and to enter into negotiations for that object with the Council of the Ottoman Debt.
  Mr. M. SYKESasked whether the oasis of Jaghbub is in Anglo-Egyptian or Tripolitan territory, or whether it is independent?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government consider Jaghbub to be in Egyptian territory, and both the Porte and the Italian Government are aware of this view.
  Mr. M. SYKES: Is Jaghbub at present occupied?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Do the Italian and Ottoman Governments accept the view taken by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not sure that their acceptanace has been asked. We have made our statement, and intend to adhere to it.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the British Consuls full un-censored reports of occurrences in Tripoli and Benghazi during the last three weeks; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to secure such reports?
  Sir E. GREY: The Consul-General at Tripoli has heard from newspaper correspondents some of the statements such as have appeared in the Press, but, as I informed the hon. Member on November 2nd, I cannot undertake to publish official information except when British subjects are concerned, and as a matter of fact the Consul-General was not present when the fighting took place, nor would it have been any part of his duty to be so.
  Mr. DILLONasked when the British Government became aware of the agreement between France and Italy, giving Italy a free hand in Tripoli as a condition of Italy's friendly attitude towards French designs in Morocco; and whether the British Government acquiesced in this arrangement?
  Sir E. GREY: I can make no statements about agreements that may, or may not, exist between other Powers, to which we are not a party, and for which His Majesty's Government have no responsibility.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the Italian Government has communicated to the British Government a proclamation announcing the annexation of Tripoli to Italy; what effect such proclamation is interpreted by the Italian Government to have on the status of inhabitants of Tripoli who continue to resist the Italian troops; whether the British Government has recognised or assented to this proclamation; and whether the British Government will address to the Italian Government a
  1788
  remonstrance against any penal measures against the people of Tripoli based on this proclamation.
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I cannot answer the second question. The answer to the third question is in the negative; and the answer to the last question is in the negative. To give any other answer would mean intervention in the war between Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. DILLON: Is it not the fact that the issue of such a proclamation involves the treating of all inhabitants who resist the troops of the Power that issued the proclamation as rebels, and their execution?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say what the interpretation of the Italian Government will be as to the effect of the proclamation. The proclamation has been communicated to us, and so also has a protest from the Turkish Government against it being communicated to us. This seems to be the sort of thing about which one can say nothing, and about which one must preserve one's rights whilst hostilities are proceeding.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if the right hon. Gentleman has any official information in confirmation of, or denying, the accusations of barbarism brought against the Italian troops in Tripoli by Lieutenant H. G. Montagu and other correspondents?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not in possession of any official information on this subject; and I would refer to the reply already given to the hon. Member for East Mayo on this subject to-day.
  Mr. D. MASON: If, as he says, it is no part of the duty of the British Consul to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with information regarding the occurrences that have taken place in Tripoli, and if he refuses to take the evidence of newspaper correspondents, how then can the right hon. Gentleman make a protest against the violation of a Convention to which His Majesty's Government have been a party?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not accepted or refused anything in this matter. What I said was that it was no part of the duty of the Consul to be present where the fighting took place, but I did not say it was not part of his duty to give such information as came to him.
  Mr. D. MASON: How then could the British Consul give evidence if he is not present?
  Colonel YATE: Is he English or Maltese or what?
  Sir E. GREY: He is a British subject and a salaried Consular officer. Alvarez is his name.
  Colonel YATE: What is the Consul at Benghazi—is he Maltese or English, or what is he?
  Sir E. GREY: At Benghazi he is a salaried officer, and his name is Jones.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a letter, October 1911, from Mr. Cardona, Acting-Lieu-tenant-Governor of Malta, to Mr. Zammit, dated 4th October, 1911, in which he acknowledges the receipt of the latter's letter of 29th September on the subject of the situation of the Maltese residents at Benghazi, and also to the allegation that the Government of Malta had taken no steps to protect its suffering subjects, of whom it appears that eight were killed and others wounded during the bombardment; and whether he can give any information as to what arrangements were made to protect Maltese subjects at Benghazi, and if these arrangements were not complete whose fault it was?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rutland on 2nd November. Maltese interests at Benghazi are in the care of His Majesty's Consul. The eight Maltese killed during the bombardment of Benghazi were killed by falling masonry, and no precautions could have been taken by us to obviate this danger, incidental to the bombardment.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether any representations have been made to the Government in Malta regarding the letter referred to?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member for notice. He asks me about some communication to the Government of Malta.
  Colonel YATE: I referred to the question of a letter.
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of communications with the Government of Malta.

  Naval Prize Bill.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, under the Naval Prize Bill, the International Prize Court will have power to decide whether, in the case of war between two nations, when we are neutrals, the belligerents can lawfully turn their merchant ships into commerce destroyers in any part of the world, and use them to the same extent and in the same way as their ordinary warships to capture or sink British merchant ships; and whether, if the International Prize Court so decides, we shall be bound by its ruling?
  Sir E. GREY: The question has been answered by the reply to the Noble Lord the gallant Member for Portsmouth yesterday.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, under the Naval Prize Bill, if the International Prize Court decides that merchant vessels turned into commerce destroyers can be lawfully used by a nation at war with us in the same way as its regular warships to capture or sink our ships or neutral ships, it will be impossible for our shipowners or the owners of neutral ships to get any recompense or redress for ships captured or sunk by these converted pirate vessels; and will this have the effect of preventing foodstuffs being imported and therefore of producing famine and starvation in Great Britain?
  Sir E. GREY: If Great Britain is at war, the legality of the capture or destruction of British merchant vessels cannot be come the subject of a decision by the International Prize Court at all. As regards the position of neutral owners, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to an inquiry by the Noble Lord the gallant Member for Portsmouth. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative so long as the British Navy retains command of the sea.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, under the Naval Prize Bill, in case we were at war with another nation, the International Prize Court can decide that our enemy has acted lawfully in turning his merchant ships into commerce destroyers, and in using them to the same extent and in the same way as his ordinary warships to capture or sink our merchant ships and neutral ships carrying foodstuffs to this country; and if the Court decides it to be lawful, should we be bound by this ruling?
  Sir E. GREY: Action taken by an enemy against British merchant vessels when we are at war cannot come before the International Prize Court at all in respect of the ship. The International Prize Court could, of course, give decisions as regards neutral vessels, if appeals were brought before it. Such decisions would not affect our action as belligerents in dealing with enemy's ships.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to conclude that the Government is setting up an International Prize Court whose ruling they have no intention of obeying? Is not that very like the Preamble of the Veto Bill, which was for ornament and not for use?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not follow the comparison. The International Prize Court deals with questions arising between belligerents and neutrals. As I explained at comparative length the other day in Debate, we do not regard that as affecting our rights as belligerents dealing with belligerents. Questions between belligerents and neutrals are one thing, and questions between belligerents and belligerents are another. Questions between belligerents and neutrals come before the International Prize Court, but not questions between belligerents and belligerents.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that plain to other nations, because nobody else understands it?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet informed any of the foreign Powers that it is his intention to treat the decisions of the International Prize Court, in the manner suggested?
  Sir E. GREY: We have made public our statements with regard to what our view would be as to merchant vessels converted on the high seas into warships, if we were at war. We do not propose to make that action dependent on the consent of other nations at all.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that the Dominion Premiers were urged not to oppose the Declaration of London in order to help to bring about the arbitration treaty with the United States, the right hon. Gentleman can now say whether the American Senate has refused to agree to allow all disputes, whether of honour or territory, to be settled by arbitration; and, if so, in view of the fact that
  1792
  nearly all our naval, military, shipping, and commercial authorities are strongly opposed to the Declaration, the Government will reconsider their decision to ratify it?
  Sir E. GREY: None of the several statements put forward by the hon. Member are facts. The answer to his inquiry is in the negative.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, if the Declaration of London is ratified, there is any port in Great Britain when we are at war to which any foodstuffs except nuts could be sent in neutral ships without any risk of these ships being captured or sunk by an enemy's warship or by their merchant ships which had been converted into commerce destroyers?
  Sir E. GREY: There will be such ports if the Declaration of London is ratified and its rules observed by belligerents and neutrals; it is impossible to say what the state of things may be without the Declaration of London.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for certain that there will be any single port in this country that will not be considered as being in connection with the military and naval forces, and that, therefore, vessels conveying foodstuffs intended to go to the Army and Navy would be liable to capture?
  Sir E. GREY: I gave an instance before of what it would not be in accordance with the Declaration of London to declare a fortified base. At the present moment everything is uncertain, so far as treaties can do it; but, under the Declaration of London, there will be a certain amount of certitude introduced.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the German authorities have laid down that every port in Great Britain is in connection with the military and naval forces, and that, therefore, all ships coming to British ports will be liable to capture?
  Sir E. GREY: I shall be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will give me the information on which that statement is founded. It is quite new to me.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it clearly specified that the ports are to be fortified places? I am under the impression it is not?
  Sir E. GREY: The whole question was fully gone into in the Debate on the Declaration of London, and if the Noble Lord refers to the speeches made on behalf of the Government he will see what is their view as regards its interpretation.

  Riot at Alexandria.
  Mr. M. 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.
  Mr. M. SYKES: How long will it be before the dispatch will reach England? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea—it is very important?
  Sir E. GREY: No, I cannot say when the next bag is due bringing the dispatch. But the matter is not very urgent, seeing that the riot is over and everything is now quiet. I would point out that there are things in the world which are much more urgent.

  Opium Conference.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now able to state the names of the British delegates to the forthcoming Opium Conference at The Hague?
  Sir E. GREY: The delegates already appointed to represent this country are: Sir Cecil Clementi Smith, Sir William Meyer, and Mr. W. Max-Müller. The appointment of a fourth delegate is under consideration.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of intimating the appointment of the head of the delegates at an early date, in view of the fact that the conference takes place in less than a month, and all the other delegates have already been appointed?
  Sir E. GREY: Certainly, I will give the information as soon as it is available. Of course, there are several departments concerned in this question, and I cannot give an absolute pledge without consulting other departments.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea about the time?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice.

  Battle of Atbara.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked whether His Majesty's Government can see its way to order the release of Mahmud, the Mahdist emir, taken prisoner at the battle of Atbara in 1898, seeing that he was a prisoner of war taken in open fight, and is now an old and broken man incapable of being any danger to the Empire?
  Sir E. GREY: As I have already stated, in reply to similar questions in previous years, the remaining Dervish prisoners are very well cared for, and appear to be well-satisfied. Their families are with them, they are well fed and housed, and not subject to any severe disciplinary regulations. The few that have not been released are considered by the inhabitants of the Soudan as responsible for the massacres perpetrated during the years immediately preceding the reconquest of the country. The feeling or resentment against them has not yet died out; and they would, if brought back to the Soudan, undoubtedly be exposed to danger.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received information showing that officials in the employment of the Persian Treasury were recently arrested, flogged, and imprisoned by a superior force of Russian Cossacks, led by two Russian consular officers in full uniform, while the Persian officials were endeavouring to collect taxes from a Persian subject; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government, as signatory to the Anglo-Russian Convention safeguarding the independence of Persia, had addressed any remonstrance to the Russian Government on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not received any such information.
  Mr. MORRELL: If I forward to the right hon. Gentleman a letter from Mr. Schuster will he inquire?
  Sir E. GREY: I am quite ready to receive any information the hon. Member has.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Russian Consul at Astrabad in Persia is openly supporting the ex-Shah, and is distributing Russian flags amongst inhabitants of Astrabad suspected of disloyalty to the Government, for the purpose of hoisting on their houses as a sign

  1795
  of Russian protection; and whether he will make representations to the Russian Government on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I am aware that the Persian Government have made a general complaint of the action of the Russian Consul at Astrabad. I have heard nothing of the distribution of flags. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether the Russian Government have threatened the Persian Government with the military occupation of certain provinces; and, if so, can he state the circumstances in which this threat has been issued?
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the action of the Russian Government in threatening to occupy the province of Gilam and the district of Talesh if an immediate apology was not made by the Persian Government for an alleged insult to two Russian Consular officers during the seizure of Shun-es-Sultaneh's property; and whether the British Government will draw the attention of the Russian Government to the inconsistency of such action with the terms of the Anglo-Russian Agreement, in which England and Russia agreed to respect and maintain the integrity and independence of Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no truth in the statement which has recently appeared in the Press that the Russian Government have threatened the Persian Government with the occupation of the provinces of Ghilan and Mazanderan.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman approximately state the number of Russian troops now in Persian territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot repeat it from memory, but I gave, I think, one day this week the actual figures.

  Belligerent Rights.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will specify the dispatches or other communications with foreign Powers in which he has made it clear that this country will not agree to anything which is going to circumscribe our rights as belligerents in dealing with belligerents in regard to the arming of merchantmen on the high seas; and
  1796
  whether he will lay upon the Table of this House any documents relating to this matter which have not already been laid?
  Sir E. GREY: There has been no occasion to address any foreign Power on the subject, as the action that His Majesty's Government might take in such a contingency will not depend upon the consent of other Powers. All questions as to the treatment by a belligerent of enemy vessels are excluded from the jurisdiction of the proposed International Prize Court, with the exception of the special cases enumerated in Article 3 of the Prize Court Convention of 1907, which do not touch upon the point now raised.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has not made clear to the other Powers as yet, the mode in which we are going to treat decisions of the International Prize Court?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already said that the decisions of the International Prize Court will be of cases between belligerent and neutral. The case we should have to consider would be between belligerent and belligerent if we were at war with another Power. I am bound to reserve, as far as the present Government and future British Governments, full liberty to make whatever announcement they think fit, if they should happen to be at war, as to how they should treat merchant vessels converted on the high seas.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to address a dispatch to the Powers, the signatories to the Convention, to make that quite clear?
  Sir E. GREY: I think to announce in advance or tie the hands of this Government or tie the hands of any future Government with regard to the course they might think fit to adopt, if unfortunately we were at war with another Power, would be very unwise.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants, Ireland.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say why the Estates Commissioners are not taking steps to get John Dorgan, of Graigbeg, in the county of Limerick, a farm in lieu of the one from which he was evicted some years ago; is he aware that Dorgan lived in a timber hut erected for him by the people for sixteen years after his evictions; and whether the Estates Commissioners will give this case immediate attention?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject on 15th May last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Seeing the period that has elapsed, what are the Commissioners doing in the meantime, and why do they not get this man a farm?
  Mr. BIRRELL: What I said on a former occasion was that the land is in possession of another tenant, and that this man's name had been noted for consideration in the allotment of lands.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly put his name forward to the Estates Commissioners and see that he gets the farm at once?
  Mr. BIRRELL: He cannot get that farm, because it is in possession of another tenant.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in connection with the completion of the negotiations for the purchase of the Mahony estate at Dooks, the Congested Districts Board would make special inquiry into the claim of the representatives of the late Michael D. O'Sullivan for reinstatement in the holding from which he was evicted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I stated in my reply to the question of the hon. Member on the 1st March, 1910, the Estates Commissioners have carefully considered the application of this man's daughter, and have decided to take no action in the matter. The Congested Districts Board have not yet purchased the estate referred to.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that David O'Neill, of Askeaton, in the county of Limerick, was granted an old age pension by the local pension committee after the Poor Law disqualification was removed on his producing statements from three respectable men in the locality, one of them over eighty years, that he was over seventy years; but as his family was traced in the Census returns, and he not being in it, the pension officer rejected his case; whether, as it was not possible for this man to get any further proof of age, the pension committee would be allowed discretionary power of giving the pension in this and similar cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: David O'Neill's claim was disallowed by the Local Government
  1798
  Board on appeal, as the statements referred to were not sufficient in their opinion to show that he was seventy years old. The Board have no power to allow the pension committee a discretion in such cases.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What business then has the pensions committee there at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling amongst the members of the pensions committee that they will not stand this any longer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We must wait until that feeling grows a little more.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he could say what evidence the Local Government Board required to allow an old age pension in a case like that of Mrs. Anne Madigan, of Foynes, in the county of Limerick, which they disallowed, but which the local pension committee allowed on her producing statements from a local justice of the peace who knew her for fifty years, together with the statements of other old respectable inhabitants in the district, that she was over seventy years, although her name was not on the Census returns; and whether, if these statements were made by statutory declaration, it would alter the decision of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board cannot state in general terms what evidence apart from direct documentary evidence is sufficient to show that a claimant has reached the age of seventy years. Each case is considered on its merits. There was nothing in the evidence submitted in connection with Anne Madigan's claim to show that she was seventy years old. The magistrate in question did not say that he knew claimant for fifty years, but merely that he had known her many years, and that her father had been in his family's employment some fifty years ago. This statement would not be any more effective if made in the form of a statutory declaration.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does the statement of a magistrate count for nothing?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It counts for a good deal, but it does not count for enough.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Catherine Sheehy, of Foynes, was granted

  1799
  an old age pension by the Askeaton pension committee on her producing statements from four old and respectable residents in the locality, one of them being a justice of the peace for the county, that she was seventy years, but notwithstanding the Local Government Board, on the appeal of the pension officer, rejected her case on the ground of no evidence of age; and whether, as this old woman is clearly from her appearance considerably over seventy years, the Local Government Board will, before they reject such cases as this, make some inquiry into the ages of applicants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is the invariable practice of the Local Government Board before deciding a claim to communicate with claimants with a view to obtaining whatever evidence they can offer in support of their claims. In the case of Mrs. Sheehy the statements referred to were not submitted to the Board, the only evidence furnished being a statement by a clergyman that he believed the claimant to be over seventy years of age.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the inspection of the Colomb estate, near Caherciveen, was completed last March, and that the delay had caused loss to the tenants who had not signed purchase agreements; and whether steps would be taken by the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board to complete the sale before Christmas?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate was the subject of direct sale proceedings by the vendor to the tenants, but the Estates Commissioners, on consideration of their inspector's report, came to the conclusion that this was a "congested estate," and are now in communication with the Congested Districts Board with a view to the transfer of the sale proceedings to that Board.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that Charles O'Connell and Michael Sullivan, tenants on the estate of Mr. D. C. O'Connell, near Mastergeehy, were desirous of signing purchase agreements on the terms fixed by the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Congested Districts Board, which had bought the estate, would take the necessary steps to complete the sale?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that the estate referred to is about to be inspected and valued. In the meantime the Board cannot say how they will deal with the two tenants mentioned.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any progress had since been made by the Estates Commissioners towards the acquirement of the untenanted lands of Prospect, county Longford, or had the agent for R. H. Bond, J.P., Fairy Hall, Rathaven, been since communicated with by them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No further progress appears to have been made in this matter.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked when the tenants on the estate of the late Mr. Patrick Rhatigan, J. P., at Lisameen and Drumnacross, county Longford, would receive their vesting orders, having regard to the fact that there was no legal impediment of any kind in settling this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts. It has not yet been reached in order of priority, but when reached it will be dealt with as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will it be reached this year or next year, or have we to wait another five years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not another five years.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked how many Sections in the Irish Land Act, 9 Edw. 7, were definition Sections; how many applications for sales by tenants in cases governed by Section 20 of that Act had been received by the Estates Commissioners up to 1st November, 1911; and had any money been advanced in any case governed by Section 20, 9 Edw. 7?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question contained in the first paragraph is a legal one upon which I do not feel called upon to express an opinion. The Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to state how many applications for sales by tenants received by them are governed by Section 20. Their statistics do not distinguish the cases coming within that Section in which advances have been made.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: If I repeat the question, when can the information be granted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know that I am called upon to express an opinion on the subject. It is a purely legal question.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware of the discontent in West Clare owing to the reluctance of the Government to make the last Land Act operative in regard to the MacNamara and Leconfield estate in West Clare; whether all the difficulties that had been conjured up arose from the belief that the compulsory provisions had become a dead letter; and, if not, whether the Congested Districts Board would proceed without delay to deal with those estates employing, if necessary, their compulsory powers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they have received numerous applications on behalf of the tenants to purchase the estates referred to. Mr. MacNamara has informed the Board that he is not disposed to negotiate with them for a sale of his property. Lord Leconfield has not offered his estate to the Board. The question of taking compulsory proceedings for the purchase of these estates is engaging the attention of the Board, but the money available for compulsory purchase during the present financial year has been allocated.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether any progress had recently been made in regard to the purchase of the Leconfield estate, in West Clare; whether his attention had been called to the fact that, unless the Congested Districts Board acquired without further delay the Kildeemo farm on this estate, there was a danger that the land might be so divided up and disposed of as to defeat the intentions of the last Land Act; and whether steps would be taken to deal with this matter so as to secure the claims of the congests immediately interested?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The farm referred to has not, up to the present, been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will it not be possible to put a certain amount of energy into the application of the last Land Act, so that it may be something of a vital reality?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A great deal of energy has been applied. What is wanted is a little more money.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary what progress the Estates Commissioners were making with the sale of the Mahony estate at Mount Collins,
  1802
  county Limerick, which they had declared to be a congested estate; and whether, as some of the farms on it were to be remodelled and consolidated, he would see the necessity for completing the sale as soon as possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are proceeding with the rearrangement of this estate as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners intended to send an inspector to interview the tenants on the O'Grady Delmege property at Glensharrold, county Limerick, with the view to getting information from them about the estate being a congested one; and, if so, could he say when the inspector would visit the locality?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has not yet reached its turn to be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, and in the meantime I am not in a position to reply to the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will explain why the name of Peter Farrell, who was evicted from the lands of Kilnacarron, county Longford, in 1885, and compelled to emigrate in order to obtain a living for his family, was not included in the list of evicted tenants for whom it was desirable to procure an equivalent holding in county Longford; whether he is aware that this man, who had saved some money in America, came home three times to county Longford since the Evicted Tenants Act was passed, hoping for relief under that Act, and had to return again owing to the action of the inspector, who, without inquiring into the facts, recommended his removal from the list; who was the inspector who did so; and will his case be reconsidered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Peter Farrell's application was received in November, 1903, and his name was provisionally noted for consideration. On inquiry it was ascertained that he and his family were resident in America, and in good circumstances, and that his former holding was in the occupation of another tenant, in whom it had been vested under the Land Purchase Acts. Farrell cannot, therefore, be reinstated in his former holding, and the Commissioners are not prepared to provide him with another holding.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement under the Evicted Tenants Acts for the family of the late Charles Hughes, Brannoxtown, Frim, county Meath, T. Carew, landlord; and, if so, can he state when the application is likely to be considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application on behalf of Ellen Hughes for, reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by her father on this estate, but as the application was not received within the period limited by the Evicted Tenants Act. 1907, the Commissioners are unable to deal with the case under the provisions of that Act.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Chief Secretary how many evicted tenants in county Fermanagh were noted by the Estates Commissioners for restoration to their old holdings or provision of new holdings; and how many of those so noted have been restored or had new holdings provided for them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Seventy evicted tenants or their representatives have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with new holdings in county Fermanagh. In addition the names of thirty applicants for reinstatement in holdings formerly occupied by them in that county are noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board have communicated with Mr. T. Huggard, Denny Street, Tralee, receiver of the John P. Stack estate at Macknaugh, Lixnaw, North Kerry, with a view to purchasing the lands, comprising forty-three small and seven medium sized holdings, all in a congested condition; and whether he can say what is the present condition of the purchase negotiations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have communicated with Mr. Huggard stating that if the owner was willing to negotiate for a sale of the estate referred to the necessary maps and documents should be furnished, but up to the present these have not been received.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether an inspection and an offer to purchase has been made by the Congested Districts Board to Mr. Eyre Stack for his
  1804
  tenanted and untenanted lands at Menvoo and Ballyconnery, North Kerry; and whether he can say what are the prospects of the immediate purchase of the land to relieve local distress and congestion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board had an inspection made of the untenanted lands, and made an offer for purchase, which was refused. The Board are willing to purchase both the tenanted and untenanted lands in question, but Mr. Eyre Stack states that he is not empowered to sell the tenanted lands during his mother's lifetime.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Was not this man's estate before the Congested Districts Board four years ago, and is it not time that compulsory proceedings were taken to acquire it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They will consider that.
  Mr. FLAVIN: They have considered it a long time.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the complaints made by the tenants on the Ormathwaite estate to the agent at the time of and before the purchase agreements were signed as to the continuous damage done to their land by flooding; whether he is aware that the agent expressed his willingness to leave the question to the Estates Commissioners; whether the lands have yet been inspected and reported on; and, if so, what fund or funds will be set aside as a fraction to the tenants before vesting orders are issued to them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As the hon. Member has already been informed, the question of these lands being liable to floods will be considered when the estate is being dealt with in order of priority. The Estates Commissioners hope to have the lands inspected at an early date.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that agreements to purchase this estate were signed five years ago, and nothing has been contributed to the upkeep of the farms by the landlord or the land agent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate those facts to the Board.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether the particulars required by the Congested Districts Board have been supplied by the Land Judge on the John Sands estate, in North Kerry; and, if so,

  1805
  whether an inspection and an offer to purchase has been made by the Board to the Land Judge, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The particulars required by the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of a preliminary inspection of this estate have not so far been supplied to the Board. On receipt of the necessary documents the property will be inspected and a decision arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three months ago the judge of the Court promised to supply particulars? Surely it is time it was done?
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether Colonel Rice, of Bushmount, Causeway, county Kerry, has yet replied to the communication of the Congested Districts Board asking him whether he is willing to sell to the Board; and, if not, whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any action with a view to the compulsory purchase of these congested holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Colonel Rice has not yet replied to the communication asking him whether he desired to negotiate for a sale of the property through the Congested Districts Board. The Board do not at present propose to take any action with a view to the compulsory purchase of the estate, as the money available for compulsory purchases during the present financial year has already been allocated.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the landlord, eighteen months ago, was approached by the Congested Districts Board he treated it with contempt?

  Liscannor Harbour.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that, owing to complaints as to the condition of Liscannor Harbour, the Irish Board of Works undertook alterations and improvements which, amongst other things, involved dredging and deepening by a patent rock-boring apparatus; that a dredger with the apparatus affixed was a few months ago sent to the harbour, and that it accomplished considerable dredging and some boring, when it broke down; that for some weeks the dredger, crew, and staff were at Liscannor doing nothing, waiting for renewal parts which never came, the wages and expenses of the crew going on, until all
  1806
  the money voted for the purpose was exhausted, when the dredger was taken away and the staff recalled, leaving the harbour in an incomplete state and in a much worse condition than before the work was undertaken; and would he say what action was to be taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Works of improvement have been carried out at Liscannor Harbour, including, among other things, dredging out of silt and cutting away of rock. The hon. Member is correct in stating that owing to the exhaustion of the funds allotted for this purpose less rockcutting was carried out than originally intended, and that the rockcutting machinery broke down several times in consequence of the peculiar character of the Liscannor stone. The crew of the dredger were not idle while the machinery was out of action, as they were employed on other works of improvement in the harbour, and during this time a reduced charge was made, including nothing for the hire of the dredger.
  Mr. LYNCH: Does it occur to the right hon. Gentleman that this method of dealing with public works savours less of a responsible Government than of comic opera?
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether it was as a result of the manner in which the works at Liscannor Harbour were carried out that a steamer belonging to a large firm of quarry owners who constantly use the harbour was seriously damaged whilst lying in the harbour, and a claim for heavy damages for repairs made against the Irish Board of Works and the Clare County Council; and whether, in consequence of this claim, officials of the Board of Works had since visited the harbour and caused a notice to be posted that it is unsafe, and that any vessels using the harbour do so at their own risk?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A claim has been made as stated in the question, and the matter is now sub judice. The notice referred to has been posted by the Board of Works.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the effect of the notice posted at Liscannor Harbour declaring it unsafe had been to render it impossible to secure any vessels for the trade of the port, and that the firm of quarry owners employing several hundred workmen in the quarries of the neighbourhood had been obliged to reduce their men to

  1807
  half time, owing to the accumulation of stocks of stone, which could not be shipped, notwithstanding that they had orders and contracts in hand requiring urgent deliveries of the stone, for which, in consequence of these happenings, it was impossible for them to obtain vessels; and whether he could state what the Government proposed to do to render the harbour safe and put it in an efficient condition to enable the trade of the port to be carried on and prevent a complete stoppage of the quarries, and hence of the bulk of the industry of the locality?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. I am informed that a vessel belonging to the firm of quarry owners referred to entered the harbour on 27th October, loaded a cargo and cleared. As I have already informed the hon. Member the question of further improvements is now under the consideration of the Irish Government.

  National Education (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary what are the recommendations of the Commissioners of National Education with regard to the revision of standard numbers, and the estimated cost to the Treasury if such recommendations were agreed to; would the additional expenditure be covered by the saving effected under the head of salaries for teachers in the year 1911–12; and whether, pending an agreement between the Commissioners and the Treasury on the broad question of the revision of the present limits, he would recommend that the teachers who had been promoted should be paid the increase of salary to which they were entitled?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have recommended that the total number of teachers who may be paid salary in the first division of the first grade be increased by 200, and the number in the second division of the first grade by 350, the numbers in the second grade being at the same time reduced by 800. It is estimated that the increased charge might ultimately reach a total of about £18,000 per annum. It is not possible at present to state whether a saving will be effected on the estimated expenditure for salaries of teachers for the financial year 1911–12. As I have already stated I am prepared to recommend to the Treasury an expansion of the standard
  1808
  numbers to meet the case of the forty-seven teachers who have been promoted without a corresponding increase of salary, provided that no further promotions are made save on the occurrence of vacancies, but the Commissioners have declined this offer.
  Mr. JOHN WALSHasked the Chief Secretary why the principal teacher of the national school (Roll No. 10,499, Ireland), who was promoted to a higher grade for satisfactory service on 1st April, 1910, has not yet received his grade salary, although Rule 105 (a) of the Commissioners states that teachers promoted from a lower to a higher grade receive on promotion the salary fixed for the grade to which they are promoted; and is it the intention of the Government to allow the Commissioners to pay to the teacher the arrears due to him, which up to 30th September amounted to £18, or is he to be deprived of his just earnings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This teacher was promoted to the first grade from 1st April, 1910, but cannot at present receive the salary of this grade owing to the limiting numbers in the grade.
  Mr. J. WALSH: Is there no case for inquiry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, this question has been under discussion again and again in the House. The number of persons who are entitled to receive this salary are more than the number of persons who under Treasury Regulations can obtain it. Until there are vacancies these persons must stand out of the increment; till when I cannot say.

  Hague Convention (No. 4).
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the Prime Minister, have His Majesty's Government considered Article 23 (h) of the Regulations embodied in The Hague Convention (No. 4) concerning the laws and customs of war on land, which particularly forbids a belligerent to declare extinguished, suspended, or unenforceable in a court of law the rights and rights of action of the nationals of the adverse party; and, inasmuch as this Convention was signed and ratified as on behalf of Great Britain in 1907 without being submitted to Parliament, does it abrogate the principle of British law that during a war all dealings with the enemy are prohibited and all rights of action on contracts made previously to the war suspended; and

  1809
  do His Majesty's Government hold that such an abrogation of British law can be effected by the action of the Executive alone without the passing of an Act of Parliament, or do His Majesty's Government propose to introduce a Bill giving sanction to such a change in the law?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. With regard to the third question, His Majesty's Government have no present intention of taking any steps to abrogate the rule of the English Common Law referred to, and have not therefore considered the means by which such abrogation would be effected.

  Case of William Hastings, Ballinasloe.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether the fines of 10s. 6d. and £5 respectively inflicted by a court of summary jurisdiction on William Hastings, of Ballinasloe, had yet been recovered from the defendant; whether any steps had been recently taken by the constabulary to enforce the warrants placed in their hands for execution six months ago; and, if not, what explanation he had to offer of this failure to vindicate the law in this particular case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Both of these fines have been recovered from Mr. Hastings.

  Alleged Libel on Master of the Rolls (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary what steps had been taken, or were intended to be taken, by the Law Officers of the Crown against William Hastings, Ballinasloe, for a gross and offensive libel upon the Master of the Rolls in Ireland in his paper called the "Western News," in the month of March or April, 1911; whether he was aware that the judge felt so outraged by the attack made upon his Court that he declined to entertain a motion for attachment, but directed that the papers in the case be sent to the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland; whether this was done; and what action the Law Officers of the Crown proposed to take in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Master of the Rolls in Ireland directed that certain issues of a newspaper called the "Western News," and published by William Hastings, should be submitted to the Attorney-General that
  1810
  he might deal with the same as he thought fit. The Attorney-General has given his best consideration to the publications referred to and is of opinion that, while they contain very disrespectful criticism of the learned judge, it is not clear that they are criminal libels which would justify him in instituting a prosecution.

  University of London Commission.
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether the University of London Commission, appointed in February, 1909, had referred to it the question of the incorporation of the Imperial College of Science and Technology with the university; whether applications to the Treasury made on behalf of the University of London for an increased Treasury Grant have been refused pending the Report of the Royal Commission; and whether recently an increased Treasury Grant has been promised under certain conditions to the Imperial College of Science and Technology?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Royal Commission was appointed to make recommendations (among other things) as to the relations which should subsist between the University of London and the Imperial College of Science and Technology. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative; but an increase has also been promised in the grants available for University College and King's College, for which the London University is financially responsible.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: May I ask how soon the Report is likely to be published?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no information.

  Local Government Appointments (Ireland).
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary whether, owing to a new regulation of the Local Government Board for Ireland, all Irish Poor Law officers are debarred from ever being promoted to the position of Local Government auditor; whether such a rule or regulation is foreign to the regulations of other public departments in Ireland; whether he will give a Return of the names of the gentlemen appointed as Local Government auditors within the past three years, their positions in life previously, and whether, if barristers, they ever acted as barristers

  1811
  in any court of justice; whether there is any new rule in existence in the Local Government Board for the guidance of auditors different from rules issued three years ago; and whether any of the newly appointed auditors have received instructions for the purpose of manufacturing surcharges on the local bodies in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. I am quite prepared to give the Return asked for if the hon. Member will move for it. It is not the practice of the Local Government Board to issue rules for the guidance of auditors in the discharge of their judicial duties. There are no grounds for the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the question.

  Local Government (Triennial Election) Expenses (Return).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will grant the Return of Local Government Triennial Election Expenses for 1905, 1908, and 1911, appearing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Longford?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A Return of Expenses in connection with the elections of 1908 was presented to Parliament on 2nd June last. Having regard to the long period which has elapsed, it would not be possible to say whether a similar Return for 1905 could be given without first communicating with all the local authorities in Ireland. As regards the expenses of the elections in 1911, some of the payments have not yet been made, and consequently it would not be possible to furnish a complete Return for this year.
  Mr. FARRELL: I gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he has no objection to the Return being made, if possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, no. We shall have to wait a bit for the 1911 figures, but for 1905 I am afraid it will cost more than the inquiry is worth.

  Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the effect of the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, compelling all occupying tenants of £4 valuation and under to pay rates on the ratepayers of the urban districts in Ireland has been brought to his notice; whether he is aware that in all or nearly
  1812
  all these cases these tenants are living in unsanitary slum dwellings in a state of chronic poverty and find it more difficult often to obtain a living than even to pay rates; whether as a matter of fact many of these poor people are in receipt of outdoor relief; whether it is the custom and the practice once a year to wipe off all such uncollectable rates as irrecoverable arrears, whereupon the amounts are reassessed and the ratepayers who bear the burden of municipal expenditure find these amounts relevied on them; whether he is aware that most of these tenements are owned by middle and ground landlords who before the passage of the Local Government Act, 1898, paid these rates and recouped themselves in many cases by an increase in rents which have never been reduced in respect of the saving of rates to such landlords under this Act; and if, considering all these facts and the number of these people annually disfranchised by this section, he will introduce a short amending Local Government Act to make the owners or immediate lessors of such properties responsible for the rates and pay the same?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Cork on 16th February last. In the case of rates put forward as uncollectable the circumstances of each person are separately considered. The results of the rate collection generally in Ireland do not bear out the statements in the question regarding the liability to collect rates. Provision is made in the Local Government Act of 1898 (Section 54) for the adjustment of rent in consequence of the transfer of liability for payment of the rate. As I have already stated, I am not prepared to recommend any amendment of the Act in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

  Arrests for Drunkenness, Ireland (Return).
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Chief Secretary when the Return of Arrests for Drunkenness in Ireland, ordered on 7th August last, will be presented?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Return referred to was presented on 30th October. (No. 307.)

  Crookstown Farmer's Employé (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that on 20th October a man in the employment of Mr. Richard Kingston, a Protestant farmer

  1813
  who is boycotted, was maltreated by two men in the vicinity of Crookstown and forcibly prevented from proceeding along the highway to the railway station, whither he had been sent to cart some goods to his employer's farm; and whether any proceedings have been taken against the men concerned in this outrage?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order, Sir. I submit to you that a question should be the means, not of conveying information, but of asking for it. This question says: "A Protestant farmer who is boycotted." I respectfully submit that that should not have been allowed to appear on the Paper; it is a matter of controversy. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask "Is he a Protestant farmer?" and "Is he boycotted?" but not to put in a question a statement of fact that is open to controversy?
  Captain CRAIG: Also on a point of Order. May I say that Mr. Kingston is a Protestant, and is being boycotted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no doubt the better form would have been to have asked whether the man was a Protestant and whether he was boycotted; and the answer of the Chief Secretary would probably have been that he did not know.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then the more reason for the hon. Gentleman not being allowed to state it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I may say I propose to deal with the question by omitting the portions referred to. I am informed by the police authorities that a man employed by Mr. Kingston was stopped on his way to the railway station with a horse and trap on the 20th October by two men. He was not allowed to proceed, but no blows were struck. No proceedings have been taken against the men, who are as yet unidentified, but the police are making inquiries.
  Captain DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Mr. Kingston referred to in the question has been recently engaged in caluminating his Catholic fellow countrymen on English platforms?

  Indian Police (Compensation).
  Mr. MORRELL (for Mr. MacCallum Scott)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in the case of the British subject recently found by the sessions judge of Poonah to have been
  1814
  tortured to death by a sub-inspector of police, any compensation was made to the family of the victim; and whether, in any of the cases where innocent men have been found to have been tortured to death by policemen, any compensation has been given to the families of the deceased?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): No compensation has as yet been paid to the family in this case, but the Government of India have the question under consideration. Under certain conditions the courts can award compensation to persons injured by the commission of an offence, and, when compensation is not awarded by the court, it can be given by a local government. The latter power was exercised in a similar case last year, and the attention of all local governments is being called to the subject.
  Mr. MORRELL: Why could not the compensation have been given immediately, when it was shown that the man had been tortured to death by the Indian police?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The immediate grant of compensation is in the discretion of the Court. In this particular instance the Court did not see fit to recommend compensation until further consideration. Action by the local government has not yet taken place: it is under consideration.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, seeing that the Indian Penal Code provides that the crime of murder is committed by anyone who causes the death of another by intentionally inflicting upon him without lawful excuse such bodily injury as is either likely to cause death, or as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, that the medical evidence in the recent Poonah torture case showed that the man tortured to death was a strong, healthy man, but was so severely beaten by the police that several of his ribs were broken, and that he was ultimately suffocated to death, he can state upon whose advice it was decided that under such circumstances no charge of murder should be brought against the police?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The charge against the prisoner was framed in accordance with usual practice by the committing magistrate, who would be guided by the evidence before him in deciding the issues on which the accused should be tried. I may add that the sessions judge may, if he

  1815
  thinks proper, alter the charge during the hearing of the case. Further, I would observe that the hon. Member's allegations as to the evidence and his whole description of the case are not accurate. The medical evidence was slender and conflicting, and it does not seem to be the case that any ribs were broken, and the deceased was not suffocated to death while in the hands of the police.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any reasonable doubt that the man died as the result of torture by the police?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have only seen the judgment in the case; the evidence has not yet come before me. The hon. Member sets out in his question certain allegations of fact which are not, at all events, borne out by the information which reached me.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Is it not possible for the Indian Government to put an end once and for all to the employment of torture for the extraction of evidence?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member must be aware the Government of India is doing its best to put an end to torture, and, as they have not yet succeeded, it shows it is not possible once and for all to stop it.

  Government of India (Political Department).
  Colonel YATEasked whether, in view of the fact that the reorganisation scheme for the Government of India Political Department was published in the "Gazette" of India, dated 2nd September, 1911, he will cause effect to be given to the suggestion contained in the Secretary of State's Dispatch No. 15, dated 4th March, 1910, that officers of the Bombay Political Department below the rank of second grade political agents shall receive substantially the same terms as may be fixed for corresponding grades in the Political Department of the Government of India; and, with further reference to that same dispatch, can he say why political agents, first and second grade, under the Bombay Government should be excluded from the benefits resulting from the scheme for the Government of India Department, these appointments being admittedly similar in all respects?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State's dispatch, to which the hon. Member refers, is not a public document, but one which conveys in a confidential form
  1816
  his instructions relative to reorganisation. The Secretary of State is not aware how the hon. and gallant Member is in a position to quote from it. He must refuse to discuss the terms of a dispatch the publication of which, or any part of which, except with his sanction and as an official paper, is a breach of official decorum.

  P. and O. Company (Foreign Sailors).
  Mr. MORTONasked how many sailors, other than Europeans, are employed on the steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; and what are the ratings and scale of pay granted to each?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no information on this subject. The company referred to is a private company, with the management of which his Department has nothing to do; perhaps my hon. Friend will address his question to the manager of the company.

  Cholera in the Army in India.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary whether he has any information which he can communicate to the House concerning the outbreak of cholera in the Army in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on my behalf by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 7th inst., to the hon. and gallant Member for North Down.

  Resources of the Empire (Commission).
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked what steps have been taken to carry into effect the resolution unanimously adopted by the Imperial Conference for the appointment of a Commission representative of the United Kingdom and the Dominions on the resources of the Empire; what appointments, if any, have been made; and what are the terms of reference to the Commission.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am unable to add to previous statements on this subject, but it is receiving the careful consideration of the authorities concerned by it.

  Rubber Concessions on Gold Coast.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked what was the area in square miles of the concessions to collect rubber and other forests products granted by Chief Kwesi, of Awichiley, in the Axim district of the Gold Coast to the Cort Development Syndicate of London and recognised by the

  1817
  Gold Coast Government under Certificate of Validity No. 249; whether the rights conferred upon the concessionaire preclude the natives of the district in question from trading freely in the natural products of the soil, as they have been in the habit of doing from time immemorial; and, in that event, whether His Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of putting an end to the granting to European syndicates in the Gold Coast of such monopolistic rights in the natural produce of the soil as fetter the economic development of the native communities and are directly opposed to the policy of His Majesty's Government in the other West African Dependencies of Great Britain?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am unable to state the area of the concession in question, except that, under the law by which the concession is granted, it cannot exceed twenty square miles. The customary rights of the natives as regards shifting cultivation, the collection of firewood, hunting and snaring game are reserved, and, while the grant of the concession must necessarily interfere with the indiscriminate collection of rubber by the natives, there is no prima facie reason, having regard to the large area of the Gold Coast and the small population, to suppose that the chief acted unwisely in making the grant or the Supreme Court in confirming it. An officer of experience in land questions is, however, proceeding shortly to the Colony to inquire into the whole subject of these concessions, and particularly whether any further safeguards for native rights are required. On the receipt of his report I shall consider whether any alteration in the law or practice in the matter is necessary.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Would my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of publishing it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I will consider that if my hon. Friend gives me notice.

  Clubs and Organisations in Hong Kong.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the proposed Ordinance for the regulation of clubs and organisations in Hong Kong is being viewed with apprehension by the leaders of the working classes there as being likely to be used for the suppression of bonâ fide trade unions organisations; and whether, before the Ordinance receives confirmation, especial care will be
  1818
  taken to safeguard the rights of the workers in this connection?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have not yet seen the proposed Ordinance. I will give careful consideration to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman when the matter comes before me.

  Dispatch of Mails in Kerry.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General can he state why the mails, which arrived at Kenmare by the 1 p.m. train on Monday, 30th October, were not dispatched to Sneem until the following day, whereby a delay of nearly twenty-four hours was caused; and can he state why the postal authorities did not dispatch a special car with the mails on the arrival of the train at Kenmare?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Owing to floods the mails did not arrive at the Kenmare Post Office until 1.20 p.m. on the date in question. They could not in any case have reached Sneem until some time after the dispatch at 3.40 p.m. of the night mail from that office; and, as the next general delivery would not take place until the following morning, the circumstances were not considered to be such as to justify the use of a special car.

  Telegraphists Expenses at Naval Review.
  Mr. DAWESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain London telegraphists who were required to perform special services in connection with the Naval Review in June last, have not yet been repaid money expended by them in connection with those duties; and whether he will state when the sums claimed will be repaid?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The telegraphists in question declined to accept the allowances authorised for the duty pending the result of an appeal which they addressed to me for a higher allowance. The decision of that appeal was delayed because the general question of the proper rates in such cases was under consideration. I have now, however, given instructions for the higher allowance to be paid.

  Cork Post Office Inquiry.
  Mr. NEWMANasked what were the findings of the recent inquiry at the Cork General Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to

  1819
  the recent complaints about the delay of press telegrams sent to Cork. The inquiry which I have instituted on this subject has satisfied me that the work is done well at that office. Delays in transmission have been due to pressure of business on other parts of the telegraph system.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the reasons that led to the reducing of the local assistant superintendent, Cork City district, Moymahan, to the lower grade of sorting clerk, and transferring him to Dublin at his own expense; what were the specific charges preferred against the officer and on which he was found guilty; and whether one of such charges was or was not that, at the Cork Parliamentary by-election of 1910, he opened and handed over to be read out at a Nationalist meeting a Unionist circular of importance before delivering the same to addressee on envelope?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The officer to whom the hon. Member refers was reduced in rank because I was satisfied from the evidence taken at a special inquiry that he was unfit to be retained in a position of control. The charge mentioned in the latter part of the hon. Member's question was put forward, but it was not necessary to pursue it, and it had nothing to do with the disciplinary action taken.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask why it was decided to hold the inquiry?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was alleged there had been a leakage from the Post Office through a Post Office official, so it was necessary to inquire into the matter.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied there was no truth in the charge made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: So far as I remember the evidence in this particular part of the case—the case being a very voluminous one—the conclusion arrived at was that this officer might be responsible for the leakage, but it was not proved he was.

  Taxi-cab Strike.
  Captain WARINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increased safety and amenity of the streets due to the absence of taximeter motor cabs owing to
  1820
  the strike, he can see his way in future to limit the licences issued in order to restrict the number plying for hire?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The question of limiting the number of motor cabs involves many important considerations. The Departmental Committee which recently considered the matter refused to recommend limitation, and as at present advised, I do not propose to take any steps in that direction.

  Metropolitan Police (Extra Duty).
  Mr. REMNANTasked if the members of the Metropolitan Police Force who were lately employed on strike duty have been allowed the extra leave to which they are entitled for the extra duty performed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Although it is true that in ordinary practice a constable performs eight hours' duty only, and if required to do more is afterwards allowed time off in compensation so far as circumstances permit; yet at any time, and particularly in periods of unrest he may be required to work longer hours over an extended period in circumstances which preclude the giving of compensatory leave. One of the considerations which influenced my predecessor in granting an increase of pay to the Metropolitan police was that of late they had been required to perform prolonged hours of duty for somewhat extended periods, for which they could not be given compensation in the form of additional leave.
  Mr. REMNANT: Is it not a fact that this extra leave was promised by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor for the extra duty performed at the strike, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson)? Is not extra pay given to the new men now being enrolled, and have not they the advantage, and, while I do not wish to press him, may I ask him if—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking a whole series of questions which it is impossible almost to remember.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire further into the matter.

  Special Constables.
  Mr. GRANTasked what response there has been to the appeal made by the present First Lord of the Admiralty for the enlistment of special constables?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that most of the police authorities are taking active steps on the lines suggested in the Home Office circular, but it would be impossible at present to give any exact information on the subject.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the number of special constables that have been approved and enrolled to date; and whether it is intended that they shall receive instruction in the use and management of the new pattern service pistol which is now being supplied to constables in the Metropolitan area?
  Mr. McKENNA: In some boroughs special constables are being appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act; but most of the police authorities are engaged in registering the names of persons who would be suitable for appointment as special constables, but who will only be so appointed if and when an emergency arises which calls for their services. It would at present be premature to publish figures of the numbers appointed or registered; and it must be the subject of future consideration whether such publication should be made at any time. The answer to the second part of the question is, of course, in the negative.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Will these special constables get any training whatsoever before they are called upon to do duty?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the regulations provide for that, but they will not be appointed except in certain boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act. They will be registered but not appointed.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it a fact that they are serving out in London the new pattern service pistol?
  Mr. McKENNA: No special constable is having a new pattern pistol.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I mean the Metropolitan constables.
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice. The matter does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. GRANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately the number of special constables already enrolled?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already given the reasons why it would be undesirable at the present time to give any figures on the subject.

  Patent Medicines (Stamp Duty).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the yield of Stamp Duty in respect of patent medicines during the year ended the 31st March last was £325,646, which was an increase of £12,532 on the receipts from this source for the previous year; and whether, in view of the present consumption by poor persons of worthless concoctions of this description possessing no curative properties, he will, without further delay, introduce legislation dealing with the matter.
  Mr. McKENNA: I agree with the view of my predecessor, as stated in reply to a question on 26th June last, that the subject of the conditions of the sale of patent medicines might usefully be considered by a Select Committee next Session. I do not understand the hon. Member to suggest that all patent medicines are worthless concoctions.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable in the meantime to issue regulations rendering it compulsory to state upon the labels of bottles containing these medicines what they contain and what diseases they are supposed to cure?
  Mr. McKENNA: The latter information is, I think, already sufficiently stated on the bottle. That is one of the very topics that will be considered by the Committee.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to appoint this Select Committee?
  Mr. McKENNA: Next Session?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Not till then?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.

  Wilful Damage to Property and Arson (Return).
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will grant a Return showing the cost and amount of wilful damage to property and arson in the course of industrial disturbances between the dates 1st November, 1910, and 1st November, 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: I propose to collect information as to the amounts claimed and paid under the Riot Damages Act, and I will communicate the figures to Parliament.

  Primrose League Entertainment (Dartford National Schools).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that bills advertising an entertainment of the juvenile branch of the Primrose League were given to children by teachers inside the national schools, West Hill, Dartford, on 2nd November; and whether it is usual to permit political associations to circulate bills in schools supported by public money?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am informed that the bills referred to were distributed by the teachers to the girls inside the school and that the headmaster of the boys' department handed some of the bills to one of the boys, who distributed them outside the school to other boys. The school referred to is a council school. The matter concerns primarily the local authority, but steps such as this, which tend to bring politics inside the schools, are greatly to be deprecated. I am sending a copy of the hon. Member's question and my answer to the authority.

  Caerphilly School Case.
  Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the Caerphilly School case; whether he is aware that this school is a Church charity, and that in 1906 the Board of Education refused to sanction a scheme for its use proposed by the trustees, and that after years of litigation the Courts decided a few days ago that the scheme put forward by the National Society on behalf of the trustees should be proceeded with; and if he can say how much has been expended in costs in fighting the proposals of the trustees of this Church school?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot accept the statement of facts contained in the second part of the question. I am afraid it is impossible, within the limits of an answer, to set them out, but I am circulating a further answer with the Votes. The Board have not been represented in the proceedings, and I have no knowledge of the amount of coats incurred.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the amount of money spent in costs fighting this case?
  Mr. PEASE: That question should be put to the Attorney-General.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will give notice of that question.

  Dental Inspection (School Children).
  Baron de FORESTasked whether, in view of the condition of affairs set forth in the report of the chief medical officer of the Board, he will require every local education committee to provide for the regular inspection, by a properly qualified dental surgeon, of the teeth of the children under its care?
  Mr. PEASE: I do not think that there is any necessity at present to place dental inspection on a different basis from other parts of the medical and physical examination of the child. Examination of the mouth, including the teeth, is made in all cases by the school medical officer and his medical assistants. In a number of areas dentists have also been appointed to aid the school medical officer in this part of the work, which the Board is carefully watching. The Board do not think it advisable at the present moment to place the additional burden suggested by the hon. Member upon local authorities.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of easing the burden on the local authorities by giving a substantial grant from State funds for the treatment of the children who are discovered to be in need of treatment?
  Mr. PEASE: I can only refer the hon. Member to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week, when he indicated to the House that he was giving consideration to this question.

  Commercial Education (New Staff Inspectorship).
  Mr. KINGasked whether a new staff inspectorship of commercial education has been established; what the duties of the office are; and whether an appointment has yet been made to the office?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The duties of the new staff inspector will be to inspect and report on commercial schools, and to advise the Board as regards the best methods of providing commercial instruction. No appointment has yet been made, but I have several names under consideration.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many weeks or months will elapse?
  Mr. PEASE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether the precise claim put forward by Russia at the recent meeting of the Brussels Sugar Convention was that she should be permitted, during the period of the 1st September, 1911, to 31st August, 1912, to increase her export of 200,000 tons of sugar now allowed to her under Protocol of 19th December, 1907, to 400,000 tons, and whether, in view of the fact that any such proposal must first be approved by the German Reichstag, which does not meet until January, it will be impossible for such increased export to reach western markets before March or April next year?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The precise proposal made by the Russian Delegate was that 400,000 tons should be exported beyond the so-called contingent fixed by the Protocol of 19th December, 1907. I cannot undertake to say what the exact constitutional position of the Reichstag may be in the matter, but, as a matter of fact, that body is now in session.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Was it not intended that they should be permitted to export 600,000 tons in future and not 400,000?
Mr. ACLAND: The proposal was that they should be allowed to export in the following season 400,000 tons in addition to the usual 200,000 tons, making a total of 600,000 tons in all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: Can the right hon. Gentleman now make a statement as to the business for next week?
Mr. McKENNA: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday we shall take the National Insurance Bill. The Prime Minister will make a statement later as to the business on Friday.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May we take it for certain that Clause 59 will be reached on Tuesday?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes. Tuesday is the next but two of the allotted days, and it will come on.
Lord BALCARRES: In that case you will not take the Insurance Bill on Friday?
Mr. McKENNA: We take the Insurance Bill to-morrow and on Monday.

NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of Moneys provided by Parliament, of further contributions towards the cost of providing benefits under any Act of the present Session relating to National Insurance (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. McKenna.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Bill further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 8th November.—NINTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

EXCESSIVE SICKNESS.

  CLAUSE 46.—(Power to Approved Societies and Local Health Committees to Demand Inquiries into Causes of Excessive Sickness, etc.)
  (1) Where it is alleged by any approved society or local health committee that the sickness which has taken place among insured persons for the administration of whose sickness and disablement benefits the society or committee is responsible, is excessive, and that such excess is due to the conditions or nature of employment of such persons, or to bad housing or insanitary conditions in any locality, or to a defective or contaminated water supply, or to the neglect on the part of any person or authority to observe or enforce the provisions of any Act relating to the health of workers in factories, workshops, mines, quarries, or other industries, or relating to public health, or the housing of the working classes, or any regulations made under any such Act, or to observe or enforce any public health precautions, the society or committee making such allegation may apply to the Secretary of State or the

  1827
  Local Government Board, as the case may require, for an inquiry, and thereupon the Secretary of State or Local Government Board may appoint a competent person to hold an inquiry.
  (2) If upon such inquiry being held it appears to the person holding the inquiry that the amount of such sickness has—

  (i.) during a period of not less than three years before the date of the inquiry; or

  (ii.) if there has been an outbreak of any epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease during any less period;

  been in excess of the average expectation of sickness by more than 10 per cent., and that such excess was in whole or in part due to any such cause as aforesaid, the amount of any extra expenditure found by the person holding the inquiry to have been incurred under this Part of this Act by the society or committee in question by reason of such cause shall be ordered by him to be made good in accordance with the following provisions:—

  (a) Where the excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to the conditions or nature of the employment or to any neglect on the part of any employer to observe or enforce any such Act or regulation as aforesaid, it shall be made good by the employer:

  (b) Where such excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to bad housing or insanitary conditions in the locality, or to any neglect on the part of any local authority to observe or enforce any such Act or regulation as aforesaid, it shall be made good by such local authority as appears to the person holding the inquiry to have been in default:

  (c) Where the excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to an insufficient or contaminated water supply, it shall be made good by the local authority or company by which the water is supplied, or which, having imposed upon it the duty of affording a water supply, has refused or neglected to do so.

  (3) Where any such inquiry as aforesaid is held in respect of bad housing or insanitary conditions in any locality, it shall be lawful for the local authority to serve notice upon the owner or occupier of any premises which are the subject matter of the inquiry, and where it is proved that
  1828
  such a notice has been served and that any such extra expense as aforesaid, or any part thereof, has been caused by the act or default of such owner or occupier, the persons holding the inquiry may order the owner or occupier to repay to the local authority the amount of the extra expenditure or part thereof which has been so caused.
  (4) For the purpose of this Section the average expectation of sickness shall be calculated in accordance with the tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of valuations under this Part of this Act, but any excessive sickness attributable to any disease or disablement which is or is due to any disease or injury in respect of which damages or compensation are payable under the Employers Liability Act, 1880, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or at common law, shall not be taken into account.
  (5) A person holding an inquiry under this Section shall have all such powers as an inspector of the Local Government Board has for the purposes of an inquiry under the Public Health Acts, and shall have power to order how and by what parties costs, including such expenses as the Secretary of State or Local Government Board may certify to have been incurred by them, are to be paid, and an order made by such person under this Section may by leave of the High Court be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court to the same effect:
  Provided that a society or committee shall not be ordered to pay the costs of the other party to the inquiry if the person holding the inquiry certifies that the demand for an inquiry was reasonable under the circumstances, and when he so certifies the Treasury may repay to the society or committee the whole or any part of the costs incurred by it.
  (6) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, any sum ordered under this Section to be paid by a local authority may, in accordance with the regulations of the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury, be paid out of the Local Taxation Account and deducted from any sums payable either directly or indirectly out of that account to the local authority.
  (7) For the purposes of this Section any expenditure on any benefit administered by a local health committee shall be deemed to be expenditure of that committee, but any sums ordered to be paid

  1829
  to any such committee under this Section to meet extra expenditure on sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be dealt with for the benefit of deposit contributors in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "where" ["where it is alleged by any approved society"], to insert the words "after two valuations by approved societies have been made under this Part of this Act."
  I am very sorry to have been unable to give longer notice of the Amendment. It raises a question which I think we ought to discuss before we discuss the Clause in detail. The Committee will recollect the whole of the operation of this Clause, be it good or be it bad, depends upon the average expectation of sickness. All the inquiries that will be made will go to ascertain whether or not there is an excessive sickness exceeding the average expectation. It is only in those cases where the average is exceeded by a certain margin that any consequences will ensue. There is no such thing as an average expectation of sickness as far as we are able to ascertain at the present time. The effect of the Amendment will be this. The Clause, when it is passed, will be held in suspense until two valuations have been made. It will be held in suspense for six years, in the course of which we shall have experience of the working of the scheme as a whole, and at the end of which we shall have figures at our command upon which we can say with definiteness and accuracy what is really the average expectation of sickness.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I should like to ask you, Sir, whether you are going to permit a Second Reading Debate, and, at any rate, whether this is not contrary to a ruling you gave against omitting Sub-section (1)? It seems to me the discussion would cover the same ground as if someone moved the omission of Sub-section (1). What kind of discussion are we going to have?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On a further point of Order. I am sorry I only saw the Amendment just a minute before I came into the House. It seems to me to raise the very question which must come for discussion on Sub-section (2) as to whether the inquiry into the amount of sickness shall extend to a period of not less than three years before the date of
  1830
  the inquiry. That is a question which must be debated on Sub-section (2). It seems to me, if the Amendment comes at all, it ought to come on Sub-section (2). It is an anticipation of the Debate which must necessarily come on that Sub-section.
  Mr. FORSTER: I venture to observe that when we come to those particular words we shall only have to discuss the particular question and not whether it is desirable for the Clause to be held in suspense until the data has been accumulated.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You can, instead of making it three years, make it six years.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can rule the Amendment out on the ground suggested to me. I understand, of course, the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the argument that these powers ought not to be exercised until certain data has been accumulated.
  Mr. FORSTER: That is so. I propose to confine myself strictly to the question of the average. We have absolutely nothing upon which we can go, and, even if we passed this Clause as it stands or with some alterations which we think necessary, we shall have no figures on which the Clause can be put into operation. We have no figures to which we can point as giving the average expectation of sickness in the country as a whole. We have no figures to which we can point as establishing an average expectation of sickness in the societies themselves. We have no figures in respect of the county or in respect of any particular trade, and I submit, unless we are able to point to figures upon which some reliance can be placed, it would not be fair to give to any body of persons the powers you propose to give them under this Clause. I may be told there are certain figures available, that certain diseases have to be notified to the medical officers of health, and so on, but that does not cover the whole ground that is going to be covered by the operation of this Clause. There will be absolutely nothing to guide us in the case of the deposit contributor. It is possible the rate of sickness in the case of the deposit contributors will be very largely in excess of the average expectation of sickness amongst the members of the friendly societies.
  What is to be the average rate upon which the machinery of this Clause is to

  1831
  be set in motion? I have seen some very interesting figures which go to show how impossible it would be with our present limited knowledge to lay down any figures as to the average expectation of sickness. I will only quote one or two. I take the percentage of consumptives. The deaths from consumption out of the total deaths in the case of chemical manufactures is 9 per cent., and in the case of tin miners 38 per cent. Those, of course, are the deaths, and I do not doubt the total cases of illness would bear some corresponding ratio to them, but I say you have nothing on which you can base the average expectation. I can quote a whole series of other figures relating to other trades and occupations, but I think it is common knowledge you cannot base any expectation from the figures relating to a particular trade. You have got no figures available for the country as a whole.
  4.0 P.M.
  You have got no figures available from the experience of the society, because up till now the societies have dealt only with good lives, and they have rejected anyone whose condition was not satisfactory. You cannot base the average expectation of people whom you are going to bring into insurance on the experience of the friendly societies. Why do I suggest this Bill should be kept in suspense until two valuations have been made? I do it for this reason. In the course of the six years there will have been accumulated a great mass of figures absolutely reliable, figures relating to the country as a whole, to each particular county, to each part of a county, and to each particular trade or industry; and upon these figures you will be able to make up your mind whether you are going to base your average expectation of a particular locality, on the average expectation of the country as a whole, or on the expectation of a particular society or a particular industry which might be affected. I say, finally, you have no right to go to any person or any authority and tell them to take proceedings which would entail such serious consequences as will be entailed under this Clause with either false or faulty figures.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has rather been in the habit of complaining that we table our Amendments without giving any notice at all. I am not sure he did not make such a complaint yesterday. At any rate he
  1832
  complained we only gave him forty-eight hours' notice. Now I have only had forty-eight seconds' notice of his Amendment. It is a very important one, and if I had only had half an hour's notice before coming down to this House I think I should have been able to obtain figures which would prove to the hon. Gentleman that all his difficulties and anticipation of difficulties are mythical. But what does this Amendment mean? It means the postponement of the operation of this Clause for eight years. The first valuation is to take place three years from the commencement of the Act, and therefore it will be six years from the commencement of the Act before the valuations as a basis of comparison will have been made. You will have to wait for a full year after that before you can bring the Clause into operation, and, therefore, practically the minimum period of years within which you can get the Clause into working order will be eight years. Surely if the effect of the Clause will be to strengthen the action of the authorities in purging the land of slums and insanitary property the sooner it comes into operation the better. May I point out that we are now in many places able to tell whether there is a larger number of deaths or sickness in a particular neighbourhood owing to an epidemic. We have those figures at our disposal at the present moment. I fear that this Amendment is prompted by a dislike of the Clause itself.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right, hon. Gentleman has no right to say that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have as much right to say it as any hon. Gentleman opposite. I am only saying what I think. I say the object of this Amendment is to put off the operation of the Clause for eight years, and I cannot imagine that anyone who is really fond of the Clause would be exceedingly anxious thus to postpone its working. I think I am entitled to draw the inference from the hon. Gentleman's own action that he is not particularly in love with the Clause. I do not think I am passing any reflection on the hon. Gentleman. After all, it is purely a matter of opinion whether the Clause is good or bad. I think there are hon. Members behind the hon. Gentleman who think it is bad, and are prepared to say so. Therefore it is not a reflection on him to say he may possibly think it is a bad Clause. If he does think so he is perfectly right in putting off its operation not for eight years but for eighty years. I

  1833
  hold, on the other hand, the Clause will have a very useful effect in improving the sanitary conditions of this country, and therefore I beg to oppose the Amendment.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The right hon. Gentleman has really recognised the difficulties of this matter. After all, my hon. Friend is asking that this Clause should not come into operation until we have got the necessary information. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we have got it. I do not quite know what information we have. We have the death rate in certain neighbourhoods, but I do not know that anywhere we have got the average expectation of sickness. Even if we had that I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Clause which applies not merely to localities, but to trades, and, though you may have the average expectation of sickness in certain localities, which I doubt, does he really mean to say that we have the average expectation of sickness in every trade in the country? The thing is perfectly impossible, and when we come to that part of the Clause I intend to move its omission. You cannot get to know what the average sickness is in any particular trade. It not only varies in different trades in the same locality, but it varies in the same trade in different localities and in different seasons. Sickness in the pottery trade is different to that in the steel trade, which may be carried on in the same locality. The average sickness in the steel trade in the Black Country may be perfectly different to the average sickness in the steel trade in the neighbourhood of Sheffield. Does the right hon. Gentleman really pretend that we have any figures at all dealing with the average sickness in these trades? He cannot say that we have, and surely then my hon. Friend is only acting in the interests of the Clause when he moves that it shall not come into operation until you have information on these very difficult questions. I do not like Amendments moved at the last moment, but I think I am entitled to say we have suffered a good deal more from that than has the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not without putting them on the Paper.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We get a new Clause circulated to us in the early morning and we have at once to consider what Amendments must be put on the Paper, otherwise we may have no opportunity of moving them. We have
  1834
  suffered a great deal from that. I think the right hon. Gentleman must meet us on this point. He must admit that we have absolutely no data upon which this Clause can be carried out, and, therefore, there is good reason for postponing its operation.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: If there are really no data it is quite impossible that the conditions of this Clause can be fulfilled, and, therefore, we cannot do any harm by passing it now. The whole conception of the Clause is on a numerical basis, and if you have no figures it cannot possibly produce the ill effects hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to fear. I admit that the data we have is very imperfect, but it does seem unreasonable to postpone the operation of the Clause for six or eight years, when during that period we shall be collecting figures which will be of great value. Although the figures we have at present are very imperfect that is not a good reason for postponing the Clause. In certain districts figures are available, in other districts where no figures are available the Clause cannot of course be put into force.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not think the observations which the right hon. Gentleman applied to my hon. Friend and the suggestion that my hon. Friend's speech showed that he was adverse to the Clause were fair, and for the reason that whether we like it or not there is no doubt the Clause imposes a very serious responsibility upon local authorities and upon landlords. Whether it is right to impose that liability is another question, but if it is done they ought to be given a fair chance of meeting it. There ought to be something definite, some intelligible standard by which their conduct can be judged, and unless you have some such standard it is not fair to subject them to that responsibility and that risk. Under present circumstances, until a certain period has elapsed, there cannot be any fair standard by which that responsibility can be judged. No notice appears to be taken yet of Sub-section (4), under which apparently the Insurance Commissioners are to draw up tables containing the average expectations. May I point out that the sickness rate will probably vary very largely in consequence of the passing of the Act itself, so that the rates which may be deduced from the facts preceding the Act may be quite different from the sickness rate which operates subsequent to it.

  1835
  In Germany the sickness rate has gone up enormously since the insurance provisions came into force. I do not say that that is entirely due to malingering; it may be due to a better diagnosis of cases where there is sickness. But the fact remains that the sickness rate has been entirely different since the Act came into operation. That will be so in this country. It may be higher or it may be lower. In Germany it has been very much higher. It is a constantly increasing rate since the Act has been in force there. Whatever principle you adopt I still submit that there ought to be some fair standard arrived at after the Act has been in operation. It would not be fair for the Insurance Commissioners, as they could under Sub-section (4), to draw up tables based on very indefinite data, on insufficient data and experience, and for authorities and persons to be made liable in consequence of those tables to the onerous responsibilities which this Clause imposes. Whether one likes the Clause or not, it is perfectly fair and legitimate, with regard to these tremendous responsibilities, to say that the people shall not be made subject to them unless there is some fair, clear, intelligible and reasonable standard by which that responsibility may be adjudged.
  Mr. BOOTH: The position taken up by hon. Members opposite seems to be illustrative of the suggestion "Don't go into the water until you can swim." I should think a much more important thing about this Clause is to have it put into operation in some moderate way. It will take a great many years before authorities all over the country will be enlightened enough to pursue a bold policy. But it may be possible that in early days some of the more enlightened authorities will be prepared to give a lead, and I think if we decline to delay the commencing period of this Clause it will be a serious warning to all backward authorities throughout the land.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I listened with interest to the observations of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones). I should agree with his view if it were not for the existence of the words "expectation of" in this Clause. If we have the expression "ascertained sickness," I see no particular reason why the Clause should not be feasible to carry out. The medical officer of health for the county is at the present time able to give us reliable
  1836
  statistics as to the amount of ascertained illness in a certain district, but I see a difficulty if you keep in the words "expectation of," for it becomes a hypothetical question at once. The difficulty will arise in a purely agricultural district where mines or quarries are developed, or in a mining or quarrying district where a large mine or quarry is abandoned. We know from the Manchester Unity tables that we may expect, where mining becomes the chief industry of a locality, an increase of 72 per cent. in the average illness over all ages. If the working of this Clause depends upon a hypothetical estimate, it is really impracticable, even with the figures that we have at the present time. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to drop that somewhat impracticable phrase "expectation of," and find another one. If he does so I shall not find it possible to oppose the Clause in its present form.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
  Mr. HARWOOD: I wish to offer a few words on behalf of the employers. I suppose most Members of the House must have a sort of feeling that the employers, in regard to this Bill, have sat very quiet. I do not know whether it is an ominous quietness—the quietness which sometimes precedes an earthquake—I hope it is not, and, so far as the signs go, I think it is not. I believe that patriotism will guide them in this matter, and that without grumbling they are prepared to take their share of responsibility. There is no doubt that the Clause does open up an enormous responsibility. I have some Amendments down, because I think the employers have a right to be guarded against any ill-consequences that may follow. I am asked to state, on behalf of the employers, that it has never been suggested by any organisation of employers that this Clause should be postponed. I am told that there is a general feeling that although it is very hypothetical, and must be hypothetical, and will require great care in working, it is a very wise thing that we should start working, and employers are quite prepared to take their share of being wound up, because they feel they will really gain by the local authorities and the water supply and sanitary arrangements being brought up as they should be. The employer will gain more than anyone. I do not think there is the least desire on the part of the employers to postpone this Clause.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think it is at all clear in the Bill whether it is to be a general average throughout the country or whether it is to be restricted to each of the approved societies. The answer to that question will be very important. Sub-section (4) simply speaks about tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of valuations under this Part of the Act. It is important to know whether the average expectation is going to be the expectation of each approved society, or whether it is to be the expectation of the general rate all over the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to include the expectation of the Post Office contributors. It is quite impossible to know what the expectation of Post Office contributors is going to be until sufficient time has been allowed for experience.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That point really arises on Sub-section (2). I agree that the average by society would work out very inconveniently and inequitably. It must be the average of a community as a whole.
  Mr. FORSTER: The average, such as it is, is going to be in accordance with tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners. I see in Sub-section (4) that for the purposes of this Section the average expectation of sickness shall be calculated in accordance with tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of valuations under this Part of the Act. Would not that lead one to think that the tables will not be ready until at any rate the first valuation takes place. I do not want to have any bitterness of feeling upon this matter. It is really an important point. You are going to arm local authorities and local committees with great power. It is desirable that there should be accurate information upon which those powers are to be exercised. I want to make a suggestion. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has not had time to consider this Amendment. I am sorry for that. Could we not defer it until the first valuation? If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (4) they will see that the very tables on which this Clause is to rest are to be made by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of the valuation. They cannot make a list of the average expectation of sickness before the first valuation takes place.
  Mr. BOOTH: Then you will get your way without the Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: The first valuation depends upon the tables of the average expectation of sickness. The Insurance Commissioners will not be able to frame their tables until the time of valuation comes.
  Mr. BOOTH: Then why postpone it?
  Mr. FORSTER: Then why not say so definitely? What I am anxious to guard against it that there should not be some capricious use made of the powers under this Clause which will inflict hardship and injustice upon either individuals or local authorities. If you are going to set existing health authorities in opposition to the authorities you create under this part of the Bill, you are going to threaten great danger to your scheme as a whole. I am anxious to avoid that, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he agrees that there is no real difference between us, might meet us by modifying the actual provisions in Subsection (4). One word in self-defence as to the shortness of notice. I apologise to the Committee for the short notice I have given. The right hon. Gentleman often has to spring surprises on the Committee. He has at his command a large and able staff to assist him. I am sorry to say I have no large or able staff to assist me. I really have to do all my own work for myself. I am very sorry I had to spring the Amendment upon the Committee.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When I made the observation as to shortness of notice it was not by way of attacking the right hon. Gentleman, but it was an opportunity to retort to an attack he made upon me. The questions which arise now are questions of practical moment, but they really cannot be discussed here. They arise upon Sub-section (2), where you can deal practically with all these proposals, as, for instance, the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Bathurst). I think that ought to be carefully considered. Before we arrive at that point I shall have to take an opinion. I have a very able body of advisers and I rely considerably on what they say, and by the time we arrive at that point I shall be in a better position to give an opinion. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might withdraw his Amendment at the present moment. If it is defeated we shall not be able to discuss the same matter again. I do not think Sub-section (1) should take all our time before 7.30.
  Mr. FORSTER: My object is to improve this Bill. I do not want by taking the

  1839
  division now to rule out discussion germane to the words when we come to them. Therefore with great reluctance I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "by an approved society or local health committee" ["where it is alleged by any approved society or local health committee."]
  I put down this Amendment in order to raise in a more convenient form the question we discussed in Committee yesterday—namely, whether the approved societies and the local health committees should have their powers limited to insurance matters so far as possible, or whether they should also have power over local government matters. I do not want to go over the general argument I addressed to the Committee yesterday, but as was pointed out by more than one speaker, and particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a great deal of my objection could be raised more appropriately upon this Clause. It is in deference to that that I wish to limit my objection to giving these powers to approved societies or local health committees. The powers given in the Clause are of a far-reaching character. They not only refer to the conditions and nature of employment of the persons affected, or to bad housing or insanitary conditions, but they really relate to every duty thrown upon any local authority by any statutory power dealing with questions of this character, so that without any limitation, if this Clause should pass in its present form, the new committees or the approved societies would have the power of interference in all the duties now carried out by the various local authorities regarding questions of health or sanitation. The question is whether that is desirable or not. I think it is very undesirable. The insurance committees, as constituted, should carry out their insurance powers and duties in such a way as if they were limited to those duties and powers. They are not constituted from the point of view of local administration or local government. Their constitution has been settled by Clause 43, and, of course, it is quite clear that, as regards their constitution, they are not in any sense representative of the bodies as regards questions of this kind. I think it is desirable to limit their powers, but what
  1840
  is the position of those whom they may attack? They may attack under this Clause all the self-governing authorities on matters of health and matters of sanitation. They may attack them on very indefinite grounds.
  As regards this question of average expectation, it was pointed out that, if they succeed, they can throw liabilities upon them which will cast a very heavy expenditure, not only upon individuals—I am not dealing with that side of the case—but upon local authorities. It was pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and I agree, that there are already existing powers under our health Acts and local Acts, which are extremely complicated and numerous, by which questions of this kind can be raised if the local authorities or the health authorities are not properly performing their duties. But the deduction which I draw from that is not to give similar overlapping powers to bodies which ought to concern themselves with other duties, but to leave the local authorities under a liability which at present exists and which, if they are not properly exercised, are only not so properly exercised, because of the numbers and complexities of these various Acts. In fact, the difficulties does not arise from the want of powers, but from the multiplicity of powers; and I am quite certain that anyone who has to deal with question of local government, either from a local point of view or from an administrative point of view, would say they were caused, not by the absence of remedies, but by their multiplication, and in the multiplicity of possibly inconsistent remedies really in despair very often you get no remedy at all. I do not want to strike out the Clause altogether. If there is any doubt as regards existing powers, everything that is sought to be done under the Clause would, according to this and consequent Amendments, be in the power of existing people to enforce who now have powers against local authorities under the existing Local Government Act. Is not that sufficient? Although I dislike the Clause, I should not oppose it on the ground that it might not do certain good as regards improvement in matters of sickness or conditions of employment of poor people or as regards the Housing Acts and Acts of that kind. That is not my opposition. My opposition is this. You are giving to a body really constituted for different purposes extraordinarily wide powers to interfere with matters of local government. That is very unwise. You

  1841
  are giving these powers in respect of matters where at present there is ample remedy, and the difficulty arises from the multiplicity rather than the want of remedies. Lastly, if you look at the health committees themselves, I think their legitimate business is less likely to be properly performed by adding duties of this kind for which they are not properly constituted, and as regards the local authorities, you do not improve efficiency of administration by giving too large powers of outside interference.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We discussed these powers yesterday, but we could not very well, upon Clauses 43 and 44, put in the case of the Government, and therefore, by the leave of the Committee, I will put the case of the Government on the point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged us now. First of all, he objects to the powers given to the health committee and the societies. He asserts that it is a general interference in the matters of health with the existing powers of existing authorities. In the second place, he says the powers are sufficient now under existing Acts. Is that a fair statement?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Perfectly fair.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These are the propositions which I propose to traverse. I am very glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman that he does not object to the principle of the Clause as a whole, but wants to make Amendments to it, and I rather gather that is the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), and the hon. Member (Mr. Cassel). There is no proposal here to interfere with local authorities in any way, except that which is already enshrined, or, I think, embalmed is a better word, in Acts of Parliament, because most of them are mummies. They are not exercised, there is no life in them; they are pure dust, and they only have the form and the features of life. There is none of the spirit and the soul in any of these powers. That is the reason why we propose that we should have some powers of this kind in order not to interfere with local authorities, but I accept the word of the hon. Member (Mr. Harwood) to wind them up. There are no new powers here. The only change is that organisations which are created by this Act are to have powers conferred upon them of setting the law in motion and that you are going to alter the remedy by resorting to the old common
  1842
  law method of obtaining redress in a court by pecuniary damages.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Why do not you resort to the existing powers of the law? They are quite adequate." They may or may not be adequate for the purpose of enforcing the law, but the money which is lost to a society owing to the neglect of a local authority or of a householder or an employer to carry out Acts of Parliament cannot be covered by any satisfactory method. That is all we do. We set up here machinery, not for interfering with the local authorities, but to enable the societies which are damnified by the inaction, the illegal action or the neglect of authorities, owners or employers, to carry out the provisions of the law to recover compensation for the loss they have sustained. I again say there is no new principle, and there is no rival authority. If an individual suffered wrong from either a local authority or a neighbour either due to defective drains, to leaky roofs, or to anything which impairs or imperils the health, or even to anything which offends his nostrils, he can obtain pecuniary damages in a court of law, but if a society suffers damages to the extent of thousands a year owing to the same cause there is no remedy at all in law. All we propose is that the old common law right which is enshrined in the law of England shall also be extended to these societies. It is as old as the law of this land. It is given to individuals. Why should you not give it to a corporation of workmen to protect their rights, so that where their rights are trampled upon, where they suffer in health and in pocket they should be able to recover by some single process of law from those who are responsible for the loss. That is not a new principle. It is a very old one. It is as old as this House and the other. I should like to show later on how societies suffer financially owing to neglect of the sanitary laws of this country and how now they are completely stripped of any remedy. I will give one or two cases later on.
  What are the main complaints of these societies with regard to these extra causes of ill-health which add to their pecuniary benefit? Bad drainage, bad water supply, bad housing, factories and workshops not in accordance with the conditions of the law, and the offenders are local authorities and private individuals. We have had years of public health Acts in this country; we have had Local Government

  1843
  inquiries without number; we have had recommendations of medical officers of health and of inspectors of the Local Government Board. I shall be able to prove that they are absolutely helpless in hundreds of cases and have been for years, not because the Local Government Board has neglected its duty. On the contrary, anyone who peruses their report will see how very concerned they have been about this for years. It is purely because they are armed with the clumsiest, rustiest weapon in the whole army of British law—the mandamus, a perfectly worthless weapon. I knew that when we were fighting the Education Act in Wales. I knew that as long as they had only the mandamus it was not of very much use. [An HON. MEMBER: "Swansea."] What was the use of the mandamus in Swansea? None. You had to alter the law and apply some other method. The Swansea case is an admission of what I am trying to prove. Though it was directed against my Friends and myself I admit that the second weapon is effective while the first is not. I will read an extract from the chief medical officer of the Local Government Board in his review of the year 1909. He says:—
  "A story of neglect of elementary sanitary work outstands in a large proportion of the current reports by medical inspectors of the Board on local sanitary circumstances. A not inconsiderable number of the smaller towns and urban districts and many of the rural districts, which have within their area portions presenting urban characteristics, are characterised by continuance, more or less, of the filth nuisances which were fairly general fifty years ago, but which has since then been abolished in the larger and better governed towns."
  If anyone will go through these reports he will find that there are local authorities by the score which never prosecute offenders against the Public Health Acts, which keep no records of and never even investigate insanitary conditions, which have no sanitary committee, which systematically refuse to carry out the recommendations of their sanitary officials, which have in force neither by-laws nor adoptive Acts, and which neglect to apply such by-laws and Acts when adopted.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I will, if the Noble Lord will wait. There is more than a suggestion in some of the reports that there are local authorities which are manipulated by interested members for their own purposes. Now I am going to give the names. This is what the report
  1844
  for 1907 says about Thingoe, a rural district, in Suffolk:—
  "Speaking generally, the dwellings of the working classes are in an extremely unsatisfactory condition. Many cottages are beyond repair and should be condemned as unfit for habitation, but the district council have not so far taken action in this sense. Younger and less encumbered married couples find increasing fault with their surroundings, and ultimately leave the district and even the country. The rural district council have no sanitary committee and no by-laws. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the district council are to blame for the dilapidation and neglect into which the dwellings of the working classes have been suffered to fall."
  The Local Government Board attribute the blame to the district council.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: Did the Local Government Board take any action?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am going to show that they did take action in certain cases. One of the cases in which they did this was a case where an epidemic followed after repeated representations by the Local Government Board and the refusal of the local authority to carry them out.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Would it be not impossible for that to happen now if the machinery of the Housing and Town Planning Act were put in operation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very hopeful of great results from the Housing and Town Planning Act, but I wish to see some stimulus given to the local authorities.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Have not the county councils now the power to give that stimulus?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to see the county councils take action. I am sorry to say that in Wales there are cases of neglect by local authorities. I have here a report for 1908 for the rural district of Newtown and Llanidloes, Montgomery, which gives a very pitiable account of the sanitary condition of that rural area. It is one of the most beautiful districts in the whole of Wales. The report says:—
  "Conditions of dwellings very unsatisfactory. Nuisances abound in the district from foul pit privies, from absence of house drains, and from accumulations of manure and filth in the neighbourhood of dwellings. Water supplies frequently liable to pollution. Condition of dairies and cow-sheds very unsatisfactory. No legal proceedings for abatement of nuisances taken in the district for many years. Nuisances recur again and again."
  Here is the report for 1907 with respect to the rural district of Helmsley, Yorkshire:—
  "The houses are damp; rain-water spouting is absent, and there is no paving or impermeable covering

  1845
  of the ground around them, so that the rain water from the roofs soaks into the foundations… The principal diseases are rheumatism and phthisis (consumption), which are known to be associated with dampness of soil and of dwellings.
  "A district 'abounding with nuisances,' yet, 'so far as I could ascertain, no legal proceedings for the abatement of a nuisance has ever been taken in the district,' owing to 'the dislike of the Council to any active interference in such matters.'"
  These are the people who object to interfere in such matters. The report for Heckmondwike, Yorkshire, for 1908, says:—
  "… Exceptionally high general death rate and infant mortality, and continual presence of infectious diseases like enteric fever. The Heckmondwike Urban District Council have in many directions grossly neglected their duties as a sanitary authority, and notwithstanding their ineffective administration they have not succeeded in keeping down the rates."
  I have here the report as to Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire, for 1907, and this is the answer to the hon. and learned Member. He asked if the Local Government Board had done anything in the matter. The report says:—
  "District inspected in 1879 by Dr. Parsons, who, in his report, made a series of recommendations for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the district, all of which appear to have remained unheeded up to the date of the present investigation."
  That is over thirty years ago.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was done?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So far as I see, all they did was to make recommendations. After all, the only thing they could do was to proceed by mandamus. The report for Knaresborough, Yorkshire, for 1908, says:—
  "Considerable amount of slum property, containing old back-to-back houses with insanitary surroundings, such as unpaved and slop-sodden yards, filthy middens, and other nuisances. Some of these hovels owned by members of the district council."
  In the report for the borough of Brackley, Northamptonshire, for 1909, there is a description given of the insanitary state of dwellings, and it ends up with these words:—
  "The repeated complaints of the medical officer for health with respect to such dwellings have been ignored."
  The report for 1907 regarding Morley Borough, Yorkshire, ends up by saying:—
  "Town council disinclined to accept advice of their sanitary officers."
  In regard to Harrogate, Yorkshire, the report for 1908 says:—
  "Artisans' dwellings with defective drains and unpaved back yards.
  "Certain members of the town council openly advocate deviation from by-laws. Majority of the standing committee engaged in the building and allied trades."
  1846
  The report regarding Tredegar Urban District, Monmouth, for 1900, says:—
  "Some of the slum property in Tredegar is owned by members of the District Council."
  The district suffers a good deal from typhoid and other diseases.
  The report as to Merthyr Tydvil for 1905 says:—
  "Coal and iron companies own much house property in Merthyr and Dowlais, and some of it is unfit for human habitation."
  Merthyr has a specially high zymotic death rate—nearly twice that of England and Wales as a whole.
  The approved societies will have to bear the brunt of that. I could give no end of cases. These are only samples of those I have got. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite wish, I shall give a few more. Here is one from Essex:—
  "Many houses are certainly in very bad repair. Many nuisances exist which should be abated. The insanitary shortcomings have been reported, but no action has resulted."
  We have reports of a similar nature from many other places. I have one from Dunmow. The hon. Member opposite talked about the Dunmow Friendly Society.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is one of the best.
  Mr. JOWETT: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer print these reports in the form of a White Paper?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very good suggestion. I will put a number of them in a White Paper.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman summarise these reports and show how many out of all the local authorities he can frame indictments against? The state of things described in the reports which he has read is not general.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord did not do me the honour of listening to the summary which I have already given. [The right hon. Gentleman repeated the summary.] I am quite prepared to publish the reports in the form of a White Paper with the dates.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are they all dated?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Some are for 1905, others for 1907, and others for 1908. The hon. Gentleman does not mean these to go back twenty or thirty years. The conditions described in the reports existed

  1847
  in the last ten years. The year 1905 is the very oldest I have quoted. That is not very far back. You have thousands of people living in these dilapidated leaky cottages, running risks of phthisis, enteric and rheumatism. What is the remedy they have got? I do not know whether there is a remedy at common law which would apply against the landlord, but even if there is, how can you expect a poor cottager to bring an action against his landlord? Supposing he had a remedy, you have no divisional court in the district, and the landlord might appeal to the House of Lords. What remedy is there in that case for the occupier of a cottage?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The Local Government Board could be appealed to.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am coming to the Local Government Board remedy. The individual has no remedy at all, and I will also point out that the remedy of the Local Government Board is of no account. Why? Because there is only one thing they can do, and that was to imprison the whole of the members of the councils. They could do it by mandamus. Whether they ought to do it or not is another matter. At any rate, there ought to be a remedy short of that, because Government Departments are very reluctant to take the step against members who are acting on councils without fee or reward, of bringing them before the Court and sending them to prison. It is a most difficult thing, and I have no doubt hon. Members who have considered the question of mandamus realise that this is by no means an easy matter. That the Local Government Board should bring the process of mandamus into operation is practically to say that there is no remedy at all. I take another case in order to show you how it affects the societies. This is the case of Lincoln. The authorities of the city of Lincoln were warned as early as the 11th June, 1885, by the Local Government Board that their local water supply was liable to pollution, and were told that the Town Council would incur grave responsibility if disease should further spread in the city from pollution of the water supply. That was in 1885. Very little was done by way of remedying that state of things. Again, in 1894, Dr. Wheaton, of the Local Government Board, made another inspection of the waterworks of Lincoln, and in remarking on the
  1848
  obvious defects of the water supply, said that the comparative exemption of the city of Lincoln from cholera and enteric fever in recent years should not be allowed to create a false sense of security, and that it was no use to wait until an epidemic occurred before obtaining a supply of pure water. Many other people and medical officers of health directed attention to the same defects. Little was done by way of remedy, and in 1905 there was a serious outbreak of enteric fever, directly traced to the pollution of the water supply. Over 1,000 persons were attacked by the disease and over 100 died. After that, Lincoln took steps to place its water supply in order, but not before there had been that serious outbreak of fever which fulfilled the predictions of evil of 1885 and 1894, and the repeated warnings. I want to show the effect of the Clause upon one society in Lincoln. We have had these figures from the lodges of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows in Lincoln. In 1903 the amount of full sick pay was £2,178. In 1904 it was £2,133. It went down for exactly the same number of members. Now came the year of the epidemic. The total amount of sick pay went up by 40 per cent. in that year, and the society lost £800. That was a society of 3,842 members. Supposing you had this Bill in operation and instead of having to deal with 3,842 members you were to deal with all persons who were insured, men and women, numbering something like 10,000 or 12,000, the loss of the society, instead of being £800, would have been £4,000. What remedy would you have had? The local landowner has got his remedy in the Courts, but these societies, losing between £3,000 and £4,000, with no means of making it up except by levy on the working man, have practically no remedy. They might have gone to the Local Government Board and said, "Why do you not put in jail the Lincoln Town Council?" and tried by mandamus to have justice done to them. The proposal here is simply the proposal of old English Common Law, that where anybody is damnified he should have the means of compensation by process of law, and that process is the process we have here. There are other cases. There is the Swanage case, and I quote the Worthing case by way of showing that it is possible to distinguish between cases where councils are responsible and cases where they are not responsible. How can you trace responsibility? There can be no doubt about the Lincoln case. They had been warned

  1849
  repeatedly by their own medical officer, they had been warned by the Local Government Board twice, and in spite of that they did not improve the water supply. There was a serious epidemic which was practically traced to the pollution of the water supply, but in the Worthing case of pollution of water supply there was an inquiry, and it was found that the town council were not to blame, and that it was almost impossible for them to have discovered the pollution. In that case there would have been no charge upon the council. I am only quoting the Worthing case to show that it is possible to distinguish between a case where the town council is responsble and a case where a council is not responsible. I will supplement these cases later on by the process which has been suggested. So far from our interfering with any existing authorities, we simply propose to assist them. The Clause will be of enormous value to the Local Government Board. Instead of threatening to issue a mandamus, they will be able to say to a local authority, "Well, if there is an epidemic, you will be mulcted in damages." The Clause will be a help to county councils, who have general supervision over health all over the county. It will be of enormous benefit to the medical officers of health, who are practically powerless. All they can do is to expose the evils.
  An HON. MEMBER: The London County Council has.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have only the same defaulting powers I have already described, and those are very inadequate powers, otherwise why should the Local Government Board for thirty or forty years have had to go through the process of warning councils and nothing happens. It will help the medical officers of counties enormously. Their position is a very difficult one. They have often to report upon insanitary conditions when the proprietors of the properties are strongly represented on these councils. I had a letter last week from a medical officer of health who gave his name and address. He says to me, "It is as much as my place is worth to report faithfully on the conditions prevailing." So far from overlapping and weakening it is a source of strength. Let me state what happened in Berlin. In Berlin there was a case of the kind which bears very directly on this matter. A most powerful sickness society there discovered that the excess in sickness was very largely attributable to the slumy condition of some of
  1850
  the dwellings of the working class. The name of the society is the Berlin General Sickness Society, for commercial employés. The secretary is a very well known labour leader. They instituted a systematic inquiry into the character of the homes inhabited by their sick members. Their powers were confined to an inquiry. What happened? They found a very serious condition of things prevailing, and the reports which they published aroused a good deal of interest and also aroused a good deal of indignation amongst the owners of the slum property. The consequence was that the House Owners' Association petitioned the supervising authority for sickness and insurance law to declare the expenditure incurred in these inquiries illegal. This authority declined to comply with the petition. They carried the matter from Court to Court, and eventually there was a Court that fined the society 10s. because it undertook those inquiries. The Court held that the society had exceeded its powers, and let them off with a fine of 10s., but issued a prohibition directed against this society of workmen instituting these inquiries. The society appealed, and the appeal was upheld. The Town Council of Berlin, so far from complaining that there was an interference with their powers, welcomed it. They realised that such inquiries instituted by these societies in Berlin would be a source of great strength and support to them, and now these inquiries were recognised as part of the mechanism of sickness societies in these great towns. Suppose in addition to that they had power to say that where there was excessive sickness which was attributable to insanitary conditions of dwellings those responsible for the insanitary conditions should pay for the excess sickness—then you would make very short work of these slums. That is really the case for the Bill.
  We do not propose for this particular provision to introduce any novel principle. We simply resort to the old principles which are enshrined in the common law of this land, and we want to make effective the powers already possessed. We want to give them a more efficient sanction. We want to make insanitary property and neglect of public duties unremunerative. Slackness, inefficiency, and the callous greed of certain individuals are responsible for the loss of more lives in Britain than has almost ever been inflicted upon us by the fiercest wars in our history. Phthisis and enteric rheumatism fill thousands of wretched homes in this country

  1851
  with death and despair. What do we propose to do? We propose to arm the workmen with an effective weapon to defend his home, and to defend his children from the diseases inflicted through the insanitary conditions of their dwelling. I am told that we must not arm them because it will interfere with the authorities who are responsible. If an individual breaks the law, and if, through his breach of the law, he inflicts damage upon his neighbours, why is it an interference with his liberty and prerogative to have a local inquiry into his conduct, and that he should be mulcted in damages by way of compensation. Why should we not do so in the case of the local authorities and with the owner of slum property? It is one of the oldest maxims of English law, and one of the most honoured, that there is no wrong without a remedy. It is because, when I was investigating this problem, I discovered a great wrong for which there was no remedy, that I had this Clause inserted in the Bill, and I now confidently recommend it to this House.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The right hon. Gentleman has made on the local authorities of this country an attack which many of them will, I think, resent, and very rightly resent, when they come to read it tomorrow. I am the very last to wish to defend any slackness in administration of the law, but to my mind the right hon. Gentleman was very ill-advised in trying to bolster up his case by an attack on those who, in a very large number of cases, are fighting against great difficulties while doing the best work they can. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to several cases, and mentioned that of Harrogate. In Harrogate there is an extremely high standard of sanitation. The greater part of that town is new, and what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to it in this House he certainly would not dare to repeat outside.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly I will.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Then I challenge him to do so outside this House.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman challenges me, I am prepared to sign any document and publish it in the papers repeating the statement I have made in this House. I am not in the habit of making statements in this House that I would not make outside. On the
  1852
  contrary, the general accusation against me is that I make statements outside this House that I do not make in the House.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to Harrogate, it is this: that there were cases of workmen's dwellings which were very leaky and let water in, and that the reason given for their not being put in order was that certain members of the council were interested in the property. If that is the statement, I do not think he could make it outside this House without its being challenged, as I am perfectly certain it would be. The right hon. Gentleman complains that there is no remedy except a mandamus, but what is this proposal except a form of mandamus to make the local authority raise an extra rate to meet the deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman is far less likely to obtain his object if he quarrels with the local authorities and sets over them these watchdogs. The whole of his speech has been a complete indictment of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wanted to find the Harrogate case, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will read it again:—
  "Artisans' dwellings with defective drains and un-paved back yards.
  "Certain members of the town council openly advocate deviation from by-laws. Majority of the sanitary committee engaged in the buildings and allied trades."
  I have only quoted those two reports.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I only regret the very unfair insinuation in the report. I should like to know in that case what was the action of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Clause gives help to the Local Government Board. What is the opinion of that Department? We have been discussing this question all the afternoon. I do not know where the President of the Local Government Board is, and why he is not present to defend his Department against the attack made upon him by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: To say that the Local Government Board have no power to deal with these matters surely is not the case. The right hon. Gentleman complains that there is nothing but the mandamus which

  1853
  can be used. Can he give me a single instance where the weapon of the mandamus has failed. There is not a case of a single authority against which a mandamus has been obtained where it has not succeeded. Wherever the mandamus has been employed the object of the proceeding has been attained, and there is not a case in which the mandamus has been ineffective. I daresay I am what the right hon. Gentleman terms a mummy, and rather a dusty one, but I do not think we ought to put fresh life into a dusty mummy by methods of this sort.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say the local authorities were mummies. I said that the powers were embalmed, and in these Acts of Parliament were pure mummies.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: That does not reflect credit on Liberal or Radical legislation. But I do not wish to detain the Committee on this question. I believe the effect of the Clause will be that any local authority which does not wish to do its duty will be stirred up by the Insurance Commissioner or whoever it may be, and the effect will be to cause more delay. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he is going to create an entirely new authority, but where are you going to get the men to sit on that authority? They will have to be, to a large extent, the same men as are now working on local authorities throughout the country. There is only a limited supply of these men to do this public work. There will be an immense amount of work in connection with these societies, and the difficulty will be to find the men to do it, though the right hon. Gentleman apparently thinks he is going to find a body totally and entirely different to carry out this work. I believe that this Clause, unless it be entirely modified, would do more harm than good, and I must say it will arouse very strong feeling against the Bill. I think it is a very great mistake.
  Mr. HARWOOD: I wish to give the Committee a small piece of evidence bearing out in a striking way the case made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I happen to be treasurer of the National Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, a body which has taken for some years a rather active part in these matters. Their proceedings chiefly centre themselves in getting particulars from different parts of the country where tuberculosis is more general than else-
  1854
  where. Really we have been anticipating this Clause. We make it our business to inquire the cause of tuberculosis, and it is nearly always attributable to the insanitary condition of the property. Then we try to get the authorities to work, and we find that there we are stuck. It is almost impossible, and I can speak of scores of authorities in different parts of the country. It has been said that these local bodies are composed of people engaged in either building property or in owning this kind of property which causes the mischief, and I myself can speak of scores of cases where we find ourselves absolutely helpless to get anything done all over the country. At my own suggestion this last autumn we called together the health officers from all over the country. Some hundreds of them gathered together in London, and I, amongst others, was so impressed with the accumulation of evidence of our incapacity and everybody else's incapacity to get anything done, that I said to them, "What do you recommend?" They all got up one after the other and said they were incapable of recommending anything—that they really could not, the influence against them was so strong. The second point was this, that there really were no powers except the power of a mandamus. I speak as an amateur lawyer when I say that the powers of the mandamus are all fiddle-de-dee. They are very expensive to get to work. Who is going to find the money? The hon. Gentleman opposite asks when had a mandamus failed. When has a mandamus succeeded? The fact of the matter is that the proceeding is very cumbrous, and not only so, but it finally culminates in a result from which we all shrink, and that is the imprisonment of the corporation. The evidence of the officers of health seems to show that no good will be done until we proceed by way of damages. We must make somebody pay; that is what makes people act.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will not this procedure require a mandamus?
  Mr. HARWOOD: I do not think so. I do not read it in that way. But whether the proceeding be a mandamus or not the result will be different: the result will be damage.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Will the hon. Member tell me if he thinks inquiry by a Local Government Board inspector is a cheaper or faster means?
  Mr. HARWOOD: I do not say it is cheaper or faster, but it is the best we can get. I said, speaking as representing the employers, so impressed are they with the ineffectiveness of society before this great danger that I believe the general body of the employers are in favour of this Clause because they feel, though it may touch them very keenly, yet it will do the country so much good. I want to give what are really the conclusions of between six and seven hundred medical officers of health who came together. They were practically unanimous in saying, first of all, that at present they are impotent, and secondly, that they would not have the necessary power unless it centred upon damage and not imprisonment.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As a member of a local authority endeavouring to carry out the Act, especially in relation to the housing of London by the county council, I should like to say one or two words on this subject. I do not share in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's general attack on the local authorities. Many and, indeed, most local authorities—there may be exceptions—are trying to carry out the Public Health Acts and the Housing Acts to the best of their ability. At the same time I do admit as regards housing that there is a great deal more that might be done. It is absolutely true that in a great many large towns you have got most horrible slums which cause a great deal of additional sickness, and in certain rural districts it is true there is practically a house hunger and very great difficulty in getting housing accommodation for the people. I admit, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made out a certain case. What I want to submit to the Committee is this: that this is not the way to deal with it. It is quite true there may be excessive sickness caused by bad housing or bad sanitation, but the proper way to deal with that is by a Local Government Act Amendment Act, or by a new Housing Act. You are not going to touch the fringe of the question by doing it in the course of an Insurance Bill. Let me explain why. The chief difficulty, and I hope the hon. Gentleman representing the Government will make a note of this, in carrying out the Housing Acts, is due to the excessive cost. I can give an example. The London County Council published a return some time ago of a number of slum clearing schemes which they had done down to the year 1907. It
  1856
  appeared that they carried through thirty-one schemes. They displaced and rehoused 40,000 people, and the total net cost of the clearances was no less than £2,000,000, amounting to £50 for every slum dweller who hade been displaced, apart from rehousing. The cost is so great that you cannot expect it to be thrown on the local rates, and that is the reason why local authorities have been slow to carry out their powers.
  What is going to happen under this Clause? You are simply going to compel the local authorities in consequence of representations made, and after inquiries held to carry out these Acts at this excessive cost, and you will simply break the back of the ratepayer. The proper way to deal with the matter in my humble judgment is to bring in a new Housing Act and to provide a large amount of State aid towards housing operations. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the poor taxpayer?"] The poor taxpayer has got much broader shoulders than the ratepayer, and this housing question which affects the health of the whole community is a matter which ought to be spread over the whole community instead of merely being put on the backs of the ratepayers. On this Clause of this Bill nothing will be put on the general taxpayer and you will simply compel the ratepayer to carry out these very expensive Acts, and at the very shortest notice run up the rates to an impossible figure. The result will probably be worse housing and worse sanitation in the towns, because they will be starved for want of money. Let me give another reason why this state of affairs exists, and which will not be touched by the proposal of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly right when he says that the Local Government Board has not got sufficient powers now to compel the local authorities to do their duty.
  I have given a reason—a good reason, I think—in the matter of cost why they hesitate to carry them out, and it is perfectly true, so long as the system of mandamus is the only system applicable, it is frequently impossible, owing to the cost, and so on, to get the local authorities to act, but you are not going to leave that out here, and you are going to have a mandamus under this Bill. Here, again, the proper way to deal with the matter is not an Insurance Bill, but by a new Housing Bill, or a new Public Health Bill, which, instead of mandamus, will give the Local

  1857
  Government Board power to act in default of a local authority. That is the only way to do it. An hon. Friend behind me reminds me that that is the case now with the London County Council, and that it works very well. In a Clause under the Public Health Act where a local authority—that is to say, a borough council—refuses to carry out any of its duties, the London County Council may act in default and may recover the money at an ordinary contract date. That is the proper way to deal with this question, and not by allowing any local health committee or any approved society to make representations, and then for an inspector of the Local Government Board to come down and, without sending his report to the Local Government Board, to order the local authorities to do things which they can still refuse to do. There is no power under this Clause to let anybody do it in default, and if the local authority does the work they put an enormous burden on the ratepayers.
  I candidly say, looking at the matter from the point of view of housing sanitation and public health, I sympathise very much with the objects of this Clause, but I think it is absolutely the wrong way. The right way is by a new Local Government Act, and the only way to get the housing question properly attended to is to give State aid. I said before, and I repeat, that if that million per year which is going to be devoted to the upkeep of sanatoria had been given to the local authorities to enable them to clear the slums, you would do a very great deal more towards securing public health than you will by the provisions of this Bill. I can tell the Government that the slums are the breeding places of phthisis, the very phthisis you are seeking to stamp out by the sanatoria. At the present moment the London County Council is engaged with a slum, one small district of two acres, where the death rate from phthisis is five times the average death rate of the whole of London. How much better it would be to devote the public money you vote under this Bill to clearing those slums and stopping the disease at its very source and preventing it from being spread than to give the money to sanatoria to cure the disease after it is contracted. Here, again, I say this is a matter not for insurance, but for a new Housing Act, and that is what we want, because I think this particular proposal is the wrong way to do it, and because I think you put enormous burdens on the localities which they cannot bear, and because you will not be able to
  1858
  enforce your recommendations when they are made. For my part, I would like to see this particular Clause withdrawn and the whole matter thoroughly dealt with on a sound basis in a new Bill.
  Mr. JOWETT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's indictment against the present conditions is a true bill. There is no answer to the charge. The only question it seems to me that there can be in the mind of any Member of the Committee is whether the remedy proposed by this provision is the right one. I am one of those who believe that the remedy is not the right remedy. First of all, let us just consider the nature of the trouble and let us examine the class of case quoted by the Chancellor the Exchequer. For the most part I noted, as he read the extracts, that they referred to small urban district councils. There were one or two exceptions. What is the trouble with regard to those urban district councils? The trouble there is just the trouble which is felt by large municipalities very often; first, the personnel of the council, and, secondly, the lack of means to do the work that needs to be done. With regard to the personnel of the council, I, for one, am extremely obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his promise to print the extracts in order that they may be made public, and I feel sure that the section to which I belong and the party to which I belong will not be slow in collecting those cases, especially with the comments which accompanied his quotations referring to builders and owners, and so on, being on the councils. We have got the remedy for that The remedy for that is to turn out the present owners of those houses and to put on men who have no such interests to serve. The next trouble is that of money, and to my mind it is a marvel that it has never occurred to this House to follow the same policy regarding the removal of the difficulties of housing in this country as has been followed in regard to Ireland. I give my meed of praise to the Irish Members; they have done well. In 1906 we passed the Irish Labourers Act, which allowed four and a-quarter millions of British money to be lent on easy terms at a low rate of interest, with a provision for an annual subsidy, and between that day and this I suppose that between twenty-five and 30,000 cottages have been built. That is the work that needs doing in this country. We have recently supplemented that Act by another Act, which will provide another million of money for a further supply of houses.

  1859
  Is it not clear that that is exactly what is wanted for the rural districts of this country? It is no use whatever bringing a mandamus by the Local Government Board against an urban district council which is gravelled for the want of funds, nor is it any use to establish a sort of watchdog committee, representative of nobody, which shall have the power to check and fine an urban council for not doing what it cannot afford to do. It appears to me perfectly plain that the policy which has been pursued in Ireland ought to be the policy in this country, and if some of the money to be spent under this Bill had been spent in assisting urban district councils to provide the houses required and to remove the defective houses of which complaint is made, we should feel that we were doing something substantial. I do not think we are doing that at present. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer publishes the extracts which he has quoted, I should like him to publish also some statement of what the Local Government Board have done in regard to each complaint. He mentioned, amongst others, Harrogate. I believe that since that report was issued Harrogate has been a suppliant to Parliament for statutory powers, and probably among the powers asked for were, borrowing powers for some purpose or other. If that is so, why did not the Local Government Board oppose the granting of those further powers and the raising of further loans, in order to bring the local authority to book and make them do their duty? But the crux of the whole question is money. We may pass Housing Acts, we have done so for England times without number, but as long as no change is made in this respect there will be nothing done. Neither the provisions proposed in this Bill nor any other provision that can be invented, other than assisting and encouraging the local authorities by giving them the help which we can and ought to give and have given in Ireland will accomplish the purpose we are seeking to serve by this measure.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I am in entire agreement with the last speaker, that the real question is, what is the best remedy for the state of facts here and there which we all regret and deplore. We all regret that there are certain local authorities who, partly because of the unpopularity of the task, and partly for other reasons, do not enforce the provisions of the Housing Acts as we should
  1860
  all wish them to be enforced. A certain remedy has been provided for this state of affairs in the Housing and Town Planning Act, although it does not go a very long way; but so far as it goes, I am confident that it is a far better method of getting what is desired done than the machinery set up by the present Bill. Consider for a moment what the situation is. Nothing can be worse in the interests of housing—which, I believe, is almost without exception, the greatest question in the country—than that you should set up antagonism between the local authorities and any other body. If they do not do their duty, which very seldom happens, it is necessary, of course, that there should be some authority over them. But who ought that authority to be? Manifestly the Local Government Board. You will only create friction which you will bitterly regret if, instead of investing in the Local Government Board the authority for the more complete performance of these duties, you set up an authority which does not and cannot command the respect which the Local Government Board commands, and as to which members of the local authority will say, "Here are people who are no better than ourselves, and who, indeed, have infinitely less experience of this matter than we have; why should we be vexed, oppressed, and harassed by such as these, seeing that we do our duty when we can? And, moreover, if we do not do our duty, there is the Local Government Board, which is the proper authority to enforce the remedy."
  My hon. Friend opposite seemed to understand what he wished in this matter, but apparently he had a most imperfect understanding of the Clause, which proposes a remedy when a local authority is unable or unwilling to perform its duty. He imagined the machinery set up to be good and cheap machinery for the purpose. It has already been shown that, in the first place, the authority is concerned with other questions, mainly insurance matters, and has no special skill in regard to these particular questions. In the next place, the means of actually enforcing the purport of this Bill is left in the hands of a Local Government Board inspector after a local government inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed strangely ignorant of local government inquiries. He apparently thought that a local government inquiry was a cheap and easy way of getting the law administered effectually. He is completely mistaken. You could choose no more expensive

  1861
  method than a local government inquiry in a locality for enforcing any requirement. I will tell the Committee why. It is not because the Local Government Board inspector is an inefficient person. Far from it. He is very often a most excellent man, thoroughly conversant with his duty; but on these local government inquiries he is confronted by experienced counsel, not always interested in celerity, and he has positively no authority. The result is that the expenses of a local government inquiry are enormous, and great delay is caused.
  What do the Government imagine they are effecing when they have had an inquiry and run the whole district into this enormous cost? Let us assume that the Local Government inspector has found the local authority in default, that they have not carried out their duty, and that insanitary conditions prevail. Suppose he makes an order for the payment of money, and the local authorities do not comply with it. What remedy have you except that of a mandamus? As far as I can see, there are no default provisions in this Clause. The Government have not taken the pains to refer to the Housing and Town Planning Act, which in similar conditions prescribes a business like remedy. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Masterman) was one of those who upstairs, with others of us, assisted the Government in prescribing a remedy. That remedy is that where the work is not done by the district, it shall be done by the Local Government Board. Nothing more unbusinesslike, wasteful, or foolish could be set up as a means of enforcing the law than a prolonged and enormously expensive inquiry; and then that you should be run into a corner with the very remedy upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has wasted so much invective seems to me to be a triumph of ineptitude.
  Mr. HARWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the only process for getting the money is by mandamus?
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: If the hon. Member looks at the Bill he will see that there is power on the part of the inspector to make an order, which will have the force of an order of the High Court, for the payment of the money. That is quite true. But how is that order going to be enforced against a local authority? You have a local authority perhaps largely consisting of gentlemen as interested in housing reform as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Supposing that they do their best to induce the local authority to put a
  1862
  place in a sanitary condition, and they find that they are opposed, chiefly on the ground of cost. Would it not be an utterly ridiculous result if you were to make an order for the payment of money by the local authority, and in doing so you made the order upon those very men who had been endeavouring to get the law carried out, but had not been successful? Surely the Committee cannot maintain such a remedy as that. It is not for me to suggest what the right course would be. I do not think it is necessary to go much beyond the Housing and Town Planning Act. The best remedy is that where there is default some authority—suggest the county council—should have power to enter and do the necessary work. I am inclined to agree that there is difficulty in getting money in many cases, and some such provision as the hon. Member opposite has suggested would at any rate be well worthy of consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Debate is getting away from the actual Amendment before the Committee. The only point raised by the Amendment is whether or not societies and health committees should be given, initiatory powers under the Clause. I think, in the interests of business, that we should endeavour to keep to that point and not discuss alternative remedies.
  Mr. MOLTENO: The Chancellor of the Exchequer went very fully into the question of the remedy, and it is very important for us to know exactly what our position is to be in regard to this Clause. If after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we are limited in discussing the remedy, there may not be another opportunity. As he has opened so wide a field, we ought to be allowed to continue on the same lines; otherwise we shall be very much embarrassed.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not mean to say that it would be out of order to refer to the remedy proposed in the Bill, but it all hangs on the initiative. The attack opened by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Cripps) was on the ground that societies and local health committees ought not to have an initiative in health matters, and the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that that was necessary. I shall not restrict hon. Members more tightly than I did the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. CASSEL: Attacks were made on certain localities by name. Will it be out of order to reply to those attacks?
  The CHAIRMAN: I must deal with those points when they arise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was bringing certain illustrations in support of his argument.
  6.0 P.M.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I hope that in the few remarks I have to make I shall keep within your ruling. We have been directly challenged by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with an alternative remedy for conditions which he rightly asserts the whole Committee deplore where they exist. As one who was in part responsible for the making and passing of the Housing and Town Planning Act, and with some of the affection of a parent for his child, I want to say, in a word, why the system here proposed seems to me essential, not only as a better system than that laid down in the Housing and Town Planning Act, but as a supplement to it, as the result of the experience we have already had. What is the method of redress in the Housing Act? The right hon. Gentleman knows it as well as I do, for many discussions have taken place on the floor of the House. The system is that four public spirited ratepayers have to get together, and take the initiative, to bear the obloquy, to be responsible for the expense of initiating the matter in exactly the same way as it can now be initiated by these friendly societies. I refer to a local government inquiry, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks such a mistake. What have we found? That it is extremely difficult to get any ratepayer under any circumstances whatever to initiate an inquiry. They are told they are casting a slur upon the district in which they live. They are sometimes subject to social ostracism.
  In some cases they have not only to go up against the local authority, but men on the local authority who own the slum property. I am quoting instances familiar to me personally. The result is that time and again the matter has been dropped after an attempt has been made, because the man says, "Why should I take up this burden and expense?" This is the first time that a direct monetary incentive for this work has been given. A friendly society which suffers from insanitary slum property knows that if it can establish a case that the burden of excessive sickness is due to the owners of insanitary property. The cost of that excessive sickness will be paid by the
  1864
  owners and not by the friendly societies. That alone, it seems to me, is a measure which will do more, not only directly, but indirectly also—in the fear of it—for the reduction of slum property than any measure which at present exists in English law. The second point which the hon. Member for Dudley made with some emphasis—and he has a right to speak in the matter—is, I think, not altogether a good point in criticism of our methods. He said, "It is not a matter of action, it is a matter of money." My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford raised the same point.
  Mr. JOWETT: Personnel!
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Money and personnel. He said, "Give the local authorities money and they will do all the work you want." That is not true. Sanitary law can be enforced without the authorities paying a farthing of money. Some cases read out by my right hon. Friend showed that no cost would have been incurred by the ratepayers or the local authorities. There was, then, no reason for not enforcing the law. It is not a matter of cost to the local authorities, but a matter of cost to the landlord, who has the "pull" on the local authorities, or who is supposed to have the pull on them. When the Housing and Town Planning Act was being passed, the right hon. Gentleman made a very strong appeal for what I think is known as the Birmingham system—what we call Part II. of the Act—for the imposition of the restoration of property to sanitary conditions, not by clearing it away, but by enforcing upon the landlords the right which you can enforce at the present time, that he shall make his property sanitary. That can be done by the local authorities. We believe that will be done through the work of the friendly societies, brought in for the first time as directly interested in the matter.
  What is the fundamental point which has produced the necessity for this Clause? It is that slum property at the present time in large districts is more paying than if it is not slum property. Where they allow the property to degenerate without spending any money on it very often the landlords get a higher normal rent than the landlords in the next street who put their property into a good condition. Above all, the slum landlord has this before him—I wish the hon. Member the Member for Dudley was in his place, because he would fully realise what I mean in connection with a great clearance

  1865
  scheme with which he is associated—the more a slum landlord allows his property to degenerate the more certain he is that the local authority will interfere in the long run and buy him out. Take the Bethnal Green instance, in which gigantic matter Part II. had to be put into force at a cost of over a million to clear away slums. Now for the first time we are trying to devise a rule by which slum property shall not pay, and I believe that the mere fact that we can make it unpayable will do more to clear it away and for the better housing of the working classes than all the denunciations in the churches.
  My last point is this: the way we are seeking to ensure that this will be carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford made what I can only characterise as an extraordinary statement. He said that these committees were representative of nobody. They are representative of the working men of this country, everyone of whom will be an insured person. They represent the working people who well know these conditions, and who will have a direct interest in the amelioration of these conditions. They will be more representative of the working people than the town councils are at the present time, because everyone will practically be a member of a friendly society or in some way connected with a friendly society. I do not believe, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract said earlier, that in the immediate future few friendly societies will put into direct action this power which is given. I believe they will when they get a direct financial benefit from it.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: How will they enforce it?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend asks how will they enforce it. They will obtain an order that the money shall be paid, and the money will be paid as an alternative to the imprisonment of the local council. You say: "We cannot enforce it now." Under the Town Planning Act, always in the ultimate, if the local authorities resist unto the death, you can apply for a mandamus. The local authorities are not likely to resist when the end of their resistance can only result in the imprisonment of the local council. Every member of a local authority can always get into gaol if he resists the law: the only question is how soon he is going to get in. But I was led away to make these observations, for no
  1866
  one expects that there will be a large and general opposition, or that this Clause will not be largely and generally operative throughout the length and breadth of the country. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, in spite of his great legal experience. It is certainly against all our experience at the Local Government Board that a Local Government inquiry is of necessity a costly and elaborate thing. I can show him reports of inquiries which have been carried out under the Town Planning Act which have not been elaborate or costly, and we non-lawyers believe it is a far more satisfactory process than the alternative court. But even if it were elaborate and costly it would be worth putting this Clause in, in order that, owing to its operation in a few cases, it may have a widespread effect in many cases. I am quite sure that if in any one district excessive sickness in that district is ever laid upon the slum landlords, or upon the town council, there will be such employment in the building trade in the neighbouring districts as was never seen before.
  Lord A. THYNNE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer based his justification for the granting of these powers—and in fact he based his opposition to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir Alfred Cripps)—on a very remarkable indictment against the local authorities generally throughout this country.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No! I thought that when that had been corrected once it would have been satisfactory. I read a second time a summary of Local Government Board reports in order to make it clear that I was not attacking local authorities generally. I said it was only a considerable number of authorities, and those not the largest.
  Lord A. THYNNE: A sufficient number, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, to justify the insertion of this provision in the general Acts.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE assented.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I am glad to have abstracted the admission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the state of affairs which he described at such length does not apply generally to local authorities.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said so.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I cannot help feeling that the whole spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman delivered his indictment was singularly unfortunate from two points of view. In the first place it will justify the feelings of apprehension with which the great corporations and municipal authorities of this country look upon this particular part of the Insurance Bill. In the second place, it will tend, I think, to stimulate opposition on the part of municipal authorities towards this particular Section of the measure. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman's object at the present time, in view of the great difficulties he has already had, both with the friendly societies and the medical profession, would be rather to allay opposition than stimulate it. But the most unfortunate result of the indictment will be a tendency amongst those who read it in the country, to lower the whole feeling towards municipal administration and to degrade it in the eyes of the people of this country at large; and to do a very grave injustice to a large body of men who are doing very useful and often very arduous work wholly unremunerative and often under very uncongenial conditions.
  The right hon. Gentleman's indictment falls really under two heads. It tells us that the local authorities have been inefficient, that they have been backward to prosecute, slow to investigate, and in many cases have not appointed a sanitary committee. I suggest that the provisions in this Section are no remedy from that state of affairs amongst delinquent local authorities. I should have regarded the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that point rather as a trenchant criticism of the administration of the Local Government Board than the local authorities concerned. Because even supposing the machinery at the disposal of the Local Government Board is inadequate, not sufficient, or not sufficiently rapid, to meet the state of affairs the right hon. Gentleman has described, he has produced no evidence at all to show that any attempt is being made to set that machinery, slow and inadequate though it is, in motion. In the second place, I would call the attention of the House to this fact: that this state of affairs is by no means a new state of affairs. Many of the Reports quoted by the right hon. Gentleman date from 1905, 1906, and 1907. Since that time we have had attempts to amend the Public Health Acts and the Housing Acts by the present Government. I should like to ask the
  1868
  Under-Secretary for the Home Department why no attempt has yet been made to arm the Local Government Board with the powers requisite to meet the state of affairs described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Undoubtedly nobody acquainted with the Local Government Board system in this country would deny that greater and more stringent powers are necessary for the enforcement of the law, but the contention of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment—a contention which I am sure will be shared by those well acquainted with local administration—is that the proper method of dealing with this question is not by overloading an Insurance Bill devoted to wholly different objects with provisions of this character, but rather by introducing special amending Acts for the purpose. I should like to point out the great disadvantage of proceeding on the lines proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Clause. The whole tendency of modern legislation, especially in matters of public health, is towards simplification and codification. One of the great hindrances towards efficiency of administration is the complexity and number of Acts of Parliament in which the power and duties of local authorities are set out. Instead of dealing with this question piecemeal, instead of giving new powers in an Act dealing with other questions altogether, the right hon. Gentleman would do more to promote efficiency of local administration if he codified and explained existing Acts of Parliament.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand, Mr. Whitley, that we can discuss this proposal for codifying Acts of Parliament?
  The CHAIRMAN: A few moments ago I deprecated entering upon alternatives, but, of course, I cannot prevent the Noble Lord from stating what he thinks would be better, but I do hope hon. Members on both sides will have regard to the intimation I have given.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I feel it would not be open to a Member to attack the proposals brought forward by the Chancellor, of the Exchequer as bad expedients, unless he was prepared to indicate, without elaborating the alternatives which, in his opinion, would provide a more satisfactory solution of the question. In proposing to deal with it by placing these powers in the hands of the health committee, the right hon. Gentleman is really losing sight of the root causes of the

  1869
  backwardness of the local authorities to deal with this question. It is all a matter of money. The local authorities are, at the present moment, holding back owing to the heavy burden, of rates placed upon those who elect them, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks about these health committees being the direct representative of the working classes, I would remind him that they will be not so representative or so democratically elected or rest upon such a democratic basis as the local authorities that they are to coerce. Because, in the first place, the local authority is directly elected by the whole of the people in the area, and they are to be coerced and stimulated by a body partly nominated, and, so far as it is representative at all, representative only of the section of the population living in the particular district. I think, that instead of confusing the administration of housing, instead of complicating the machinery of local government in the direction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he would have done more to remove the evils of which he so justly complains if he would give an undertaking to reconsider the relations between the Imperial Exchequer and local finance, and if he would give the local authorities of this country those considerable sums of money to which they consider, and the great local taxation experts of this country consider, they are justly entitled to. After all the stimulus of approved societies and health committees will not be so effective as the encouragement local authorities would receive by giving them adequate funds for this purpose. In supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment and opposing the suggestion to include in this Bill provisions that ought to be included in Public Health Acts, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I admit legislation upon this question is necessary, but it ought to take the form of a separate Act; and if the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a separate Bill next Session for that purpose I think he can rest assured he would receive very hearty support from Members on this side of the House.
  Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: There has been a good deal of talk about alternative machinery, and it is contended that this is not the right way to do what is proposed. I trust the Government will not relax in the smallest degree the Clause as it stands or diminish its strength. You may talk in the country, as some of us are
  1870
  doing about this Bill; but there is nothing that elicited so much vigorous applause and satisfaction as this particular Clause, by which some of the evils under which we now suffer are to be remedied. Talk about contributions for medical benefits and so on! Nothing is so popular as this particular Clause. Let me add a little contribution to the arguments advanced in its favour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Manchester Unity. Some years ago a friend of mine, Mr. Farrell, who was an Oddfellow, and who was the President of the Manchester Unity for one year, had a conference with Mr. Watson as to the effect of the quinquennial revaluation for that time. Mr. Farrell said to Mr. Watson, "Do not tell me anything as to what you have got in your returns, but I will tell you the places where the branches of the society are insolvent, and the places where they are solvent." Mr. Watson said, "How is it possible to tell me that without knowing what I have in my calculations? Mr. Farrell replied, "You may rely upon mathematical formula, but I can tell you where the evil is without it. Mention any of the places and I will tell you at once." Mr. Watson mentioned a lot of towns and urban districts, and Mr. Farrell replied, "This one is solvent, and that one is insolvent, and the other is on the border line." "How can you tell that," said Mr. Watson. "Well," said Mr Farrell, "the death rate is twenty-two there and the branch is insolvent, and here where the death rate is seventeen the branch is solvent." The result of that knowledge communicated to the Manchester Unity was that they determined to make efforts to get all places where the death rate was high to effect improvements in the sanitary conditions by operating through the members of the local authority. They found it hopeless before that.
  Some ten years ago the same Mr. Farrell, who was a great authority on these matters, told me that once you get the death rate you can arrive at the sickness rate, because the average of the sickness rate is just double the amount of the death rate, and the result is—I will not say it is an accurate conclusion—at any rate, you have a basis on which you are able to work. There would be nothing so disappointing to the community who are looking forward to this Bill as that there should be any slackening in the particular proceedings this Bill contemplates against sickness. Supposing the Manchester

  1871
  Unity at that time had been an approved society, and had been able to go to the local authority and say, "there is excessive sickness in your district, and you are opposed to doing what is fair so you must pay upon the verdict and result of the inquiry. If that had happened ten years ago, many of the difficulties we are in now would have been swept away. I know there are many difficulties about the average death rate and sickness in various districts, but you are going to take the average for the whole community, and you will not judge your towns by the individual death rate until you have time to formulate your exact information. I trust the Government will in no way give way to this Amendment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to take this opportunity of assuring the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose speech just now I am bound to say savoured a little of the party spirit, that we on this side of the House as a party feel just as strongly the enormous importance of remedying the conditions against which this Clause is levelled as he and those who work with him—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very anxious that no party spirit should be introduced, and I cannot recall any phrase in which I made an attack upon the party opposite. I certainly had no intention of doing so. I did attack some of those councils and certain owners of slums, but I did not assume that these were all Conservatives.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I fully admit no actual phrase fell from the right hon. Gentleman which would indicate that we were more at fault in the matter than those who sit upon his own side of the House, but in any case I think the Committee must admit his speech was couched in very strong and eloquent language, and savoured a little, perhaps, of speeches we heard from public platforms against landlords in general. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman there are different kinds of landlords. He is rather apt to confuse in his mind, if I may say so, the slum owners, against whom we feel as strongly as he does, and those trying in very difficult circumstances, and with moderate and insufficient means, to remedy in the country districts the conditions which unfortunately, owing to long-continued agricultural depression, are not as good as many landlords would like to
  1872
  see. There is a difficulty which, I think, hon. Gentlemen upon the other side of the House do not always realise with regard to remedying these conditions in the country villages. First of all, there is the disinclination on the part of so many of the inhabitants in these insanitary dwellings to remove themselves from these dwellings. What we want is to create a healthy spirit, not only amongst the owners, but amongst the inhabitants of these cottages. We want to inspire the inhabitants of these cottages with a healthy discontent as regards their conditions. If that were done it would facilitate immensely the work of the local authorities in these districts and the work of the well-intentioned landlord who desires to see the sanitary conditions of his property improved. The right hon. Gentleman will have to admit that, at any rate as regards the smaller agricultural landowners, it is extremely difficult for them, under existing circumstances, to remedy the state of their cottage property. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in the last few years the very strongest efforts have been made since the Housing Act was passed by owners of property to improve the conditions in their districts. It is difficult for men whose burdens are very considerable, as the right hon. Gentleman must admit, and whose conditions of life are very different to what they were thirty years ago, to spend as much upon their most unremunerative cottages as they would like to do. It is common knowledge that many of the cottages are let at uneconomic rents or at no rents at all, and the agricultural landlord is expected to do what manufacturers are never expected to do—that is, to maintain cottages on his property not only for his own employés, but also for those employed by his tenants, and those who may be employed by others in the village with whom he has nothing at all to do. The agricultural landlord is expected to bear a burden which is not put upon other owners of property or manufacturers, who have a much larger income and return from their proprietary interest than the agricultural landowners. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford that the only solution is the application of the system which has been adopted in regard to Ireland. Housing will in the future have to be a national charge, and it is only by making it a national charge that you are going to be able to make it what all social reformers would like to see it.

  1873
  Surely an unhealthy and a debilitated population is a bad national asset, and, directly or indirectly, the taxpayer, as well as the ratepayer, has to pay, either in the form of poor rates or in the form of taxes, whether voluntary or otherwise, for the maintenance of hospitals, infirmaries, asylums, and such-like. If housing were made a national charge I believe it would prove to be a good national investment, because I believe the taxpayer would have to pay less than he has to pay to-day under various headings due to the debility and physical unfitness of the population at large. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the first line of this Clause is really fair to the deposit contributors? I agree that this is rather a duplication of the machinery which already exists, and that a strengthening of the Housing Acts would be the proper way to deal with this matter. Here an approved society is going to be admitted as one of the parties who by making an allegation can put the machinery in motion. Surely those who are physically in a worse condition, namely, the deposit contributors, ought to have equal opportunities with members of approved societies. In one part of this Bill you refer to associations of deposit contributors. Surely it is only fair where associations of deposit contributors exist that you should allow them, just as you allow an approved society, to put the law into motion. These are persons whose health is presumably worse than members of approved societies, whose bad health may be due to the very conditions which you seek by this Clause to improve. Therefore it is more in their interests to see that these conditions are improved, and you ought in fairness to allow them, if they have an association, to put such machinery in motion.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I merely rose to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how these proposals will affect Scotland? From time to time I have learned from the Lord Advocate that there are special Clauses dealing with the special conditions of Scotland. As we have not those Clauses on the Paper I would like to ask if this Clause is passed would it still be open for us to provide for a different manner of dealing with what is dealt with in this Clause. There is a strong view in Scotland that another method should be adopted, just as in the case of the Housing and Town Planning Act and the Children's Act we have a different system. I think there is a very
  1874
  general view that there should be a different method for Scotland. I hope we shall not be precluded from considering this question when the new Clauses are put on the Paper.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As this question is rather out of the general run of the Debate, I will answer it now. There must be some Amendments relating to local government and a different procedure which applies in other respects to Scotland. I am hoping that those Amendments will be put on the Paper to-night. The Lord Advocate has got them, and he has shown them to me, and the hon. Member will see them to-morrow. I do not presume to be able to give any answer to the question which the hon. Member has put to me, because I do not profess to know the intricacies of Scotch local government procedure. I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will see that these Clauses will be suitable to the special circumstances of Scotland. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Bathurst) has pointed out one respect in which this Clause might be improved in regard to deposit contributors. I think associations of deposit contributors ought to be allowed to initiate any proceedings under this Clause. Though I cannot get an Amendment down to-day, I will see that an Amendment of the character he suggests is introduced into this Clause before the Bill leaves this House.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: All that is required is to add "or an association of deposit contributors."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The speech of the hon. Member for Wilton forms a refreshing contrast to some of the speeches we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. He did not complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for raising this question, and my motive for getting up is that as a member of a local authority for many years I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman warmly for the speech he made this afternoon, and for the action he has taken upon this subject in the Insurance Bill. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had uttered an indictment against certain local authorities. It is true that he uttered an indictmnt, but the words were not his, for they were the words of the inspectors of the Local Government Board. Those of us who have been sitting on local councils taking part

  1875
  in the rural administration of the country have made ourselves familiar with the reports of the inspectors of the Local Government Board, and I know no more heartbreaking task than to read regularly the reports of those inspectors. I am intensely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having brought this question to our notice to-day in a way local authorities cannot ignore. It is not the right hon. Gentleman who has made this indictment, because for years the inspectors of the Local Government Board, on whom the responsibility of investigation has rested, and who have reported upon these matters, have found themselves powerless to remedy them.
  Hon. Members opposite say, "Very well, that is perfectly true, and it has been going on for years, but why has the Local Government Board not put an end to this state of things?" More than one hon. Member opposite has said that this afternoon. The answer is easy. There are certain powers which the Local Government Board possess, but they are very cumbrous and insufficient for achieving the purpose of this Clause, and they have been found wholly insufficient to prevent the state of things arising pictured in those terrible reports. That is not due to the Local Government Board or to the inspectors of nuisances. In too many cases those inspectors of nuisances are discouraged by their council from reporting the nuisances. I have heard the councils urge the appointment of nuisance inspectors because they were men not likely to be troublesome by stirring things up in the neighbourhood, and they have been appointed to hush up these things. Therefore, it is not the fault of the medical officers of health, because they have a most difficult task to perform. They have to report to bodies on which the owners of the property and the occupiers concerned sit. They make their reports, and, of course, nothing comes of them. They are hushed up and not dealt with, and their annual reports are hardly taken any notice of. Property owners have no particular interest in encouraging medical officers of health to do their duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] What motive have they?
  Colonel MARK SYKES: Their own profits.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: In what way will their profits be improved by encouraging the inspectors?
  Colonel M. SYKES: If the hon. Member is speaking of rural districts I can tell him from my own experience that it is much better to have good cottage property, because it pays better to have healthy labourers.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am not so sure that that is the experience of the past. I know Yorkshire, I think, quite as well as the hon. Member.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In many cases the control of the cottages is in the hands of the farmers, and not the landowners, and their condition is not brought to the notice of the landowner except through the action of the local sanitary authority.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: At any rate, there is nothing to encourage the medical officer of health to be drastic. Often the councillors are well-to-do residents in the neighbourhood, and if the medical officers give too much offence they are very likely to find that their private practice will suffer, and that is why we want to sever the private practice of medical officers from their public work. It is not the fault of the Local Government Board. We are all agreed as to the desirability of bringing this state of things to an end, and I know hon. Members opposite are just as anxious as we are to achieve this object, but under the present system you cannot do it. The powers do not exist, and that is why I welcome this Clause by which you are going to give powers to act to people who will see that the power is used. It has been pointed out that the powers given in the Housing Act are inadequate, and in this Clause you are going to say to friendly societies that they may protect themselves. You are going to make it in their interest to take action to protect themselves. Well administered councils will have nothing to fear from this proposal; in fact, they will welcome it. But the badly administered councils will now have to see to it that they do their duty. I agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract on this point. I believe this proposal will lead the councils to use their powers with the result that there will be established a high standard of housing which will tend to put an end to the evils which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described. Hon. Members opposite have complained of the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say, as one interested in local government, that we owe the right hon. Gentleman intense gratitude for these proposals in the Bill, and

  1877
  I wish to express to him my grateful feelings for having brought this matter forward in the admirable speech he has delivered this afternoon.
  Mr. FORSTER: I cannot help thinking the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon carry us rather further than the Clause which we are debating. I cannot see anything in the Clause which is going itself to cause the local authorities to abolish slums. I think I can see in it a great inducement to some local authorities to gamble on the average rate of sickness. You propose under your Clause to compel the local authorities to repay to the society which is damnified the amount by which it has suffered owing to an excess of sickness over the average rate.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Attributable to their neglect.
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, attributable to their neglect. A local authority may say to itself, "It may cost us £50, £100, or £150 to reimburse the society the amount they suffer owing to our neglect, but we will take the risk of any responsibility that may attach to us." What we want is to take such steps as will compel authorities, land owners, and everybody who is concerned in the matter to carry out the duties which they owe to their fellow men and which Acts of Parliament have imposed upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this is the best way of forcing local authorities and others to carry out such duties. I am afraid I cannot agree, for two reasons. In the first place, I think all the pressure that will be exercised by this Clause will be indirect pressure, and, if you want to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities, it is better to do it direct. You can do it directly by arming the Local Government Board with greater powers than it possesses at the present moment. If you really want to secure better housing conditions and better ministration of a publicly elected body, power, arm the Local Government Board with increased powers, and see they use them. I do not think the indirect pressure this Clause will exert is likely to have the effect which was so picturesquely described in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The second reason why I do not like this method of dealing with the question is this. We are creating a system of
  1878
  national insurance, and entrusting to the societies, and to the local health committees powers and duties which their finances will not enable them to discharge without assistance. To whom have they to go to get the additional finance they will require? They have got to go to the authorities which under this Clause they will be stirring into action. They will have to go to the authorities whom they accuse of neglect. They will have to go to the authorities upon whom they bring all the ignominy of public disgrace. Are they likely to get much sympathy from these local public authorities? When a non-elected body attacks directly the administration of a publicly-elected body, when it accuses it of neglect, when by its efforts it brings down a Local Government Board inspector, when the publicly-elected body is ordered to pay a sum of money to the society which took the initial steps, and when that society has to go six months afterwards to the public body and say, "We wish to confer benefits greater than our finance will allow us to do; will you come to our assistance? What sort of reception do you think they are going to have? Is that the spirit we want to engender between the non-elected society and the elected body Do we not want them to act as far as they can in partnership? Do we not want to bring to the struggling mass relief from all the hardships and all the difficulties of the problem of ill-health with which this Bill is concerned? Do we not want to weld every force we can command together?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
  Mr. FORSTER: You take exactly the opposite course. I share to the full the feelings the right hon. Gentleman expressed with so much eloquence, and the party that sits on these benches detests the horrors of slum life and detests all the greed that is responsible for so much of the misery of the poorer classes of this country, but I think we shall make a great mistake if we put a Clause into this Bill supporting the scheme of National Insurance by sowing seeds of discord between the societies and the public health authorities.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The speech which the hon. Member has just made in its conclusion was an inducement to accept this Clause. The arguments which he used in the earlier part of the second speech which he has made upon this subject to-day were

  1879
  against the acceptance of the Clause. I am really not sure whether he is in favour of it or against it. The general observations which he made at the end of his speech, and which he spoke, I am certain, with absolute sincerity, were observations which, had they not been preceded by the earlier ones, would have led us to expect the hon. Member was as enthusiastically in favour of the remedy we are suggesting as we on this side of the House. I understand he takes the view that, although there should undoubtedly be remedies given for the state of things which he deplores as well as others, he does not admit this is the right way of doing it. I want to deal with the two grounds upon which he has said this Clause does not give the remedy which is sought. First, he said—I think I am using the expression to which he gave utterance—it would be inducing the local authorities to gamble on the average sickness, and, as I understood him, what he really meant was they would not have any inducement to set their house in order, because it would pay them much better to take the risk of some society proceeding against them. They would take the chance, and therefore would not do what was their duty. I should have thought, if you have a local authority of that character, it was of great value to give, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving, an additional remedy. It must be an inducement to them to do a duty which otherwise they might neglect.
  If you were considering what incentives you would apply to make an authority do its duty, I should have thought one of the first would be to say, "If you do not do your duty, you shall reimburse the society and the members of the society who suffer in consequence of your neglect to the full extent of your default." You say, in other words, "You, the local authority, will have to put your hands into your pockets, and you will have to give an account of your stewardship to the electors. You will have to show why it is you allowed this to happen, throwing this burden on the local authorities." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has never suggested this remedy was exhaustive, and that no remedy could be introduced, either in this Parliament or the next, for the purpose of curing the evil of the slums, insanitary houses, epidemics caused by neglect, and so forth. He is asking the Committee to give this remedy in this Bill for one reason. If you do not—and you
  1880
  must remember we are dealing with the Insurance Bill and the insurance funds—these funds will be depleted through excessive sickness caused by the neglect of the local authority. That is the hypothesis upon which you always proceed. If you have neglect you may get a very large increase of sickness, a great epidemic, causing an enormous loss to the society, which, without this assistance, might have to make a levy or, at any rate, reduce their benefits very considerably, whereas the fault is not attributable to them but to the local authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is going to take care, in respect of the insurance fund, that if there is any such neglect on the part of the local authority they shall be made to pay. That is the remedy the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives and which the law does not give at the present time. There will otherwise be no means of setting the law in operation.
  7.0 P.M.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), said their remedy is only by mandamus when you have got your inquiry, and, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said your mandamus is a rusty one, nevertheless you have to use it in the end for the same purpose, and therefore you are not assisted. I appeal to him and to every lawyer in the House at the present moment, and to those who are familiar with the administration and work of the local authorities—I am quite sure I shall not appeal in vain to the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), who is an authority on the subject—when I say there is all the difference in the world between the two kinds of remedies. I do not want to bring in my own experience except in my official capacity, and I will say, since I have been a Law Officer of the Crown I have had matters put before me by the Local Government Board who certainly cannot be accused of any want of enthusiasm or zeal in the discharge of their duty. The difficulties the Local Government Board have to face are difficulties of administration of the law. If I point out to the Committee the essential nature of those difficulties, I am sure it will see in a moment how it is, and why it is, the right hon. Gentleman's criticism did not apply to this particular remedy. If you have to proceed against an authority for not carrying out some duty which the Statute has imposed upon them, you first get upon affidavits—always a very unsatisfactory method of

  1881
  inquiry into matters of this kind—a conflicting statement of facts, with which, at any rate, those who practice in the courts are familiar. You get local authorities on one side coming forward with affidavits to say that they are doing everything possible, and are not in default. On the other hand, you get ratepayers, or the persons making complaint, alleging that there is default. The Court has ultimately to determine whether or not these persons, assuming that they do not carry out the order, are to be sent to prison. The Court has to decide whether or not an order shall be issued, and then has to say whether or not it shall be carried out. There is constant difficulty. I will appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Bucks whether that is not a very moderate statement on the procedure that had to be followed.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I agree that the statement of facts is quite moderate, but I would also point out that they lead to the very results which have been pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend. A remedy by mandamus is most unsatisfactory, and the proper remedy is to give the Local Government Board power to carry out these duties.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Having pointed out the difficulties attending the application of the remedy in a court of law, let me show what happens under the Bill. There is no difficulty under the Bill. What is the practice there laid down? First of all, there is the power to order an inquiry, and, when the inquiry has taken place, the inspector makes an order. I will assume for the purposes of argument that he makes an order on the local authority that it shall pay a sum of £1,000 to an approved society. The only effective remedy for all practical purposes in that case is to proceed by way of mandamus. But your mandamus in that case is merely to call upon those who are responsible to levy sufficient money and pay it over. The Bill says that when the inspector has made an order that order is to take effect like a judgment of the Court. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend again whether there is any difficulty whatever in getting the Court to make an order upon an authority which refuses to levy money in order to pay off the judgment decreed against it? You have no difficulty as to facts; you have an authority which is in contempt, and which ex hypothesi is defying the law
  1882
  and refuses to pay up. If you go to the Court it will without hesitation say, that if these gentlemen do not choose to do their duty and levy money according to the judgment of the Court then they must go to prison or other persons must come forward who will do it. That I suggest is an effective remedy, and it is not likely often to be necessary to go to the full extreme, because I believe an authority will pay up when once a judgment had been given against it.
  There is one other point I desire to deal with. The hon. Gentleman gave as his second reason for not supporting this Clause that it would be difficult to put it in force, because you are entrusting these societies with the power of recovering money against the local authorities, and at the same time you are saying that they may have to have recourse to the local authority in order to assist them in certain cases. I quite agree it is desirable there should be co-operation between the local authority and the societies for this purpose, but the kind of local authority which would make default, after having its attention called to the fact that it is neglectful, say, in the matter of a defective water supply, is not, I think, likely to be the kind of authority which would be willing to make the voluntary effort that would have to be made in order to supplement the monies to be given under this insurance scheme. That is not the kind of authority which will come forward and say "we have the power to do it, we will sanction the extra expenditure, and will get help from the Treasury." That kind of authority would probably say "we will not sanction any expenditure involving a further burden on the rates." But at any rate it seems a very poor argument to say that because a local authority has neglected or refused to carry out its statutory duties and has allowed a condition of things to happen which makes for sickness or death, you shall not be allowed to reimburse the insurance fund for the loss caused by that neglect, because, at some further time, you may require some assistance from them which you only ask for in the public good, and which it would be their duty to give, just as in the same way it is their duty to administer the Act. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the authority guilty of neglect will also exercise its absolute discretion against the society, because it has demanded an inquiry for some neglect of its duties in the past. That really is a very poor argument.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: What is the reason which has actuated the Government in leaving out by default provisions such as are to be found in the Housing and Town Planning Act?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought I had explained that. In this case you are dealing with insurance money, and the whole object of your remedy is to repay to the pocket from which money has been expended, in consequence of the default of the local authority, the sum which has had to be spent, and you are trying to get that sum out of the pockets of the defaulters. The object is to reimburse the insurance fund any loss which may have been caused by the default of the local authority.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I should not like to give a silent vote on this very important question. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but I think this is the only Clause in the Bill which really does something to help the very poor. Both sides of the House are deeply anxious to solve the slum question, and that is really what is dealt with in this Clause. As I understand it, it is an effort to get rid of the slums. It is, in fact, a Health Bill. The slums are places where those diseases which are common to poor people are the more prevalent. The people contract the diseases because they are weak and underfed. I have listened carefully to the Debate. I think the consensus of opinion is that we should get rid of the slums. But how are we going to do it? On this side of the House it has been argued that if the right hon. Gentleman had given the Local Government Board more power it would have had a better effect than the proposals contained in this Clause. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has not, under this Clause, given that greater power to the Local Government Board?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a matter of fact, this Clause does give more power to the Local Government Board—very considerable more power, because we propose that an officer of the Local Government Board shall be appointed whenever an inquiry is demanded by a friendly society, that he shall conduct an inquiry, and if the local authority is found to be in default, if it is found that it has not done its duty in the way of clearing slums where it ought to, then a claim for damages is to lie either against the local authority or
  1884
  the slum owner, as the inquiry may direct. That undoubtedly arms the Local Government Board with greater powers than it at present possesses. That is not all the power I should like to see the Local Government Board armed with, but I can only deal with that part of the Bill which affects the insurance, and in regard to that, this Clause undoubtedly arms the Local Government Board with formidable powers for clearing slums.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Then I gather the right hon. Gentleman claims that he is giving more power to the Local Government Board. Now the Local Government Board has been in existence for years, and so have these slums. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wants to put the Local Government Board in this matter under a sort of discipline. This House has passed certain Bills. The object of those Bills has been to get rid of the slums, but in many cases it has not proved effective, and disease as the result is still prevalent. This is a Health Bill. The proposal of the Government is to make those people suffer who do not obey the law as it is laid down. On this occasion I shall certainly vote with the Government, because I want to see something done. I maintain that the poverty in this country is a disgrace to the country. There are too many people of the very poorer classes, and I do not think that Members of this House, on either one side or the other, are doing enough to get rid of the evil. The first thing we had better do is to attack the slums, to improve them out of existence altogether, and with that object in view I shall, although with great regret, vote against the Amendment.
  Mr. L. HASLAM: I understood that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General to say that there will be no surcharge unless neglect is shown either on the part of the local authority or the owner. I want to be perfectly clear on that point, because I think it would be very unfair to fine persons for an act of the commission of which they were unconscious. Does the Bill really carry that out? Paragraph (a) says, that "where the excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to the conditions or nature of the employment or to any neglect," etc. That leaves it optional whether neglect shall be proved or not. It should read, "Where the excess or such part thereof as aforesaid is due to neglect as to the conditions or nature of the employment, or

  1885
  due to neglect." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will assure me that any part of this Clause will be made right so that there is no doubt on the point, I shall be satisfied.
  Mr. CASSEL: With reference to the last point raised, I should like to support the hon. Member, and to ask the Attorney-General for his view as to whether paragraph (a) does not make the employer responsible. There are two alternatives. One is the "conditions or nature of the employment," which would be a matter to be taken into account in fixing the wages of a particular employé, and the other is neglect. Both matters have not to be proved, but one or the other. With regard to the general discussion, I think that all Members on both sides of the Committee are in sympathy with the object at which the Clause aims. Personally, I shall not vote against the Clause, although I think it is not a very effective way of securing the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires. Although the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) was not carried, as the Bill reads it will be impossible to put this into operation for six years, or even eight years. Supposing that eight years hence somebody succeeds in getting through all the meshes of this Clause—and they are pretty intricate—and the Local Government Board inquiry should succeed in making a small local authority liable, what will be the result? You would probably bankrupt all the people who have been suffering by the default of that local authority, because the people who are the complainants will themselves be the ratepayers to a large extent. When they have been mulcted to such an extent that the rates have gone up to 20s., or, say, only 10s., or 15s. in the pound, the local authority will have to commence to set the matter right. Where will the funds come from? I submit that there are two ways of dealing with this evil—first, to give the Local Government Board power to act in default; and, secondly, to provide the local authorities with the money to discharge their duty.
  I have on several occasions, while I was on the London County Council, been on deputations to the right hon. Gentleman, and he always received us sympathetically on that point, but the local authorities have had more and more duties of a national character thrown upon them, which have hampered their resources, with the result that they are left with inadequate means of carrying out those
  1886
  functions Parliament has cast upon them which are of a local character. I submit that it is a hardship upon the local authorities that you should leave them with all these functions and the duty of securing good housing when they have not, especially in the case of the smaller authorities, the means to perform them. I quite agree that that cannot foe dealt with in this Bill, or in this Clause, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind when next we come to him and ask that in future the means of meeting the duties cast upon local authorities shall be given to them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not at all challenging the proposition laid down by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel) with regard to the future. I agree that possibly it would be very advantageous to give the Local Government Board still greatest powers in matters of this kind, but that is not my function, and, therefore, I am not entitled to bring forward a scheme upon that subject. I can only deal with that part of it which affects the Insurance Bill. I also agree that something should be done to assist local authorities to discharge the very heavy obligations cast upon them from time to time by Parliament in the general interest of the community. I have always stated that view. That we could not do under the Insurance Bill. The only way to deal with it under the Bill is indirectly, and indirectly these local authorities are relieved of a very heavy burden by means of the Bill, the very heavy burden of poverty and sickness which in the end must percolate on to the ratepayer. What is done by the Insurance scheme, by the subvention of the State and the contributions of employers and workmen, will to a large extent have the effect of relieving the burden of the rates. There is only one thing I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he says there are other means which would be more efficient; that surely does not rule this out.
  We ought to take every conceivable method, and, therefore, I agree with the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford), who, with the shrewdness and common sense with which he is able to get at the heart of a problem and brush aside its technicalities, said that if it does anything, if it is any contribution towards solving the problem, for heaven's sake let us have it, and if there is something better, let us get that as well! The hon. Member (Mr. Cassel) seems to think that

  1887
  local authorities cannot remedy this state of things without going on to the rates. That is not the case at all. All they have to do is to compel slum owners to put their property right. They have that power given to them by Act of Parliament, and the burden need not fall upon the rates. With regard to the general effect of the Bill, an hon. Member wants to make it clear that it is only where there is default that the owners of property and employers of labour and local authorities are responsible. That is the principle of the Bill. With regard to paragraph (a), the only difference is that in some occupations, owing to their very nature, unless special precautions are taken, the health of those employed would be affected, and unless the employer does take those special precautions he is liable, and ought to be liable, as in the case of lead poisoning, where he ought to be responsible.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I should like to recall the attention of the Committee to the somewhat limited question I raised—
  The CHAIRMAN: I had a message from the hon. and learned Member that he desired to ask leave to withdraw. The time at our disposal is short, and if he does not withdraw I ought to call on somebody else.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: In these circumstances I shall not have an opportunity of replying, and I would rather withdraw than have a Division without an opportunity of stating what I should like in reply.
  Mr. G. THORNE: We are now nearly at the time the Debate will come to a conclusion, and I want to join with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in congratulating and thanking the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford) for bringing this Debate to a practical conclusion. We have been discussing all the afternoon what I thought we had practically thrashed out yesterday afternoon. I trusted that to-day we should have devoted ourselves as practical men to modifying this Clause in a practical direction. I am very grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so largely developed the method of deputations, because deputations are far more practical than the House of Commons. Time after time deputations have approached him and submitted practical proposals which have been introduced into the measure, and we
  1888
  shall get the benefit of that when the Bill is passed into law. If we occupy our time in this Committee in simply discussing general principles we should never bring ourselves to the practical proposals, and benefits would be delayed. I wish to call attention to one practical result which will immediately come from an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has down. It was the result of a deputation, on which I appeared with my hon. Friend below me (Sir Ryland Adkins), consisting of representatives of the county councils and of the municipalities, who approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I admit that the municipalities and the county councils were strongly opposed to the whole of this Clause, but many of us, myself included, felt it was far better to try to modify the Clause than to get rid of it altogether.
  The one objection I felt above all others was that these particular bodies might be discussing matters respecting local authorities, go to the Local Government Board and then back to the local authorities, and that in the first instance any intimation of any error might come from the Local Government Board. As a result of the representations, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an Amendment down which, in my view, largely obviates many of the objections raised. It is that whenever a local body such as is proposed to be formed under this Bill has any objection against the local authority, it must in the first instance present that objection to the local authority, and only when the local authority has failed or neglected or is unable to come to any agreement can they approach the Local Government Board to ask for relief. That is a most practical modification of this Clause, a most useful modification in the interest of all local authorities, and I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for proposing to introduce it.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being Half-past Seven 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 conducted at half-past seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "by" ["Where it is alleged by any approved society"] insert the words "the Insurance Commissioners."
  After the word "among" ["taken place among insured persons"] insert the word "any."
  After the word "persons," insert the words "being, in the case where allegation is made by a society or a committee, persons."
  After the word "may" ["Committee making such allegation may apply"] insert the words "send to the person or authority alleged to be in default a claim for the payment of the amount or any extra expenditure alleged to have been incurred by reason of such cause as aforesaid, and if the Commissioners, society, or committee and such person or authority fail to arrive at any agreement on the subject may."
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "appears to" ["it appears to the person"], and insert instead thereof the words "proved to the satisfaction of."
  After the word "Act" ["under this part of this Act"], insert the words "by any societies or committees where the allegation is made by the Insurance Commissioners, or if the allegation is made by a society or committee."
  In paragraph (b), at end, add the words "or if due to the insanitary condition of any particular premises shall be made good by the owner or occupier of the premises who is proved to the satisfaction of the person holding the inquiry to be responsible."
  In paragraph (c), at end, add the words, "unless the local authority or company prove that such insufficiency or contamination was not due to any default on the part of the authority or company, but arose from circumstances over which it had no control."
  In Sub-section (5), at the beginning, insert the words "The Insurance Commissioners shall make regulations as to the procedure on inquiries under this Section, and,"
  At the end of the Clause, add,
  "(8) Where under this Section any sum is ordered to be paid to the Insurance Commissioners, the Insurance Commissioners shall apply the same in discharge of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners
  1890
  in connection with the inquiry, and shall distribute the balance amongst the societies and committees which appear to the Commissioners to have incurred extra expense on account of the excessive sickness in such proportion as the Commissioners think just."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  CLAUSE 47.—(Erection of Sanatoria, etc.)
  (1) If under any other Act of the present Session any sum is made available for the purposes of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis or such other diseases as the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury may appoint, such sum shall be distributed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury in making grants for those purposes.
  (2) If any such grant is made to a county council, the Local Government Board may authorise the county council to provide any such institution, and where so authorised the county council shall have power to erect such buildings and to do all such things as may be necessary for the purpose, and any expenses of the county council, so far as not defrayed out of the grant, shall be defrayed out of the county fund.
  (3) For the purpose of facilitating co-operation amongst county councils, county borough councils, and other local authorities for the provision of such sanatoria and other institutions as aforesaid, the Local Government Board may by order make such provisions as appear to them necessary or expedient by the constitution of joint committees, joint boards, or otherwise, for the joint exercise by such councils and authorities of their powers in relation thereto, and any such order may provide how, in what proportions, and out of what funds or rates the expenses of providing such institutions, so far as they are not defrayed out of grants under this Section, are to be defrayed, and may contain such consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions as may appear necessary for the purposes of the order, and an order so made shall be binding and conclusive in respect of the matters to which it relates.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the present Session" and to insert instead thereof the word "Parliament."
  This belongs to the other Amendments which stand in my name and the effect

  1891
  will be that the operations of this Clause will be so extended as to cover not only the present Session but future Sessions of this Parliament. The point of the proposal is to enable grants of money to be given to local authorities to undertake treatment as well as the provision of dispensaries or sanatoria or whatever it may be. I want to lay down the principle that our mode of dealing with this problem will be to finance local authorities not only in the provision of sanatoria, but in the carrying out of treatment as a general principle of policy.
  The CHAIRMAN: That certainly would not be in order on this first Amendment. The only question which can arise here is whether this is to apply to an Act passed in this Session or in this Parliament.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly why I asked the hon. Member to explain. I felt certain that the explanation, though it might or might not be a good one, was not relevant to this particular Amendment, which raises a very narrow issue. If any money was voted in any future Session, of course Parliament would give direction then as to how it is to be allocated. We have only done this because we knew that during the present Session £1,500,000 could be voted in the Finance Bill. If next year there is another £1,500,000 the Finance Bill will give further directions. We cannot bind even the present Parliament during any future Session as to what it shall do and how it shall do it or in what respect it is to spend the money. All we can do now is to say that money in the present Session shall be used in this way.
  Mr. CASSEL: Are we to take it that a Finance Bill is to be passed this Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very old jest.
  Amendment negatived.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after the word "appoint" ["with the approval of the Treasury may appoint"], to insert the words "or for the treatment of such diseases."
  The Amendment, as the Clause now stands, is not intended to raise the question of future policy, but to call attention to the machinery for the administration of the sanatorium benefit and the provision of sanatoria as provided for in this Clause. The point of the Amendment is to provide local authorities with money
  1892
  from an Exchequer Grant in aid of treatment. As the Clause stands the Exchequer Grant is limited to the provision, of sanatoria and other necessary institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis. What I want to show is that in order to make this work smoothly and successfully we must also subsidise local authorities in undertaking treatment, and draw attention to the position in which we stand at present with regard to the administration of sanatorium benefit and the position therein of the Insurance Commissioners and the Local Government Board. I am quite sure every one of us feels glad to have been in Parliament when the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately sets aside a great sum of money for the provision of sanatoria, farm colonies, dispensaries, and what not, for the treatment of tuberculosis. The cases that I will quote with regard to the scheme of operations which I will sketch out, will show how inseparable is the provision of dispensaries from the power of treatment. As it stands at present, or in the other Amendments in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the request of the local insurance committee the local authority, with the approval of the Local Government Board, will provide sanatoria and other necessary means for treatment. The Local Government Board may or may not approve. This I take it will be the scheme of operations. A dispensary will be required in every district. There will be perhaps 200 in the whole country. In these there will be provided by someone, either by the local authority or by some collection of private individuals, doctors, nurses, visitors, and so forth. From these dispensaries the patients will be drafted as the case may be, after having been examined when it is determined to what kind of institution they should be sent—to an open-air school in the case of children, a children's sanatorium, or a sanatorium for early cases in the case of adults, a farm colony, and so on.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is really a matter quite outside the scope of the Clause. The whole Clause hangs on its first words: "If under any other Act of the present Session any sum is made available" for certain purposes. Clearly we cannot discuss these matters of policy under this Clause.
  Dr. ADDISON: Is it not in order to discuss the mode of allocation?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was discussing the purpose and not the mode of allocation. His whole speech so far has been directed to what the local authorities are to do with the money after they get it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This deals purely with money which is to be paid for the building of sanatoria. My hon. Friend is proposing to deal with the whole question of the treatment of tuberculosis and consumption, which is a totally different matter and is not germane to the Clause. The Clause simply deals with the £1,500,000 which is to be voted for the purpose of the erection of sanatoria and other institutions, and he proposes to set up the whole machinery in this Clause for the treatment inside, which is a very different matter.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is clear that if the hon. Member wants to divert some of this money to other purposes, he had better make the attempt on the Finance Bill.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: That assumes that the Finance Bill will not be amended in that particular. If the Finance Bill came first that would be the best place to discuss how the money would be allocated, and the purposes for which it is to be allocated could be varied or extended. But the Finance Bill is to come second, and I am afraid if you limit us to the strict words of the Amendment now that will be used as an argument when we come to the Finance Bill, and we shall be told that by the Insurance Bill we have already fixed the purpose for which the money is to be allocated and it cannot be changed. I submit that you must necessarily discuss the allocation of this £1,500,000 in the Bill in which it is first raised, and if you do not do it on the first Bill you will be prevented by the words of the first Bill from discussing it on the second.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so. Perhaps the Attorney-General will give us his view.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It seems to me that if we discuss this question on this Amendment the difficulty would be that we are discussing something which cannot arise in view of what has already been settled here, and in view of the Finance Bill which is to be introduced. We are dealing with money which has been allocated for certain special purposes.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Not "has been allocated," but "is allocated."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is allocated in the Bill as it stands at present and a Resolution has been passed also dealing with that money and the purposes for which it is to be applied, and consequently you must apply the money in accordance with the Resolution.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am in this difficulty: If this Bill is left unamended on this subject, it will fix irrevocably the purpose for which the £1,500,000 is to go. The Finance Bill merely votes the money. It is this Bill which defines the purpose for which it is to be allocated. If we wished afterwards to move Amendments to the Budget Bill, it would be a conclusive reply to us to say that this Act had already decided how the money was to be applied, and it would be perfectly idle for us to propose Amendments.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Under this Bill money is made available for sanatoria. You have to deal with whatever sum is made available for sanatoria and other institutions. Whether the sum is £1,500,000, or any other sum, we have to deal with it by applying it for the provision of sanatoria and other institutions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The arrangements with regard to the administration of sanatorium benefit are contained in the new Clause 15. This Clause deals with the buildings.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn this way? We cannot hear what he is saying.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There comes my difficulty again. I have to address the Chair.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Address the Chair, but speak in this direction.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend asks me to perform a feat to which I am not equal, for I cannot face both ways. In Clause 15 we have laid down provisions dealing with the administration of sanatorium benefit. It says that the local health committee shall make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners as to the management of sanatoria, or other institutions, for the treatment of insured persons. Since then we have promised to make provision for the treatment of dependents, and we shall

  1895
  have to introduce a new Clause for that purpose. Therefore the question of treatment is prejudged by Clause 15, and if the words of this Amendment were introduced in the Clause now before the Committee, they would be absolutely inconsistent with the provisions in Clause 15. My hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) proposes to alter the Clause in respect of treatment, and I submit that he ought to move this Amendment on the new Clause dealing with dependents.
  Dr. ADDISON: I have no desire to obstruct the proper course of discussion. I wish to bring this point up at the right place. I fully intended to move an Amendment to the Finance Bill when the time arrives as to how the money should be allocated and dealt with. The point I wish to raise now is, in the first place, that this money shall be allocated in a certain way, and I want also to say that the grant shall be distributed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury. It appears to me that what is proposed in this Clause, coupled with the arrangements we have already made in Clause 15, will produce grave embarrasment in the administration of this fund. I want to raise the general question as to the mode of administering this grant.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that this Clause deals only with a certain sum which it is supposed is going to be allocated under another Act of the present Session. That is presumably the Finance Act, and that in its turn is based on financial resolutions which are already passed, and cannot be altered. Therefore it is clear that any Amendments on this Clause or on this Bill tending to alter that sum must be out of order. I do not at all take the view suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy). I have not been able to find a copy of the money resolution on the Finance Bill, but whatever its terms may be, it necessarily has fixed the matter, and we cannot go outside that resolution.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I submit that it is a wholly new doctrine to hold that the Money Resolution binds you in any other matter except the purpose for which the money is to be applied.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is relevant in connection with the first words already passed. "If under any other Act." That
  1896
  is why I am bound to rule the Amendment out of order on this Clause. I cannot go beyond that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I say something for the comfort of my hon. Friend. I know he has in his mind the Amendment with reference to recouping of which the hon. Member for Cork has given notice. That question has been raised not only in Ireland, but in this country, and that is totally different from the question raised by my hon. Friend (Dr. Addison). I would respectfully counsel the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) not to get mixed up with my hon. Friend (Dr. Addison).
  Mr. PRINGLE: There will be no provision in this Clause for dealing with money voted for other purposes.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Although a resolution has already been passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown out a promise that, if necessary, he is prepared to bring in a further resolution. In the event of a further resolution being proposed in Committee of Supply I venture to say that it is possible for my hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) to move his Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot, of course, take cognisance of any suggestion of that kind. I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to move the Amendment. I think the words of the Clause do cover the words in the Finance Resolution.
  Mr. SHERWOOD: It is certainly very desirable that an opportunity should arise on this Clause for some consideration of the relations between the Insurance Commissioners referred to in the new Clause to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Local Government Board. I wish to know at what point in the Debate on this Clause it will be in order to raise the question of the relations between the Insurance Commissioners and the Local Government Board.
  Dr. ADDISON: Would it be in order to make a criticism as to the machinery which will exist for dealing with those sums, and to discuss the relations, for example, between the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commissioners
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, so far as machinery is concerned, the hon. Member is in order, but when I interposed the hon.

  1897
  Member was proceeding to develop an argument as to the application of the money which is totally out of order.
  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (2), after the word "buildings" ["power to erect such buildings"], to insert the words "and to manage and maintain the institution and for that purpose to enter into agreements and make arrangements with local health committees and other authorities and persons."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  8.0 P.M.
  Dr. ADDISON: On this Amendment, can I refer to the question of the management and maintenance of these institutions? It appears to me that on this Amendment the whole point is raised as to the distribution and use of this money. The contention in that connection which I beg to make is that it is essential in the needs of the institution that the maintenance of it must be by the local health authority and that the subsidies being granted by the Local Government Board, upon them rest the general question of the relation of local authority in this connection with the local insurance committees who are ranged up on the other side; and I hope the Insurance Commissioners will make generous grants if the principles enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Amendment are to be carried out. The local insurance committee may desire the local authority to provide the institutions, and they may desire money to be allocated for their maintenance. My point is that, in view of Clause 46, which provides for the establishment of a sanatoria and the disposal and provision of institutions and the money for their maintenance, this duty will be best carried out by the local authority, because I hope that they will determine upon the general plan. There will be a scheme prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, and, according to that scheme, grants only will be made for certain specific purposes and for the provision of dispensaries; and the Insurance Commissioners will probably have to draw up that scheme. As the matter stands, in the words of this Clause, and under the whole of this scheme, the Insurance Commissioners will be subject to a right of appeal, and this right will be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, not only as to the character of the institution, but as to the system upon which they are to be conducted; and I suggest that this will of necessity in
  1898
  many cases place local insurance committees in a serious dilemma. They will desire, among other things, to have allocated to them power for specific purposes, and it is quite conceivable that the local health authority will not be disposed to accord the most hearty welcome to the local insurance committees. These Commissioners will have statutory obligations to provide sanatoria for certain persons in a neighbourhood, and it will help them out of their dilemma if power be given to the local authority. The Insurance Committee will deal directly with the local authority, who are under the supervision of the Local Government Board, and in this way you will not get the stimulus that is essential in this matter. As we have already seen, it is quite conceivable that there may be some difference between the local Commissioners and the local authority.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. member is travelling outside the Amendment. I wish to draw his attention to the words of the Amendment, which is to "provide and maintain." That is the only question before the Committee.
  Dr. ADDISON: The maintenance of the institution is one of the essential parts to be considered under the Bill, because to maintain a sanatoria it will be necessary to have a dispensary, where you will treat patients for tuberculosis; and this deals with the mode in which the grant is to be made for that purpose. Therefore, the intervention of the local insurance committee is somewhat essential. My point is that the machinery is not best adapted to carry out that purpose, and therefore I am suggesting that in that respect the scheme should be amended. My contention is that the whole of this business should be under one authority, and that the deputation of it to others may only lead to confusion in the allocation of these grants and cause hopeless dilemma. In my judgment, the way for dealing with this Clause is to put it on a different basis and to offer to the local authorities the expenditure necessary for the maintenance of these institutions.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is not conforming to the point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to move in Sub-Section (2), after the word "necessary" ["necessary for the purpose"], to

  1899
  insert the words "or expedient." The words that I wish to insert are very desirable, and I think are what are ordinarily termed a drafting Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not have thought the words necessary to insert here. They are redundant words, and often are very dangerous. I am very much against the insertion of these words, and I consider them quite unnecessary, being redundant and possibly dangerous.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: They surely ought to apply to the next Sub-section, where the same words come. To say that a thing is inexpedient seems to me to be the same thing.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "purpose" ["necessary for the purpose"], and insert instead thereof the words "purposes aforesaid."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  In Sub-section (2) insert at the end the words "as expenses for general county purposes, or if the order of the Local Government Board so directs as expenses for special county purposes charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved, to add at the end of Sub-section (3)—
  "(4) A local health committee may, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, enter into agreements with any person or authority that, in consideration of such person or authority providing treatment in a sanatorium or other institution or otherwise for persons recommended by the committee for sanatorium benefit, the committee will contribute out of the funds available for sanatorium benefit towards the maintenance of the institution or provision of such treatment, such annual or other payment, and, subject to such conditions and for such period as may be agreed, and any such agreement shall be binding on the committee and their successors, and any sums payable by the committee thereunder may be paid by the Insurance Commissioners and deducted from the sums payable to the committee for the purposes of sanatorium benefit."
  Mr. SHERWELL: The point is of some importance which is raised in this new Clause. The Clause sets out the definition
  1900
  or delimitation respectively as far as the Insurance Commissioners are concerned, and also sets out the position of the Local Government Board as regards the proposed Amendment. The sum of one million and a-half which is allocated for the erection of sanatoria is subject, to that body. It is the Local Government Board who allots this money and makes these grants to the local authority for the purposes of institutions useful in themselves in all parts of the country. But the Insurance Commissioners will have no option and no power to determine the character of the suggested institutions which are to be built out of this money, and it may be conceivable that if the position of the Local Government Board is not defined we shall find the erection of sanatoria in different parts to that desired by the Insurance Commissioners. We desire that co-operation shall be procured and that these sanatoria shall be erected in such parts as are desired by the local authority, and it is in that view that we wish to see the basis of this Clause altered and welcome some such statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be a calamitous thing if there are any differences between local Insurance Commissioners and the Local Government Board on the point, and I hope that the erection of these sanatoria will be in accordance with the wishes of the locality, and that the local Insurance Commissioners will have some voice in determining the character and the position of their erection.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Insurance Commissioners will represent the insurance side of this scheme, and the local health committee will have the general administration of this Act. Well now, I agree there is only one way in which the point is to pass, and that is that it might have been effectively raised on Sub-section (1).
  Mr. SHERWELL: I tried it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There was no Amendment.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I raised the point then.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is only one way in which the Insurance Commissioners have a voice, and it is through the Treasury. It is the only way for them. The local authority have the matter in their own hands for approval, and the Treasury will deal with the matter when

  1901
  it comes before them in a formal manner, and they will probably make representations to the Insurance Commissioners in regard to it. Altogether the matter involves one of an enormous expenditure of money, and I have no doubt at all the matter will be fully considered. We shall consult the Insurance Commissioners because of the large amount of money which will be in their hands and at the disposal of the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 15. The administration of further sums which the Treasury may vote for purposes of maintenance will also be under the control of Commissioners, and therefore the Local Government Board will consult the opinion of the Insurance Commissioners. This is the only way to carry out the words of the Amendment, and the Treasury will have a final voice in the matter, because the approval of the Treasury is necessary to the expenditure of any sum of money, and that is the only way Insurance Commissioners can approach the matter. I quite see the importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  Lord HENRY BENTINCK: I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "authority" ["enter into agreement with any person or authority"], to insert the words "other than any Poor Law authority." I am sure those words have been accidentally omitted from this Clause, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that it is extremely desirable that sanatorium benefits should not have the taint of pauperism. It will be a pity not to use the institutions which have been established by the boards of guardians, and I think there is nothing to prevent them from handing them over to the medical officer of health, and thus bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished, the unification of the Poor Law service under the authority of the medical officer.
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist this Amendment, which, I think, would introduce a dangerous element into the Clause, because I foresee that these institutions possessed by the Poor Law authorities will hereafter form a very important branch of this work.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept this Amendment, for I think it would be a great waste of public money if full use were not made of the excellent institutions which
  1902
  have been erected by boards of guardians throughout the country, and on which the ratepayers have expended large sums of money. I know that there are a great many of them. Surely, if those institutions are not filled up with patients it would be a pure waste of money to establish other sanatoria when you have those already equipped. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, but will, if possible, make use of existing sanatoria.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I sympathise very much with the object of the Amendment which has been submitted by the Noble Lord opposite, and I can quite see what he has got in his mind. He does not want to send insured persons to institutions which have been erected by the authorities who are in charge of the paupers of the country, because of the taint of pauperism. I am afraid however, that I cannot accept the Amendment. The boards of guardians have erected a great many of these institutions in different parts of the country, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board confirms the statement made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach). I think it would be rather a serious thing in these conditions to refuse to recognise them at all. I think it would be better perhaps to trust to the Local Government Board and to the Insurance Commissioners between them to see that these institutions are not of a character which would lead the insured person to regard himself as being tinder a kind of degradation in entering them. I am not prepared at this moment to accept the Amendment, and I would really like to consider it more thoroughly. I think that most of the sanatoria in Ireland have been set up by the Poor Law authorities. I sympathise deeply with the Amendment and its object, and I should feel inclined on the whole to accept it were it not for the facts stated by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, and confirmed by the Secretary to the Local Government Board.
  Lord A. THYNNE: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question a little further, perhaps on the Report stage of the Bill. It is a very important matter indeed to keep the question of insurance entirely distinct from the Poor Law. Personally, I should consider it lamentable if insured persons under this Bill were sent into any institutions which

  1903
  are not wholly distinct from the Poor Law. I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot be too careful.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am prepared to deal with the question raised by the Noble Lord, but at the present moment I am really not in a position definitely to make up my mind on the subject. I should like to consider the Amendment a little further, and I understand from the Chairman that this kind of Amendment can be moved on the Report stage. I would suggest to the Noble Lord not to seek for a definite expression of opinion at the present time, and withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider very carefully before he accepts the Amendment. Surely the object of the Bill is to prevent people from coming under the Poor Law. There are a number of institutions actually administered by the Poor Law authorities, and by the operation of this Bill the number of those who will enter the Poor Law institutions will gradually diminish. You have these magnificent buildings erected in different parts of the country, and surely it would be an absolute waste of public money not to make use of them merely because of a sentimental idea against buildings erected by Poor Law authorities. I think the matter is one deserving of grave consideration.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
  Mr. FORSTER: One would suppose that it would be a simple and easy matter to accept the proposition that where you have good accommodation already available for the treatment of disease it should be used. But in connection with this proposition we have run up against one of the greatest stumbling blocks to legislation, and that is the question of sentiment. People experience a proper revulsion of feeling if they have to go into a Poor Law institution. Although there is great force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, that it would be a great waste of public money to fail to use the accommodation which already exists, I should like to point out to him that we are not going to send these people to sanatoria merely for fun, or merely because they want a pleasant holiday; we are going to send them there in the hope that they will get cured. But to send any patient into an institution, the mere thought of which is going to weigh upon a man's mind and cause in him a
  1904
  feeling of disgust, is to pursue a course which would put him into most unfavourable conditions for effecting a cure. The whole question really needs the most close and careful consideration. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able, and I am quite certain he will do it with the most anxious care, to weigh the pros and cons. There are many arguments in favour of the proposal of my Noble Friend, and strong arguments urged by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope the matter will be very carefully considered before we come to the Report stage, and if we have the opportunity of debating the matter on the Report stage I have no doubt we will have to face the difficulty of coming to a decision as to it.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert, "(4) In the provision of sanatoria under this Section as nearly as possible equal accommodation shall be provided for women as for men."
  I move this formally because I want to make sure that some adequate provision will be made for the women who are employed contributors in the sanatoria. It is, at all events, arguable that the employed contributor, either male or female, should have the first claim, and it seems, to me that the employed contributor being a woman and paying her full contribution must have a prior claim to the dependents of male contributors. As long as the point is considered I do not want to press the matter. I think the point is one of importance. It seems to me to be a very poor prospect for an employed contributor if she is in need of sanatorium treatment, and finds that she is excluded because dependents of other contributors occupy all the available space.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Local Government Board take the view very strongly that there ought to be elasticity in the matter. Tuberculosis among men is much more prevalent than amongst women, and in certain districts there may be an even greater disparity, owing to the nature of the occupation. Therefore I think elasticity should be allowed, and that it is better to trust the matter to the Local Government Board.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert: "(4) For the purposes of this Section, the expression 'county council' shall not include the London County Council."
  I move this Amendment with the object of obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement as to the responsibility which will attach to the London County Council under the proposals. It is quite clear from the provision of the money referred to that it is in the nature of a Grant-in-Aid, and is not intended to cover the whole cost. The position of the county council is very undefined with regard to the property in the buildings. Will the buildings vest in the council, and in matters such as additions and alterations will the responsibility rest with the county council? There is the further question of rates and taxes and repairs, all of which in the sum total may amount to a considerable figure, and as to all of which our position is not very clearly defined in the measure. It is not very clear whether our responsibilities are limited simply to erection in the first instance, or whether they also extend to management. I think the right hon. Gentleman will quite appreciate our reluctance to undertake an indefinite liability of this sort without some precise statement on his part as to its extent. It is rather a novel departure to place a charge on the rates for a service which he admits himself, I think in the Bill and certainly in all the discussions, to be of a national character. I think if there was a service from which the rates should be relieved it is this particular service with regard to sanatoria, which it is admitted on both sides of the House is of national importance and which ought not to be charged on the local rates.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that the Noble Lord can have fully contemplated the effect of these words. The effect of them would be that the London County Council would get no share in the Grant, and I cannot imagine why the London County Council should take up that line. We propose to give a sum of £1,500,000, but then the Noble Lord says that so far as London is concerned it does not want any of it. The Amendment says, in effect, "We hereby wish to say that the London County Council do not want any of it."
  Lord A. THYNNE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understands.
  1906
  I stated in my opening remarks that my object in bringing forward this Amendment was to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement as to the limits of our liability in this matter. I pointed out how very indefinite the Clause reads, and that we did not know to what extent we are liable in respect of details, which I mentioned and which I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not think fit to deal with. I asked the question in whom the buildings will vest. I mentioned the question of repairs and asked as to whether our liability is restricted to the erection of the buildings in the first instance, or whether it is to extend to management as well. All these important details involve great financial responsibility, and are left in a very vague and unsatisfactory state so far as those people are concerned who are responsible for local finance. No doubt a million and a-half seems to be a very large sum, but it is only in the nature of a Grant-in-Aid. The right hon. Gentleman does not dispute that this is a national service. If it is a national service, it ought to be paid for wholly from national funds, and you do not get away from your obligation if you give a part payment, a Grant-in-Aid, and if you say that an undefined balance is to fall upon the local rates and be a local burden in respect of this service which you admit to be of a purely national character. That is the whole point, and those are the reasons why I brought forward this Amendment. I quite realise if I pressed it, the danger of London losing a Grant, but I am the very last person to wish to deprive London of any scanty contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the information of which we stand in need.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Some part of the information would take us back to Clauses which have been disposed of, but the London County Council need not spend a penny unless they like under this Clause. The only thing that this Clause says is that if they do spend money they may have a share of the Grant. But there is no compulsion on the county council to spend any money at all. If there is compulsion it is outside this Bill altogether. At the present moment the whole burden of curing these poor people when they cannot provide for themselves falls on the rates. There is no contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. For the first time we have come forward and offered £1,500,000. Although the Noble Lord

  1907
  regards that as an insignificant contribution, at any rate, poor as it is, it is the only contribution of the kind that has ever been made. When sanatoria have been erected in the past, they have been erected out of the rates, except where they have been provided out of private contributions. Now for the first time we offer an Imperial Grant of £1,500,000. Unless the county council choose to build sanatoria, they need not do so, but if they do they will get a very substantial Grant-in-Aid. The grant so substantial that those who advised me before I recommended this sum calculated that it would be equal to something like half the total cost. Another expert thought it would cover the whole cost, but that is a more sanguine view than the Government have taken. It will, at any rate, cover something like half the cost.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: It is quite true that there is to be a contribution from the National Exchequer, but this type of legislation is growing very common. We have, for instance, the feeding of necessitous school children. That is an admirable idea. It is suggested from the National Parliament; a small Grant-in-Aid comes along; and no local authority feels that it can resist going forward with so estimable a type of work. But it all throws cost on the local rates. The same with medical inspection and school clinics. No progressive authority can resist the desires of its citizens to press forward with these matters. But so cleverly is the business arranged at headquarters that encouragement is given through excellent legislation, but the great bulk of the cost falls on the local exchequer, until at last we are reaching a point where the local authorities will be unable to stand the strain, and they are waiting now for a readjustment of local and national finance. As to this suggestion of sanatoria, we agree with it, but it is throwing a still further burden on the local rates. It seems to me that the appeal which the Noble Lord has made is a reasonable one, and I support him in it.
  Lord A. THYNNE: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would combat the view advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Imperial Exchequer is advancing £1,500,000 to do a work which at the present moment is being done by the rates. To refute the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I need
  1908
  only quote figures which he himself gave in an earlier discussion. He then told us that there were in England and Ireland at present between 400,000 and 500,000 people suffering from tuberculosis, and that there were 75,000 deaths from tuberculosis every year, and that to deal with this large consumptive population there were only 4,000 beds provided, half of which were taken up by patients suffering from other illnesses. He very rightly and properly called attention to the grave scandal of having only 2,000 beds in England and Ireland to provide accommodation for consumptive patients, numbering in the aggregate between 400,000 and 500,000. It was to meet the needs of this great consumptive population, which is not being dealt with at the present moment, that the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his Grant. Therefore the money is not being provided for the performance of functions at present discharged by the rates.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. CHAPPLE Dr. CHAPPLE had given notice of the following Amendment: At the end of the Clause to add,
  "(4) It shall provide, where possible trained health missionaries who shall visit the homes of insured persons where tuberculosis is known to exist, in order to give instruction and guidance in the prevention of infection, and to report to the health committee on the suitability of the home to provide sanatorium conditions.
  "(5) It may arrange for the transfer to, and residence in, a house where sanatorium conditions can be provided of an insured person suffering from tuberculosis."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This Amendment is outside the scope of the Clause.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. The object of the Amendment is to provide for the supervision of houses in which tuberculous cases exist, but for which sanatoria are not available. An Amendment has already been accepted enabling the local health committee to provide treatment in institutions other than sanatoria, and to make arrangements with persons—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not on this Clause. This Clause deals with quite a different matter.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The Amendment to which I refer is one in the name of the

  1909
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, and under it the local health committee may with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, enter into agreements with any person to provide treatment in other institutions. I want to enable the health committees to have supervision over those houses in which exist tuberculous cases which cannot be taken in the sanatoria. There will be a large number of cases that will not, and probably a still larger number that cannot, take advantage of sanatoria. I want to treat the houses in which they exist as infected houses, and to enable some of this money to be made available for their constant supervision.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the Amendment on this Clause.
  Mr. FORSTER: Is it not the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment relates to treatment?
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment gives power to a health committee to make arrangements with a person to treat one who is infected in a sanatorium or other institution, "or otherwise." What is the meaning of the word "otherwise," if it does not mean in the patient's house?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Amendment refers purely to the institutions towards which grants are to be made, and enables local health committees to enter into an agreement with reference to those institutions. The hon. Member's proposal is a totally different matter. It provides for trained health commissioners who shall visit the homes of insured persons where tuberculosis is known to exist. My Amendment deals with quite a different matter. The proposal has relevance to the Clause, because it deals with arrangements under the Bill in regard to which money is granted. I am not sure that the hon. Member's proposal is not outside the Bill altogether. In any case, it ought either to come on Clause 15, which deals with treatment, or to be moved as a new Clause, just as the one which I proposed to move in reference to the treatment of dependents.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I rise to a point of Order. My Amendment does not deal with the home; it deals with the supervision of the home where infection exists; since infection resides in the house as well as in the person.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the home of the insured person?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Who are known to be such. I simply want some of the money that is available for management and for the prevention and cure of tuberculosis made available for the supervision of these homes where cases exist which cannot or will not go to a sanatorium.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly the point raised by the hon. Member behind me (Dr. Addison), which was argued at great length and with the characteristic pertinacity of the hon. Gentleman, but not with my hon. Friend's usual success.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 48.—(Power to Insurance Office to make Regulations, etc.)
  The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations for any of the purposes for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act or the Schedules therein referred to, and for prescribing anything which under this Act or any such Schedules is to be prescribed, and generally for carrying this Act into effect, and any regulations so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I beg to move, after the word "may" ["Insurance Commissioners may make regulations"], to insert the words "subject to the provisions set out in the Ninth Schedule to this Act."
  I think the House will see a very great improvement to Clause 48 in the Amendment that stands in my name. Clause 48 is the Clause which confers very wide powers indeed upon the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of enabling them to make regulations for the purposes of the Act. The Government consider it advisable, in regard to Part II. of the Act, to confer certain safeguards, and to make certain provisions which the House will see if they turn to Schedule 9. Power of taking objection against the proposed regulations is there given, and to lay down the procedure as to inquiring into such objections when the Government Department does not consider such objections frivolous. The Schedule lays down a procedure for examining witnesses and other people. The object of my Amendment is to bring into Clause 48 the safeguards which are

  1911
  provided by Schedule 9 in respect to the Second Part of this Bill. I quite admit that if this Amendment is accepted, that it will be necessary to make certain verbal modifications in the Schedule when we come to consider it, but I think the Attorney-General will agree that it is advisable in regard to this part of the Act to provide safeguards similar to those which we provide in respect to Part II. of the Act. This is, in many respects, purely a drafting administrative Amendment, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think there is some force in the argument used by the Noble Lord, that it is desirable, perhaps, to have some kind of restriction upon the general powers of these regulations, but I think if he considers the matter a little he will see that it is not expedient to adopt the regulations of the 9th Schedule. It is really only a question of detail; we are agreed as to principle. I am willing to do something to meet the Noble Lord. In the 9th Schedule these provisions are those of the Factory and Workshop Acts, and are really regulations for the dangerous trades. What may be applicable to the dangerous trades are not applicable to the general trades dealt with in this Clause. I think with him that it would be right and better that we should introduce some provision so that Parliament may be seized of the matter, and have some power over the regulations when they come into force. One thing I should point out, and that is this: that it is necessary in some parts of the Bill that there shall be power to bring regulations into force without delay. I think that it would be well to have recourse to the procedure adopted in the Old Age Pensions Act. There in a similar case power is given to both Houses of Parliament to petition within twenty-one days. I shall propose later that at the end of the Clause we should introduce this proviso:—
  "Providing that if an address is presented to His Majesty by either Houses of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which the House has sat next after any such regulations is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
  1912
  That is, I think, a more convenient way of dealing with this matter. It is essential that we should have regulations made at once, but the Houses of Parliament should have control over them.
  Mr. FORSTER: The words suggested by the Attorney-General are a great improvement on the Clause as it stands. The analogy of the Old Age Pensions Act exists to a certain extent, but the precedent, if followed, will not be quite satisfactory in regard to the regulations of this Bill. Under the Old Age Pensions Act there is no contribution on the part of the person affected. If the regulations which were made had come into force before Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing them, and they had proved unsatisfactory, and were subsequently annulled, no great damage would have been done. Some persons would have got pensions to which they were not entitled, or some persons would have been refused pensions to which they were entitled.
  As soon as the regulations were annulled that matter was put right. Under this Bill people will be contributing every week, and of course a very much larger number of persons will be affected than under the Old Age Pensions Act. Supposing you get people contributing every week for several months under regulations which Parliament, as soon as it has had an opportunity of discussing them, is found to disapprove, there will be a great deal of inconvenience and trouble in setting the matter right. I only mention this point, not by way of opposing the proposal of the Attorney-General, because I think it is a very important point, but for the purpose of simply asking him not to commit himself to the policy that all the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners should be treated in this way. I quite agree there are a great many regulations that would have to be brought into force at once, and that Parliament may well review them at the earliest possible moment after they come into force, but I think there are some regulations that Parliament ought to see before they take effect at all. I am told that at the Grand Committee, when Part II. was under discussion to-day. this point of the regulations was urged, and I am informed that the Government committed themselves to the view that some regulations should be treated in one way and some in another, and that some should have the force of law only after they received the sanction of the House,

  1913
  while others should have effect from the moment they were passed. I ask the Attorney-General to consider this question and to consult with the President of the Board of Trade and other Members of the Government who have charge of Part II. of the Bill, and see whether or not the question of the regulations were dealt with today in this way.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I follow the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware of what took place in the Grand Committee in regard to the unemployment part of the Bill. When we come to the end of the Bill and know what regulations there is power to make in the first part and the second part, I can well conceive it may be desirable to distinguish between the two sets of regulations, one set which may be required to bring into force at any moment, and other regulations which may be serious in their effect and for which better sanction should be obtained from Parliament. It may be so. I will consider this question, having regard to what took place in reference to Part II., and I will consider the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Attorney-General, while he is considering this, to be good enough also to consider the suggestion contained in the Amendment upon the Paper in my name. I do not know how far he may be able to go in that direction. There is a Government Bill down for Committee stage to-night—namely, the "Rag Flock Bill"—and it contains this Clause:—
  "All regulations made by the Local Government Board under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and the Rules Publication Act of 1893 shall apply to such regulations as if they were statutory rules within the meaning of Section 1 of that Act."
  If the Attorney-General will consider that as well, and see if these rules can be introduced so far as possible, it would be very useful. The point I am anxious about is this. There are some regulations so far-reaching in their effect that before they can be put into operation many persons interested should know what they mean. Under the Rules Publication Act these regulations cannot take effect for forty days, and the object is that notice may be given. I do not know, perhaps, that the Attorney-General could go so far as that.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Some of these regulations will have effect upon the rights of certain persons, and will regulate their rights while they are in force. Supposing these regulations were not accepted, and were ultimately revoked by the decision of Parliament, then the Attorney-General's proviso that anything done up to that time should stand good. I quite agree that something of that sort must be necessary; but if the Attorney-General considers it, he will also require in his proviso to make adjustments where adjustments ought to be made, and the rights of parties have been wrongly dealt with by rules brought into force but afterwards denounced. I do not mean to say that anything so done should be declared illegal, but the rights of certain parties should be set right when the rules, although legally put into operation, have caused injustice to certain people concerned. It is a difficult matter, but perhaps the Attorney-General will bear it in mind, in order to make it possible to set right what was legally done at the time but unfortunately interfered with the rights of private persons. As regards the Rules Publication Act that notice should be given there is considerable difficulty. Under the Rules Publication Act you have to give notice for forty days, and to give notice to all parties and bodies concerned. That will be very important in the case, for instance, of the Naval Prize Act. There are provisions for rules and regulations, and you must give notice to Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Shipping, and so on. But to give notice of all the rules to all the bodies concerned here would be undertaking a responsibility which I think the Attorney-General and the Government should properly decline to do. Therefore I do not think you could give the notice the Rules Publication Act procedure requires, so many are the regulations to be made.
  Mr. BARNES: I have an Amendment on the Paper, and I wish to ask if the Attorney-General can make provision for the point contained in my Amendment. It is a proposal to provide that the person shall be able to get a certificate of birth or death at the fee laid down in Section 97 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that matter is relevant to the point we are considering now.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I hope I shall not be out of order if I say one word with

  1915
  reference to the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division. All I wish to say is that I have his point in mind, and will consider it. The question raised in regard to the Rules Publication Act is really a very difficult matter for the purpose of this Bill. I do not understand the suggestion is that it should apply to the general regulations, and I understand the purport of the suggestion made is in reference to the regulations, which are the most serious in their effect, in order that the House might have an opportunity of discussing them after they were laid before Parliament and before they take effect. I admit there are great difficulties in the way, but I will bear the point in mind.
  Lord A. THYNNE: After what has fallen from the learned Attorney-General, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["regulations so made shall have effect"], to insert the words "after lying upon the Table of the House for fourteen days."
  I put this Amendment down on the Paper because the pledge was given to me by the present Home Secretary that early in the Bill a definite mode would be adopted of dealing with these instructions or regulations of the Insurance Commissioners, and I want some assurance that that has been carried out. I want to draw attention to the enormous powers the Insurance Commissioners will have, and to point out that owing to the unfortunate action of the guillotine resolution here tonight, this most important question of the Bill will not be fully considered. I believe the Insurance Commissioners within the next few years will have a greater influence upon the destinies of this nation than even the Home Office, and it does seem to me a bad arrangement that this important question has been removed from the purview of the House in this way. I hope some indication will be given to the Committee of the calibre of these men and what particular relation they will have to the Treasury, and to the approved societies. My Amendment suggests that the regulation should lie upon the Table of the House for fourteen days. I admit that that would not quite meet the case, because there is nothing to prevent the permanent officials who will have the
  1916
  destinies of this Bill in their hands from bringing forward any important alterations when the House is not sitting, and getting them well into force before the Members of this House have had an opportunity of reviewing them.
  At the same time I am indicating in my Amendment that there must be some opportunity for the representatives of the people to bring influence to bear upon the Commissioners. I might not press this proposal if some definite information was given to the House about the stamp of people who will be appointed as Commissioners. I know that question is not in order now, and if I have to be a victim of the guillotine I am not prepared to submit without a protest. That is one unfortunate instance of the action of this Time-Table. I do not find fault with the Time-Table, but through some mistake this most important Clause of the Bill was never reached. What I want to impress upon the representatives of the Government who are here is that the position these Insurance Commissioners take up, and the question whether they should be subordinate to this House is most vital to the approved societies. I have the utmost difficulty at the present time in inducing very many important organisations to keep in touch with this Bill, and maintain their decision to loyally work it. If these men should be of an inferior calibre I want to give a warning that some organisation will not be prepared to undertake the task of working the Bill.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sorry my hon. Friend was not present when we had what I consider was a very fruitful and business-like discussion in Committee, and we arrived at the conclusion which, I think, was satisfactory to the Members of the Committee, and which, I think, will be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Pontefract. Of course, I cannot go into the question of the stamp of the Commissioners because that would not be in order during the present discussion, but I may inform the hon. Member that I have said that I am willing to introduce a proviso inserting verbatim a provision in the Old Age Pensions Act which will meet the point he has raised. I have also said that I will consider, when we arrive at the end of the Committee stage, whether there may not be some regulations which are too important to be dealt with in that way, and should be dealt with under some other more convenient procedure giving Parliament greater power over them. That is

  1917
  what I have undertaken to do on behalf of the Government, and I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendments.
  Mr. BOOTH: In asking leave to withdraw, I should like to inquire whether, seeing no information has been given to the House in regard to these Commissioners, we can have any statement from the Government before this Clause is finished, giving the Committee their views in regard to this important point.
  The CHAIRMAN: It will not be in order here.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BARNES Mr. BARNES rose to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "In such regulations provision shall be made for giving effect to the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, Section 97 (1), in respect to payment of fee by an insured person to a registrar of births or deaths."
  A Clause of the Friendly Societies Act of 1896 makes provision for a member of a friendly society to get one of the certificates for the purpose of the friendly society at the cost of 1s., whereas the ordinary law enables the registrar to charge 3s. 7d. It may seem a very small matter for persons in this House, but the difference between 1s. and 3s. 7d. is very considerable to very many poor people who will be brought under the operation of this Act. A large number of people will from time to time require certificates of births and deaths. There is, for instance, the provision of about sixteen years, and there will be certificates wanted to prove a person is not over a certain age and in many other ways these certificates will be required. I am not particular whether it comes in here or not. All I want is a statement from the Attorney-General that he will insert somewhere the Section to which I have made reference and apply it to anybody wanting a certificate required by the Insurance Commissioners. I brought it before the President of the Board of Trade to-day on the unemployed part of the Bill in the Committee upstairs, and, although I did not move it there in the right place, he is going to put it in a Clause near the end dealing with what are known as subsidiary provisions.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is under the same disability here. It will certainly be outside the scope of this Clause.
  Mr. BARNES: Can you give me any guide as to where I can move it? I have looked very carefully through Part I., and it seems to me this is the only place.
  The CHAIRMAN: It will certainly be in order as the new Clause, but, if the hon. Member desires it, I will look into the matter later.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "Provided that if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under."
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not sure if those words will quite do. I am inclined to think we ought to have had the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no provision in this Clause to say the regulations are to be laid before Parliament, whereas the Amendment the Attorney-General has moved says if the regulations have been made, then within twenty-one days an address may be presented. It does not really matter, because, as I understand, the whole thing is going to be reconsidered, and, of course, we can rely on the definite assurance of the Government that these regulations shall be laid, and that the Attorney-General will consider whether or not it is possible to frame words so that some of them shall not come into effect until the House has had an opportunity of seeing them.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, with regard to some of them.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the main regulations ought to be framed and ought to be published at the earliest possible moment after the Act is passed and as soon as possible after the Insurance Commissioners start work. There is very scant knowledge of the details of the Act outside those who take a day-to-day part in our proceedings, and it is essential the regulations of the Committee should be published at the earliest possible moment.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask when the Committee or the House may expect some statement to be made on behalf of the Government as to their intentions with regard to the Insurance Commissioners. This Clause practically gives the Commissioners power to make a new Act of Parliament. Their regulations are to have the same effect as an Act of Parliament, and really for all practical purposes the discussions in this House are simply a guide or an indicator, perhaps, of public feeling. It is quite possible these permanent officials, under this Clause, will give us a totally different Act of Parliament and enforce it immediately. I should be very sorry if each one of these Commissioners represented some kind of factiou, and I do think the House is entitled, when giving these extraordinary powers to this body, such powers as no other body has had before, to know what is in the mind of the Government with regard to the calibre and standing of these people. If they are to be poorly paid men, receiving salaries such as no insurance society would pay its branch managers, then the outlook is gloomy in the extreme.
  The difficulties of putting this Bill into operation are almost staggering to those who are looking forward to having anything to do with it, but it would be a little more satisfactory to Members of this House in granting these extraordinary powers if some indication were given, even if it were only a faint indication, that the Commissioners would be the best men that can be got, and also from where they will be obtained. I think we are entitled to know whether they will be simply permanent officials or whether they will be drawn from the friendly orders, the doctors, and so on. We have had no indication whatever, so far as I know, but I do not think I am asking for anything unreasonable, seeing that huge business concerns and thrift organisations are going to be entirely in the hands of these men in future. They can make the friendly orders and the approved societies or mar them, and there is the greatest anxiety being manifested upon all those organisations, who very earnestly and sincerely desire to work under the Bill and to make it a success.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I should like to join in the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman. It is rather a striking departure for the
  1920
  Government to come down to the House and ask us to entrust these very wide powers to a body of the composition of which we do not know. We do not know the type of man who is going to be appointed or the scale of salary to be attached to the office. We have none of the details that can help us to form any sort of conclusion as to whether the proposed Insurance Commissioners are a body of men to whom it would be wise, prudent, and safe to entrust these wide and comprehensive powers. I do not want to make any unreasonable request, I know that the Government have already promised to take an early opportunity of giving us the names of the Commissioners, but, at the same time, I cannot help feeling that this evening, when we are asked to pass a Clause conferring on the Commissioners these very wide powers, would be a suitable occasion for the Government, if not to give us the actual names, at any rate, to convey to us some indication as to the class of men to be appointed and the scale of remuneration they will enjoy.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I had an Amendment down to the Clause dealing with these Commissioners, but, through the operation of the guillotine, which the hon. Member for Pontefract so much dislikes, it was not reached. I wish to call the attention of the representative of the Government to the point of that Amendment. It was that no Member of this House should be eligible for appointment on the Commission. So far as the Labour Exchanges are concerned past records of such appointments are not very reassuring. As a matter of fact, the central office of the Labour Exchanges was very badly packed. Gentlemen from Africa, sons of dukes and earls, were pitchforked into positions for which they had absolutely no qualification whatsoever, except that they may have been the relations or personal friends of some Members of the Government of the day.
  In the appointment of these Commissioners there ought to be some care taken that there is no political jobbery, that no account is taken of personal friendship, that we shall not have such a thing as the transfer of a Soares to a lucrative position in the Civil Service over the heads of a good many other people. I feel very strongly on this matter, because I have been a member of local authorities which are really forbidden by the President of the Local Government Board to appoint their friends to any position. What is

  1921
  good enough for a board of guardians or for the London County Council ought certainly to be good enough for the House of Commons. I should like to see the Commissioners appointed irrespective of politics, and I am very sorry I was unable to take the sense of the House on my Amendment. Why should we not put on ourselves the self-denying ordinance which many municipal councils and boards of guardians, as well as the London County Council, apply to themselves. Many of these bodies will not allow any of their own members to accept any office under the authority until a certain period has elapsed from the termination of their membership. No doubt some corrupt boards of guardians and corporations do the other thing, but the House of Commons at any rate ought to set a better example.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: We do not know to whom these Commissioners are to be responsible. I cannot find any indication in any part of the Act as to whom they are to be subordinate to—whether it is to be the Local Government Board or the Treasury. It surely is necessary, before we give these enormous powers to these gentlemen, we should know to whom they are to be responsible, and I hope the Government, before the Report stage, or at any rate on that stage, will vouchsafe us some information on the point.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I will answer the last question first. All estimates are presented to the House by the Treasury, and consequently, as the salaries of these Commissioners will be on the estimates, the Treasury, in the absence of any department being specified, will have to answer for them. That is the rule which applies to all services not under any special department of the Government. I hope the hon. Member for Pontefract will accept my assurance that the Government are entirely at one with him, and it is only a question between us as to when the announcement should be made. We all desire that the Commissioners shall be men of standing, knowledge and reputation, calculated to inspire confidence in the minds both of the public and of the approved societies. But it would be undesirable to dole out the names piecemeal. Every assurance has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the standing of the men he would wish to see appointed to these posts, but it would be
  1922
  undesirable at this stage, and upon a Clause dealing with other matters, to go further and indicate who the particular Commissioners will be. (An HON. MEMBER: "How many are there to be?"] That is a point we had better leave until the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his announcement.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think it is positively nothing short of scandalous that these powers should be given to Commissioners and that we should not have the slightest knowledge as to who they will be or whence they will be drawn. I am delighted to find it is in order, to a certain extent, to refer to these gentlemen. I should also like to mention, in passing, how glad I am that even the hon. Member for Pontefract is finding out what the discussion of an important Bill under the guillotine means. There is one most important Clause which practically constitutes the Bill and brings it into working. It is the Clause under which the Bill is to be carried on, yet the House of Commons has been denied the opportunity of saying a single word upon it. That is the effect of carrying on a discussion of a Bill under the guillotine—a Bill we are all doing our best to pass. I hope that the general expression of feeling on the part of the Committee will induce the Government to take the earliest opportunity of publishing the names of these gentlemen, and of giving us some indication as to how many there are going to be. We do not know whether there are to be three or thirty. The local health committee was quadrupled in numbers the other day, and, perhaps, on that account, the Government are wise on the present occasion not to lay down any limit as to the number of Insurance Commissioners. But we should like to know whether it is to be a small body or a large one, and I hope the Home Secretary will take counsel with his colleagues in the Government, and not lose a single moment in giving us the fullest possible information—information, indeed, which we should have had long ago.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Before we pass from this matter I should like to emphasise its importance. It is not only important in reference to this particular Clause, but in reference to Clause 37, which passes on its way by guillotine to-morrow at 4.30. By that time we shall have given all these powers in Clause 48 to the Commissioners to-night, and we shall give them power to-morrow, without any opportunity of

  1923
  saying anything about it, to remove all difficulties and to re-write an Act of Parliament as and where it is inconvenient to carry it out in its present form. Under these Clauses we are setting up an arbitrary tribunal we do not know. We are giving it powers which ought only to be entrusted to persons of the greatest weight and authority, as to whom we know nothing, and as to whose number and composition we have nothing more than a vague assurance.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 49.—(Determination of Questions by Insurance Office.)
  If any question arises—

  (a) as to whether a person is liable to become insured under this Part of this Act as being a person employed within the meaning of this Act; or

  (b) as to the rate of contributions payable by or in respect of any insured person; or

  (c) as to the rates of contributions payable in respect of an employed contributor by the employer and the contributor respectively;

  the question shall be determined by the Insurance Commissioners, in accordance with regulations made by them for the purpose. Provided that—

  (i.) if any person feels aggrieved by the decision of the Insurance Commissioners on any question arising under paragraph (a), he may appeal there from to the County Court, with a further right of appeal upon any question of law to such judge of the High Court as may be selected for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor and the decision of that judge shall be final;

  (ii.) the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners may provide for questions under paragraph (b) being determined, in the case of any person who is or is about to become a member of an approved society, by the society.

  Mr. BRYCE: I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "liable" ["whether a person is liable to become insured"], to insert the words "or qualified."
  1924
  I think this Amendment is necessary after the changes which were made in Clause 1, Sub-section (3). I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge if he does not think it is necessary to insert the word "qualified," and also to accept the next Amendment in my name, which is consequential.
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend presses me upon the point, I shall be prepared to accept his present Amendment and the next Amendment he has on the Paper, but in a slightly different form. I shall be prepared to propose to add at the end of paragraph (a), "or as to whether a person is entitled to become a voluntary contributor."
  Mr. FORSTER: I am bound to say I prefer the word "qualified." The Government are holding out this scheme as a great boon and blessing to all these persons. If you say there is any dispute as to whether a person is liable to become insured, as if it were an awful catastrophe, is that not a mistake? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the word "liable" means? This is only a verbal point. I do not want anybody to be frightened of this Bill. If I were reading it as a comparatively uninformed person, and saw that a certain liability was offered to me I should hesitate to accept it. If it were suggested to me that I had to be qualified for the great boon the Government is going to offer I should accept it in a happy state of mind.
  Mr. McKENNA: I readily admit that the right hon. Gentleman knows the Bill as well as anybody in the House. The Bill distinguishes between employed contributors and voluntary contributors. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) proposes that the same rule should apply to voluntary contributors as applies to the persons who are liable to become insured. By adding the words I propose at the end of the paragraph we treat both classes of insured persons in the same way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (a) to add the words, "or as to whether a person is entitled to become a voluntary contributor."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert, "(b) as to whether an insured person is entitled to receive medical or maternity benefit under this Act; or."
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has not stated any reason, and if he will allow me to say so, I do not think he can give any satisfactory reason why a distinction should be drawn between medical and maternity benefits and other benefits. The conditions of receiving benefits will be laid down in the medical rules of the different societies, and I do not think it is appropriate to introduce this particular proposal.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in paragraph (i), to omit the words "paragraph (a)," and to insert instead thereof the words "this Section."
  This is the question of the appeal. Under this paragraph an appeal is granted from the decision of the Insurance Commissioners with regard to any matters arising under paragraph (a) I do not see why the same appeal should not be granted in regard to any question arising under this Clause. What is the difference between the question to be decided in paragraph (a) and the question which is to be decided under paragraph (b)? Under paragraph (a) we are to decide whether a man is an employed contributor or not, that is to say whether the employer is to pay nothing or 3d. Under paragraph (c) we are to decide whether he is to pay 3d. or 6d. If you are to have an appeal to decide whether a man is to pay nothing or 3d., I fail to understand why there should not be the same appeal as to whether he should pay 3d. or 6d. I do not understand what paragraph (b) refers to. I presume it refers to the rate of contribution of a voluntary contributor. If voluntary insurance is to be encouraged, surely the man ought to have the same right of appeal as to what he is to pay, in the same way that he is to have an appeal when he is a compulsory contributor.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I wish to support the Amendment, because I feel very strongly with regard to paragraph (c). A large number of agricultural labourers and their employers will find it extremely difficult to decide for themselves as to whether they will pay 3d. or 4d., as the case may be, as to whether, in fact, the remuneration which I understand in the case of the agricultural labourer will include certain perquisites and the occupation of his house, either rent free or else at an economic rent. These will involve difficult considerations, and it will be very
  1926
  unfair to the agricultural labourer and possibly also to his employer if they are going to be settled without any sort of appeal from the decision of the Insurance Commissioners. These are bound to be difficult questions, and I am not at all sure that the Insurance Commissioners will be properly qualified, at any rate at the outset, unless they are better acquainted with agricultural matters than most of the gentlemen sitting in a Government Department will be—thoroughly qualified to decide these matters properly. In the interests of the agricultural population, therefore, I press for the inclusion at any rate of paragraph (c), and in order to make it comprehensive, it seems to me that the Amendment is worthy of all aceptance.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has shown an extraordinary ingenuity in finding difficulties. In reality, paragraph (a) covers questions which may raise difficult points of law. Paragraph (b), on the other hand, is purely an arithmetical Clause. The only question to be decided under paragraph (b) is a mere arithmetical calculation upon the facts, and I submit that the Commissioners are a quite sufficiently important body to decide a question of that kind. The same, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member, is true of paragraph (c). It is purely a question of arithmetic, and in those circumstances it would be undesirable to extend the powers of appeal from the Commissioners to the county court on a mere question of addition. It is really sufficient to leave questions of that kind to be settled as proposed by the Bill.
  Mr. FORSTER: I wish the questions arising under paragraph (b) were really going to be as simple as the Home Secretary would have us imagine. Of course, the question really relates principally to the questions arising under Schedule 2, the question of the sliding scale of wages. Wages are not merely the figures taken in the Schedule, but the question of other perquisites, and the economic rent of cottages, and so forth, all come into the question of remuneration, and affect the figure on which the contribution is to be based. I am sure the Home Secretary is in error if he thinks all the Commissioners will have to say is, "You get 12s. 6d. paid to you every Saturday, and therefore your contribution is to be in respect of your

  1927
  12s. 6d." As I understand, they have to look into the question whether or not a man has free coals, or whether he has, for 1s. a week, a cottage which will command an economic rent of 4s. Surely the matter involves calculation.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is exactly what it involves—calculation.
  Mr. FORSTER: Calculation which we want to have an assurance will be justly and properly carried out, and that if it is improperly and unjustly carried out there should be an appeal to a proper tribunal. That is what we are asking for, and I do not think that the demand put forward is unreasonable in any way. I do not think there is going to be any real or serious danger. I do not believe for a moment the persons engaged in this work are going deliberately to set to work to cheat either the employer or the employed or the State. I believe people are going to do their best to carry out this Act, but, unquestionably, there will arise cases in which the person affected will feel that he is not being fairly treated, and unless you give him some appeal to a tribunal that he can trust, you are not going to remove the sense of injustice from his mind, and that, I am afraid, will have a bad effect on all the insured persons in the neighbourhood.
  Mr. HOLT: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to get up at the Table and tell us whether or no tips are included in the expression "other remuneration."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think this refusal on the part of the Government to entertain this Amendment would, of course, have this effect, that in all questions as to exactly what the wages are which are to be taken into consideration the Insurance Commissioners and the Department of the State in some shape would have an absolute jurisdiction upon matters of fact and upon matters of law. I look upon this as just another instance of a tendency that there has been under both Parties during the last 10 or 15 years to take away from the courts of the land the jurisdiction which every citizen is entitled to ask from them. There is a very strong feeling amongst the bulk of the people that they are apt to be unjustly treated, and I am sorry to say that in my own experience that suspicion has been on a good many occasions more than fully justified.
  1928
  If this Act in its working out is to command the confidence of the people they must be able to go, on an important question as to the rate of contributions, to the County Court and to get a decision on the facts, whereas it is suggested, I understand, that some kind of communication would have to be written out and sent to the Insurance Commissioners in London. No one would know whether the Insurance Commissioners themselves had ever heard of the matter. It might have been decided by some junior clerk in the Department. There is always a sense of injustice about that kind of thing, and I protested against it when my own side was in power. I am very sorry, indeed, to see it suggested here that any of these matters touching the rights and privileges, either of employer or employees, should be decided in a hole-and-corner manner by a Department. Moreover, supposing it necessary to get a decision which shall bind a number of cases, and I can quite understand that there might be instances where a whole lot of contributors were practically under the same circumstances, and they might want to have a competent and an authoritative decision which would rule the whole of these cases, how can the person whose case is under discussion, or anyone else, know the basis on which the decision has been given, or what has really been done to properly consider the case. I speak rather feelingly on the matter. I object to it as a matter of principle. I am not making this appeal and taking this stand in any way from a political point of view. In the interest of the amicable working of this Act, I think it is highly desirable that the Amendment should be adopted, and if there is to be an appeal at all upon any of the points arising under (a), (b) or (c), that appeal should be decided in the way just suggested that matters arising under (a) may be decided. It is very difficult to see what distinction might be made in the cases arising under paragraphs (b) and (c).
  Mr. SANDERSON: I wish to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite. As I understand the answer given by the Home Secretary it is that paragraph (b) is merely a matter of calculation. I venture to say that he is mistaken about that. I will give an instance which occurred to me during this short debate. Hon. members will remember that in the case of agricultural servants there is provision that if certain conditions

  1929
  prevail within a certain area, and it is established that there is a certain custom, then the agricultural servant is to have a penny deducted. He is to subscribe 2d., and the employer is also to subscribe 2d. That is a very great deal more than a question of calculation. It is a matter which will require a certain amount of evidence and consideration, and there will have to be an inquiry. That would certainly come within paragraph (b), and not within paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) refers to the question whether a person is qualified or liable to be a contributor. Paragraph (b) refers to contributions. I believe there are many such cases. The different kinds of employment in this country, and the different conditions are innumerable, and it is almost impossible to anticipate all the different kinds of employment when passing a Bill of this kind. I am perfectly certain that the Insurance Commissioners will have to consider all kinds of questions and I would earnestly appeal to the Government to make this a workable Act. This would be some little check upon the Insurance Commissioners. We do not at present know who they are to be, but if there is a right of appeal from them, I am perfectly sure that it would not be made use of unless there was good reason.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: I wish to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Sanderson) to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the difficulty which there will be in working this Clause, I really am sorry for the Insurance Commissioners at the commencement of this Act. Their duties are to be not only administrative, but you are going to give them large judicial duties. I am not pleading for this work being given to legal gentlemen, but I would point out that you are providing here for giving this power of judicial decision to the Insurance Commissioners themselves. I venture to say that under this Clause the Commissioners will be bound to hear the arguments upon the disputes, and if that duty is to be added to the other burdens they have, I do not see how they can possibly discharge their duties. The delays in getting decisions from them will be enormous. We have recently had occasion to see what a disadvantage it is to have these functions given to a Government Department. Only recently we had a decision by which 11,000,000 forms
  1930
  issued throughout the county have been declared to be illegal. Parliament passed a law that certain interrogatories could be put to His Majesty's subjects, and it has been found that the Department, in attempting to administer the Act, went outside of what Parliament laid down. There was in that matter a means by which it could be brought before the Court. The action was at first resisted, but eventually the decision which I have indicated was obtained. I point this out as showing the danger of attempting to saddle on the Insurance Commissioners not merely administrative duties, but enormous judicial duties as well. If they are properly to discharge these judicial duties, they would have to hear the arguments in every case. At the commencement of the Act there will be a large number of these cases. If the Government wish to make the Act workable it is their business to do so. I only call attention to the difficulties which I think will arise when the Act begins to operate, and if the Government take no notice of them, that is their concern. It would be extremely difficult to work Clauses 52 and 53, because when questions arise under these Clauses, it appears to me that the Courts might have to stop the proceedings and refer the case back to the Insurance Commissioners with respect to some question arising under Clause 49 which might be involved.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I think the Home Secretary, in refusing to accept the Amendment, quite inadvertently misled the House. After all, what was his argument? He said it was necessary that there should be an appeal with regard to paragraph (a), but that as paragraph (b) mainly dealt with facts and calculations no appeal was necessary. I think anybody who reads the paragraph will see at once that it does contemplate an appeal on questions of fact alone in so far as it provides a further appeal from the County Court to the High Court on points of law. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether he would not think it advisable to provide for an appeal to the County Court on points of fact on paragraph (a) with regard to qualifications. As it now stands it appears to be still more desiraable to provide for appeal on questions of fact under paragraph (b). I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Home Secretary said nothing as to the method of dealing with appeals under

  1931
  paragraph (c). Further, I think that this is a proper Amendment to be made. Further down on the Paper an Amendment stands in my own name providing for appeals from decision by approved societies and appeals from the Insurance Commissioners under paragraph (i) I hope if the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment that it will be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. McKENNA: The difficulty is a very simple one. The whole House is anxious to cut down litigation as much as possible; we do not want to see these poor people put themselves to this expense. Such a Clause as we have put forward is one which we think meets the whole case. The question of fact will be dealt with by the proper tribunal. It is desirable to avoid as much as possible these appeals, as we hope that the judgments given can be relied upon as satisfactory judgments. We must not forget this, that the Insurance Commissioners are salaried officials, and if this House is dissatisfied with a decision they can call the Commissioners to book. That is the real answer. We wish to avoid legal expenses, and questions of fact we are assured will be settled by gentlemen who are conversant with every question of this kind, and we have the further assurance that we can give this House that these gentlemen will be made cognisant of all the facts.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will press a Division. The Home Secretary of State is anxious to avoid appeals on questions of fact, and I entirely agree with him. Appeals on questions of fact are not in the least necessary. There may be questions of law, but if we are to avoid appeals on questions of fact we should allow those who are competent to deal with these matters. The Home Secretary suggests that these should be free from litigation, and that the litigation should be free to those who seek it. My experience is that the man who gets his law for nothing is he who will get bad law. He avoids paying a fee, and in the result he gets a worse article than he would have done if he had paid. What I suggest is that it is highly desirable to have some sort of check on the Insurance Commissioners. I do not know why hon, Members below the Gangway believe it is desirable that there should be this appeal, but whatever the appeal is I do not think
  1932
  that if the matter passes into the hands of permanent officials without any sort of check from any other tribunal at all it will be unfortunate for these persons. Personally, I believe that the Government official is an excellent person so long as you have some sort of appeal from him, some sort of check upon his actions. I am not holding any brief for the lawyers; they are a necessary evil; they are part of the machinery for framing and putting these Bills before Parliament, and the only result will be that there will be plenty of employment for lawyers. The real point is whether it is necessary to have any sort of appeal from a decision of mixed fact and law. I do not want an appeal from fact, and I am quite willing to limit this Amendment to points of law. I shall be prepared, if this Amendment is not accepted, to go into the Lobby in support of it.
  Mr. BARNES: If the hon. Member had looked at the Amendment on the next page he would have found that, to some extent, the matter was covered. We appreciate the argument put forward by the Home Secretary on matters arising on this Section. We think that these matters can be better settled by the Insurance Commissioners, and we feel sure that these Commissioners will be exactly the same type of man as you will find on the County Court Bench or those put in similar positions. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not know."] We have the idea, and I think I am justified in saying, from previous experience on matters of this sort, that we shall get exactly the same type of gentleman as we get on the County Court Bench. There is this one other point: We are against this matter being taken further than the Insurance Commissioners, because the further you go in courts of law the more expense it is, and it is always possible in these matters that the wealthy come off better than those without wealth. I take it that the Insurance Commissioners will deal with these matters in an equal judicial sense, and at no disadvantage to those who come before them. I give the Amendment my utmost support, and, for my part, I shall go into the Lobby with the utmost cheerfulness for the Government.
  Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 85.

  Division No. 379.]

  AYES.

  [10.17 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Munro, Robert

  Adamson, William

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Addison, Dr. C.

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Alden, Percy

  Gulland, John William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Hackett, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Hancock, John George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barnes, George N.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Reddy, Michael

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hodge, John

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richards, Thomas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Clough, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clynes, J. R.

  Johnson, W.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Keating, Matthew

  Sheehy, David

  Cowan, William Henry

  Kelly, Edward

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Shortt, Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kilbride, Denis

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lansbury, George

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Leach, Charles

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Devlin, Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dillon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wadsworth, John

  Doris, W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, T.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wiles, Thomas

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Callum, John M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Martin, Joseph

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

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Meagher, Michael

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Glanville, Harold James

  Millar, James Duncan

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cator, John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Astor, Waldorf

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Baird, J. L.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Grant, J. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Nield, Herbert

  Boyton, James

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  1934

  1935

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Touche, George Alexander

  Mr. Holt and Mr. Sanderson.

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

  CLAUSE 50.—(Disputes.)
  (1) Every dispute between—

  (a) An approved society or a branch thereof and an insured person who is a member of such society or branch or any person claiming through him;

  (b) An approved society or branch thereof, and any person who has for not more than six months ceased to be a member for the purposes of this Part of this Act of such society or branch, or any person claiming through him;

  (c) An approved society and any branch thereof;

  (d) Any two or more branches of an approved society,

  relating to anything done or omitted by such insured person, society, or branch (as the case may be) under this Part of this Act or any regulation made thereunder, shall be decided in the first instance in accordance with the rules of the society, but any party to such dispute may appeal from such decision in the prescribed manner to the Insurance Commissioners.
  (2) Every dispute between a deposit contributor and the local health committee, relating to anything done or omitted by such contributor or the local health committee under this Act, or any regulation made hereunder, shall be decided in the prescribed manner by the Insurance Commissioners.
  (3) The Insurance Commissioners may authorise referees appointed by it to decide any appeal or dispute submitted to the Insurance Commissioners under this Section.
  (4) The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations as to the procedure on any such appeal or dispute, and such regulations may apply any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, but, except so far as it may be so applied, the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to proceedings under this Section, and any decision
  1936
  given by the Insurance Commissioners or a referee under this Section shall be final and conclusive.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section 1 (b), leave out the words "for more than six months."
  In paragraph (d) leave out the word "insured" ["by such insured person."]—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (d) to leave out the words "in the first instance."
  This is a very important Amendment. It is intended to safeguard the rights of friendly societies in order to ensure that disputes of what may be described as a domestic character should be dealt with finally by their own rules. The Bill is drawn very curiously. It provides that the disputes shall be dealt with under the rules of the society, "in the first instance." There is no reason why those rules should not be mentioned and disputes decided by them not only in the first instance, but in all cases, even in the event of appeals. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment, as I do not propose to move the following Amendment, which would leave out the rest of the Clause. If you leave in these words it would mean that although a dispute was decided by the rules of the society in the first instance, in the event of an appeal it might be decided on other considerations and by other guidance. It is of the first importance if we are to maintain friendly societies as they have been in the past that their power of self-government should be maintained.
  Mr. BARNES: I desire very heartily to associate myself and those with whom I act with the Amendment just moved.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend cannot have quite appreciated the point. The hon. Gentleman opposite orignally intended to leave out these words with a view to preventing all appeals. He has now abandoned the desire to prevent appeals. The omission of these words

  1937
  alone would not have the smallest effect, it makes no difference whether the words "in the first instance" are retained or not.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Then accept the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: If there is any urgent desire that we should accept this Amendment without accepting the hon. Member's subsequent Amendment, we are quite prepared to agree to the omission of these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  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 Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1) after the word "may" ["may appeal from such decision"] insert the words "in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed."
  In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "in the prescribed manner."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 51.—(Distress, Execution, etc., to be Illegal in Certain Cases.)
  (1) It shall not be lawful during any period when an insured person is in receipt of sickness benefit, or during the fourteen days immediately following that period, for any person to levy any dsitress or execution upon any goods or chattels belonging to such insured person and being on premises occupied by him, or to take any proceedings in ejectment or for the recovery of any rent or to enforce any judgment in ejectment against such insured person; and any person levying or attempting to levy any such distress or execution or enforcing or attempting to enforce any such judgment, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
  (2) It shall be lawful for the judge of the county court upon an application made on behalf of the insured person ex
  1938
  parte for that purpose, from time to time to extend the period during which the provisions of the last preceding subsection are to be applicable, upon being satisfied that the levying of any such distress or execution or the taking of any such proceedings or the enforcement of any such judgment would endanger the life of the insured person, and any order granting such extension shall not be subject to appeal:
  Provided that such period shall not be extended for more than twelve months from the date when the right to levy the distress or execution or to take the proceedings or enforce the judgment arose, unless proper security be given for payment of the rent thereafter to become due from the insured person, or the amount of the judgment debt, as the case may be.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE had given notice of an Amendment, in Sub-section (1), to leave out,
  (1) It shall not be lawful during any period when an insured person is in receipt of sickness benefit, or during the fourteen days immediately following that period, for any person to levy any distress or execution upon any goods or chattels belonging to such insured person and being on premises occupied by him, or to take any proceedings in ejectment or for the recovery of any rent or to enforce any judgment in ejectment against such insured person; and any person levying or attempting to levy any such distress or execution or enforcing or attempting to enforce any such judgment,
  And to insert instead thereof,
  (1) Where the medical practitioner attending on any insured person in receipt of sickness benefit certifies that the levying of any distress or execution upon any goods or chattels belonging to such insured person and being on premises occupied by him, or the taking of any proceedings in ejectment or for the recovery of any rent or to enforce any judgment in ejectment against such person, would endanger his life, it shall not be lawful during any period named in the certificate for any person to levy any such distress or execution or to take any such proceedings or to enforce any such judgment against the insured person.
  Provided that, if any person desirous of levying such distress or execution or taking such proceedings or enforcing such

  1939
  judgment disputes the accuracy of the certificate, he may apply to the registrar of the county court, who, if he is of opinion that the certificate should be cancelled or modified may make an order cancelling or modifying it, and any such order shall not be subject to appeal.
  (2) A certificate granted for the purpose of this section shall continue in force for one week or such less period as may be named in the certificate, but may be renewed from time to time for any period not exceeding one week, up to but not beyond the expiration of three months from the date of the grant of the original certificate.
  Provided that a certificate shall not be renewed beyond the expiration of one month from such date if on demand being made by the person desirous of levying such distress or execution, or taking such proceedings, or enforcing such judgment proper security is not given for payment of rent thereafter to become due from the insured person or the amount of the judgment debt, as the case may be, and any dispute as to the sufficiency of the security shall be determined by the registrar of the county court.
  (3) If any person knowingly levies or at tempts to levy any such distress or execution or takes any such proceedings or enforces or attempts to enforce any such judgment in contravention of this section, he
  The CHAIRMAN: This suggested Amendment constitutes a new Clause. Therefore at this stage the Clause in the Bill ought to be negatived, and a new Clause proposed hereafter.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 52.—(Offences.)
  (1) If for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment under this Part of this Act, either for himself or for any other person, any person knowingly makes any false statement or false representation, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour.
  (2) If any employer has failed to pay any contributions which under this Part of this Act he is liable to pay in respect of an employed contributor, or if any such employer or insured person, or any other person is guilty of any other contravention
  1940
  or of non-compliance with any of the requirements of this Act or the regulations made thereunder in respect of which no special penalty is provided, he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and where the offence is failure or neglect on the part of the employer to make any such contributions, to pay to the Insurance Commissioners a sum equal to the amount of the contributions which he has so failed or neglected to pay, which sum when paid shall be treated as a payment in satisfaction of such contributions:
  Provided that no person shall be liable to any penalty in respect of any matter if he has acted in conformity with any decision in respect thereto by the Insurance Commissioners.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 53.—(Civil Proceedings Against Employer for Neglecting to Pay Contributions.)
  (1) Where an employer has failed or neglected to pay any contributions which under this Part of this Act he is liable to pay in respect of a person being a member of an approved society in his employment, and by reason thereof that person has been deprived in whole or in part of his right to any benefits which would otherwise have been payable to him, he shall be entitled to take proceedings against the employer for the value of the right of which he has been so deprived, and in any such proceedings the employer may be ordered to pay to the Insurance Commissioner a sum equal to the value so ascertained, which sum when paid shall be carried to the credit of the society of which such person is a member, and thereupon such person shall thenceforth be entitled to receive from the society benefits at the same rate as he would have been entitled to had the contributions been properly paid, together with the difference between the amount of the benefits (if any) he has actually received and the benefits he would have received had the contributions been properly paid.
  (2) Proceedings may be taken under either this or the last preceding Section notwithstanding that proceedings have also been taken under the other Section in respect of the same failure or neglect to pay contributions.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 54.—(Repayment of Benefits Improperly Paid.)
  If it is found at any time that a person has been in receipt of any payment or benefit under this Part of this Act without being lawfully entitled thereto he, or in the case of his death his personal representatives, shall be liable to repay to the Insurance Commissioners the amount of such payment or benefit, and any such amount may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown and when so recovered shall be carried to the credit of the society of which such person was a member, or if he was not a member of any approved society, of the Post Office fund.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

CONVEYANCING BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May we have some account of this Bill before we are asked to pass it?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Bill is to amend certain sections of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, and the point of it is to remove certain restrictions which have been found to be inconvenient in the working of the Act of 1881, and also to give certain rights which it is thought should be given in order to carry out remedies which are given under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act. There is nothing controversial in it. The Bill, I am sure, has been considered by hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House as well as upon this.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The general purposes of the Bill are very beneficial, but whether the House should be asked to deal with a matter of this importance under the present circumstances, and without giving the thing thorough consideration, is quite another point, and it is for that reason that many of us would rather have had a Bill like this properly discussed on a proper occasion.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 13th November.

LUNACY BILL [Lords].
Read a second time, and committed to a committee of the Whole House for Monday next.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

BRITISH AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON (RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS).
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to call the attention of the Government to a speech which was delivered last evening by the right hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith). I propose to quote a few words of that speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the whole of it."]—the whole of the words of that speech which appeared in the "Morning Post" of to-day. I would gladly quote more if more had appeared:—
"Mr. F. E. Smith, in responding, said that in the last few months they had realised that in order to gain a party triumph, their opponents would not have shrunk from sacrificing the Canadian Empire."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I pause in reading the extract to observe that hon. Gentleman opposite cheer on very slight provocation, for this passage, if it means anything at all, contains a most serious insult to the whole of the Canadian nation.
"And the supreme shame of that sacrifice was best realised when they remembered that the one man who assisted to draft the foreword of the Reciprocity treaty was our own Ambassador, Mr. Bryce."
The word "hisses" follows in brackets. The remarks that I have to make upon this matter may be compressed into very few sentences. I observe, first, that they were made by a Member of this House, who is one of His Majesty's Privy Councillors. They were made of a great statesman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]—who represents not a party but his Sovereign and the entire nation, and they suggest that this statesman, occupying this position as the representative of His Majesty's Government and of the nation, has been guilty of conduct unworthy of his office. That I think is stating the meaning of this passage in very mild language. Now I respectfully invite the Government to state if there is any justification whatever for the passage

1943
I have read for this attack upon the Ambassador, and if there is not and if there is no justification and if it has simply been made in order to appeal to ignorant prejudice, then, Sir, I protest against these crude insults being levelled against a statesman who has fulfilled the duties of his high office in so loyal a spirit, and who is revered, not only throughout this country, but in the country where he holds his position.
Mr. PONSONBY: I should like to add a few words in regard to what my hon. Friend has brought before the attention of the Government. I think it is a serious matter that a representative of His Majesty in a foreign country should be subjected to what amounts to an insult. Our Civil servants and administrators and foreign representatives in distant countries must be from time to time subjected to criticism and even to censure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Milner."] I think they ought to be protected in some way from the grosser forms of malevolent abuse. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) is not just a raw Tory candidate. I saw him described in one of the Tory newspapers as "the brilliant young leader from the North." I do not want to anticipate Monday's events, but anyhow I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he does hold the responsible position of Privy Councillor and that his words must carry some weight and that in attacking a representative abroad who is unable to defend himself either by his voice or by his pen he is showing an extraordinary lack of good taste, and also shows no sense of responsibility. I have not seen any more of the account of the speech that my hon. Friend has read out, but knowing the right hon. Gentleman's predisposition for introducing personalities into all his speeches, I think a full report would justify my hon. Friend in bringing the matter before the House. He has chosen a man who, after all, will be remembered in the United States and this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Canada"]—as one who has done more to cement the close ties of friendship between us and the United States than any man alive, a man whose memory will be honoured on both sides of the Atlantic and one who, after all, has only been carrying out the wishes of the Government. It was obvious, therefore, that the attack should have been brought against the
1944
Government and not against him. The Government are here to answer any attack which may be made against their policy. Mr. Bryce is at Washington, and cannot answer personal attacks that are made against him, and I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend in bringing this matter to the notice of the House.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I hope my hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division will not think it any discourtesy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not here at the present time. The work of the Foreign Department is unusually heavy just now, and my right hon. Friend has even more important things to do than to attend to the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division. I gather my hon. Friends complain of and wish to bring to the notice of the House two statements made in a speech last night. The first was this:—
"In order to gain a Party triumph, their opponents would not have shrunk from sacrificing the Canadian Empire."
I do not think that has any reference to anything which the Government has done. I must take exception, if I may, to a statement made by the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby). Mr. Bryce was not carrying out the wishes of the Government The only action taken by the Government was the purely negative one of not preventing our Ambassador at Washington from lending his good offices to bring together two great countries which desired to make a reciprocal arrangement between themselves. It seems to me, that being so, the only thing that statement can mean is that the Canadian Government wished to sacrifice the Canadian Empire; in other words, they were acting traitorously to the Crown. I think I need not comment on that suggestion. I do not believe any one even in the audience of the right hon. Gentleman was addressing, believes it for a single moment. I pass on to the second statement, which was this:—
"and the supreme shame of that sacrifice was best realised when they remembered that the one man who assisted to draft the foreword of the reciprocity treaty, was our own Ambassador. Mr. Bryce."
That statement being followed by hisses. The one thing I have to say with regard to that is that there was no treaty at all, and therefore no foreword. What happened, as any Member will see if he refers to Command Paper 5523, was simply this:

1945
The Canadian representatives, Mr. Fielden and Mr. Paterson, wrote a letter to Mr. Knox, the representative of the United States, forwarding the schedules which they had agreed upon, and saying they had also agreed that both countries should recommend the adoption of such legislation as might be necessary to give effect to the schedules. When Mr. Fielden and Mr. Paterson had written that letter there was a simple reply from Mr. Knox on behalf of the United States saying that Mr. Fielden's letter was entirely in accordance with the position as Mr. Knox understood it. That was all. There was no diplomatic instrument at all, and therefore there was no foreword which Mr. Bryce could have assisted in drafting, and I am at a loss to understand what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division is referring to when he refers, firstly, to the treaty and secondly, to the foreword. Considering the matter was conducted in the way I have described, it may be worth while to state once again to the House the part which was really taken in this matter by Mr. Bryce. It has been stated clearly more than once, and notably in answers given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, on 20th and 28th February last. Mr. Bryce followed the custom of previous Ambassadors in offering his assistance to Canadian Ministers in their negotiations at Washington. That had been frequently done, and had always been well received and always useful, and it was so in this case. In all his communications with the Canadian Ministers he kept both Canadian and British interests in view. That was fully appreciated by the Canadian representative, and his assistance was therefore of use both to Canada and to the United States. Seriously, I am at a loss to understand what it is the right hon. Gentleman objects to. If our Ambassadors are not to offer their services in negotiations between our self-governing Dominions and foreign Powers, what are they to do? Are they to oppose any negotiations which our Dominions may wish to enter into with other countries? Surely not. It therefore appears to me and to the Government that the line taken by Mr. Bryce in accordance with the usual practice and in accordance with what has often previously happened when other persons have been our Ambassadors at Washington was the only possible line which the British Ambassador could take, particularly in view of the fact that he kept British interests always in
1946
view, and therefore there is no possible line of criticism of his conduct. I trust, therefore—I do not know how it appeals to the House—that the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division will be accepted as those of a specially gifted after-dinner speaker, and leave it there.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: I am indebted to the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject to the House for having given me notice of his intention and enabled me to prepare myself to make a suitable reply. I make no complaint of the speech with which the hon. Gentleman introduced the subject to the House, and to the pompous condemnations of the Seconder, it is still less necessary I should attempt to reply, as he has been completely repudiated in his principal point by the Minister who has just spoken The report which has been attributed to me is in the main accurate, but I did think the House which has experience of the value of verbal accuracy of a report condensed in five lines of a speech which took from twenty-five to thirty minutes to deliver, would have been a little more careful before accepting as verbally accurate the statements contained in it. I never used the word "foreword" in my life, and I am amazed that any lawyer could have imagined that any other lawyer could have done so in dealing with a Treaty. It is novel to use such language in connection with a Treaty, and I hope I shall never use such absurd language in speaking of a Treaty. What I did say was "the supreme shame of that sacrifice was best realised when they remembered that the one man who assisted forward the reciprocity was our own Ambassador—Mr. Bryce." That disposes of the hon. Gentleman's brilliant point that there was no "foreword" and no Treaty.
As I propose to repeat elsewhere with great particularity and with great emphasis what I said last night it is due I should explain to the House the grounds which appear to justify my intention. It has been made abundantly clear by the Government in this House that Mr. Bryce assisted the negotiation of this Treaty, and that that assistance was carried out with the approval of the Home Government. We have the statement of the Canadian Postmaster-General as to the character of that assistance, and whether it was of the purely formal and perfunctory nature which the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Canadian Postmaster-General

1947
said the arrangement could not be pronounced unfriendly to England, because it had been approved by the Government and was made with the assistance of Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador at Washington. This argument, as everybody who was present at the Canadian elections or who read of them knows, was used broadcast on Canadian platforms to recommend the reciprocity treaty to the citizens of Canada. It comes to this: Our approval, the approval of Mr. Bryce, was used as an argument to induce the Canadians to accept the treaty; in other words, the assistance of Mr. Bryce was not merely formal, it was used to commit the British Government, without an appeal either to the people of Britain or to the people of Canada, to support the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Canada. I used the word "shameful," and I say that no more shameful transaction was ever perpetrated. Consider the position of a Canadian opponent of the reciprocity treaty who goes forward at the election and says, "I object to this treaty, because it will injure England." The Government, through Mr. Bryce, have enabled a Canadian supporter of the treaty to say, "No, the English Government says it will not injure Canada." That is the argument which was used freely at the last election, and it was based most improperly upon the diplomatic intervention in the discussion of that treaty.
Mr. Bryce is a very distinguished man. I do not dissent from a single word said in praise of Mr. Bryce, but I would make this observation upon him, that he is so obsessed by inveterate economic prejudice that he cannot keep his Cobden Club copybook maxims out of his State Papers. This is what he said in the very document the hon. Gentleman suggested that I might have read, and which I can assure him I did read:—
"The arrangement rests on the growing realisation that a high tariff wall between contiguous countries whose products are exchangable, is an injury to both"
I can get better stuff than that from a Free Trade penny pamphlet. To do the Ambassador justice, he is at least consistent. He has ignored in that sentence, which is contained in this State Paper, the reflection which the people of Canada have not ignored, that sometimes Cobden Club maxims come into competition with the spirit of nationalism. The British Ambassador is fully consistent with his literary record. He wrote years ago a passage—I
1948
do not know whether it has been modified in the last edition—in the "American Commonwealth" as follows:—
"The material growth of Canada would probably be quickened by union, and the conception of a commercial union might, if carried out, lead to a political union, indeed, it is hard to see how otherwise Canada could have her fair share in adjusting such tariff changes as might from time to time become necessary."
11.0 P.M.
Does anybody imagine that the Government, when they allowed their Ambassador to display this unusual activity in negotiating this treaty, were thinking of Canada and Canadian feeling? If they were, one can only condole with their abysmal ignorance of the principal English Colony. They were thinking, and thinking only, of discovering, if they could, a new and effective argument in this country against Tariff Reform. I read, and it would otherwise be incredible if it were not confirmed by the statements made by the Prime Minister, in "The Times" of 11th February, 1911, a report of a speech made by Mr. Borassa. Mr. Borassa explained that the reciprocity between Canada and the United States would furnish the Asquith Government with the argument that—
"with Canada, the most important of the British dominions already bound by a reciprocity treaty to a foreign country, the movement for Imperial preference was absolutely doomed."
That was the argument when the Debate took place in this House on the subject of reciprocity. I remember hearing the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir Alfred Mond) say, "I open my arms to Canadian Free Traders." Strange as it may seem, this alluring invitation was declined by the people of Canada. The Prime Minister, speaking later in the same Debate, said:—
"I think we are celebrating the obsequies of that which used to be called Imperial Preference."
The pæan of rejoicing was as indecent as it was premature. It shows the motive which underlay the efforts of the Government, and is anyone suggesting that I am exceeding the limits of legitimate controversy if I draw the inference that the Minister in Washington, who was formerly a colleague and follower of the Prime Minister, shared his view at the time he was giving the assistance which was used to force through the reciprocity treaty in Canada, that he was celebrating the obsequies of Imperial Preference. The obsequies did not come off.
Mr. J. WARD: They came off yesterday.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: That shows the sense which the hon. Gentleman and his Friends have of the seriousness of the complaint made and how closely they desire to adhere to the subject of it I was pointing out that this was a funeral that failed. The Prime Minister has attended at least five funerals of Tariff Reform, and I have happened to cut out the speeches in which he has recorded the circumstance. It would add to his enjoyment if the next time he made sure of his corpse. I have only to say in conclusion that the words I used were these, and the House will hear them again:—
"The supreme shame of that sacrifice of the Canadian Empire was best realised when they remembered that the one man who assisted to forward the reciprocity treaty was our own Ambassador, Mr. Bryce."
I said it last night, and I shall continue to say it, and to say it with even greater emphasis until I am convinced, by better arguments than I have heard to-night, that in so saying I am exceeding the limits of fair controversy.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Eleven of the clock.

  Excise Licence Rebate.
  Excise Licence Rebate.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  SHARING AMONGST FISHERMEN.
  SHARING AMONGST FISHERMEN.
  IRISH CONTRIBUTORS.
  IRISH CONTRIBUTORS.
  ESTIMATED COST OF SCHEME.
  ESTIMATED COST OF SCHEME.
  COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYÉS.
  COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYÉS.
  LAUNDRY PROPRIETORS.
  LAUNDRY PROPRIETORS.
  WOMEN COMMISSIONERS.
  WOMEN COMMISSIONERS.
  FISHERMEN.
  FISHERMEN.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  HOSPITAL DOCTOR'S SALARY.
  HOSPITAL DOCTOR'S SALARY.
  Land Valuation.
  Land Valuation.
  Officials' Income Tax.
  Officials' Income Tax.
  Taxi-cab Drivers (London).
  Taxi-cab Drivers (London).
  Motor Car Licences (Duties).
  Motor Car Licences (Duties).
  Stamp Duty.
  Stamp Duty.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Drogheda and Navan Canal.
  Drogheda and Navan Canal.
  Engineer Commanders.
  Engineer Commanders.
  Blood-poisoning at Osborne College.
  Blood-poisoning at Osborne College.
MAXWELL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.